Alterac Valley in Classic

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Yeah it will lead to more requests, I do not doubt that, but I also do not believe it’d lead to requests with enough backing to be considerable.

I could make the same statement about AV 1.5. And no-doubt others will make the same statement you did, about things like removing DHKs.

[Luuni-area-52]

So this will be my last post in this thread for a while. I’ve reread the OP. It looks like Blizzard listened to feedback while picking the 1.12 AV.

@Kaivax

This is a subject that has been asked about several times recently

All three of those links are to threads talking about AV and how they should not pick 1.12 AV. First thread had 132 replies, second had 152 replies, and the third had 6 replies.

The first thread brought up the original AV.

The second thread brought up up each change in AV to the patch.

The third thread asked for a compromise.

I briefly looked over those threads. I see some of the same people who are debating with me now have commented in those threads and are reusing their talking points.

It looks like Blizzard listened to feedback. People in this thread are claiming Blizzard needs to look at feedback. They linked three threads showing you that they did. They said they did in the thread, yet people are still making it out that Blizzard isn’t listening. They listened, they just didn’t choose what you wanted.

[Melaned-blackrock (Melaned)]

I could make the same statement about AV 1.5. And no-doubt others will make the same statement you did, about things like removing DHKs.

Yes you could. And that’s why we are here. To debate and go over everything so that Blizzard can gather enough information to know what is the best route to take.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Yes you could. And that’s why we are here. To debate and go over everything so that Blizzard can gather enough information to know what is the best route to take.

Sure, but as I said above, there’s a line no change has crossed, and this would be the first to cross it. At that point, it undermines arguments for other popular changes.

[Melaned-blackrock (Melaned)]

To be frank I am not sure what this comment really addresses. I’ve not once made the argument that they do not look into the feedback. If anything I’ve stated that we need to make sure that they get as much as possible.

What this means is that they believed, at the time of posting this thread, that such feedback was insufficient to change their minds from 1.12 AV. The more they collect the better, if it leads to 1.12 AV then yes, as you’ve stated before, that is their choice, even if many of us argue that it is the wrong one.

My largest argument has been that I’ve felt their stated points are weak.

[Luuni-area-52]

Ok this is my last last post lol.

Didn’t mean to direct that reply at you. Was meant to be a general thing. Must have clicked something wrong. Originally tried to reply to you but I thought I made it general.

[Melaned-blackrock (Melaned)]

That line however can be better defined. Defining it as strictly 1.12 is making it fairly easy to cross. Their main point was keeping the game to Vanilla era.

On top of that this just addresses a single battleground, a single part within a part of the game itself.

[Melaned-blackrock (Melaned)]

Haha okay yeah no worry, I understand. Think I’ve done that too.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

That line however can be better defined. Defining it as strictly 1.12 is making it fairly easy to cross. Their main point was keeping the game to Vanilla era.

First and foremost, we’re planning to use the 1.12 version of Alterac Valley. For many parts of the game like this, we’re picking an original WoW patch that gives us the most clarity for WoW: Classic, and 1.12 is that patch.

This is a line they haven’t crossed with any part of the game yet. All changes that are pre CP6 using pre 1.12 configurations will be 1.12 by CP6. At that point, except for non-Vanilla elements they’re adding for business and technical reasons, there are no non 1.12 changes.

Content will be progressed, but it will end up at 1.12. Gear release will be progressed but will end up at 1.12.

I would be totally ok with AV being recreated for CP3, until CP6 when it becomes 1.12, but that’s not what anyone arguing for 1.5 is willing to accept, as outlined over and over above.

There is a line, which is easy to define and has not been crossed. I am glad that Blizzard is not picking and choosing what they do or don’t like, or what the playerbase calls for the most, because LFD was a popular feature when it was first added. Not all popularity contests end in a good outcome.

Parts of 1.5 are good. Other parts resulted in multi-day battles with no outcome until one side simply couldn’t maintain numbers and attrition killed off the battle. On PVP servers, that mean Horde usually won. On PVE servers, that meant Alliance usually won. And a large part of the player base in Vanilla cried out for improvements to AV, which resulted in 1.12.

Good or bad outcome, that is the line they’ve drawn.

[Melaned-blackrock (Melaned)]

I’ll simply just disagree. Sadly to continue this would be arguing semantics but from the Blizzcon and everything I’ve gathered I cannot feel that that is the “line” that they’ve drawn. I feel they are using 1.12 as the base and primary yes, but do not feel like it is an end all be all.

And while I disagree, I do understand and find this argument the strongest one I’ve heard for it being 1.12.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

I’ll accept that they’re willing to entertain those sorts of changes, after the first time they actually entertain those sorts of changes.

EDIT: But I do understand the difference of opinion.

[Enginrin-dalvengyr]

It’s insulting to the original makers of AV to use the 1.12 version. If you read the Blizz blog that accompanied it it was supposed to be a battle about two warring Factions. They wanted players have to the option to contribute even if they had no interest in pvp. That’s how it was originally designed, if you want to use the word ‘original’.

Yep it is insulting to ruin someones art, and ignore the reasons behind it.

[Cubic-emerald-dream]

I briefly looked over those threads. I see some of the same people who are debating with me now have commented in those threads and are reusing their talking points.

Nothing like dismissing unwavering posts as “talking points”.

[Enshui-sisters-of-elune]

I would like to take a moment to reiterate that, on a personal level, I am not specifically calling for 1.5 – my preference is simply for anything prior to 1.11’s version of AV. Strictly speaking, my reasons are that if Blizz opts to continue with a ‘Classic Series’ of servers, adding in TBC and / or Wrath at some point in the future, either TBC and Classic will share a mechanically-identical AV or TBC and Wrath will, because for the most part, the only change in TBC was the revamp, and Wrath didn’t have any significant changes to mechanics at all.

My argument does not center on the ‘best’ version of AV, but instead on the ‘preservation’ idea. If there will be other expansion servers (which I am not stating a preference on – merely pointing out the possibility of), 1.11-mechanic AV was active for the majority of TBC. Let the ‘museum piece’ that is Classic reflect a version that was never available during any other expansion.

I think the lump sum here is that I’m willing to entertain the notion that Blizzard might consider those other expansion servers if they think it will net them more subs returning. If that’s the case, I’d like the museum to showcase – well, the differences, beyond just a level increase. Different times, different developments.

Additionally, the AQ war effort was not a part of 1.12, specifically. Yet it is included, because to not include it would be to ignore a significant part of Vanilla’s history. Were it up to me, I’d prefer to have several versions of AV available, but I’ll only shoot for the moon instead of the stars.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

I would like to take a moment to reiterate that, on a personal level, I am not specifically calling for 1.5 – my preference is simply for anything prior to 1.11’s version of AV. Strictly speaking, my reasons are that if Blizz opts to continue with a ‘Classic Series’ of servers, adding in TBC and / or Wrath at some point in the future, either TBC and Classic will share a mechanically-identical AV or TBC and Wrath will, because for the most part, the only change in TBC was the revamp, and Wrath didn’t have any significant changes to mechanics at all.

My argument does not center on the ‘best’ version of AV, but instead on the ‘preservation’ idea. If there will be other expansion servers (which I am not stating a preference on – merely pointing out the possibility of), 1.11-mechanic AV was active for the majority of TBC. Let the ‘museum piece’ that is Classic reflect a version that was never available during any other expansion.

They’re not trying to make a franken-version though. They have said they’re recreating 1.12 as it was in 2006. Considering that 1.11 was in June 2006, its a good quarter of Vanilla that was in the state you’re disliking, and 1.5 was June 7 2005. So yes there was “More” of pre-1.11, but for any one stable version, 1.11 - 2.01 was the longest single running “format”.

But again, it isn’t a case of ‘best’ or ‘options’. They’re recreating a known point in time because they have it completely, and its their most cohesive version with as many of the ‘fixes’ as they could have.

I’m not even going to get into the “best” argument, because that’s a passion debate, which has nothing to do with their decision making process.

Additionally, the AQ war effort was not a part of 1.12, specifically. Yet it is included, because to not include it would be to ignore a significant part of Vanilla’s history. Were it up to me, I’d prefer to have several versions of AV available, but I’ll only shoot for the moon instead of the stars.

This is patently a spurious argument. As a concession to the players, they have replicated the progression cycle one time only to allow people to experience the movement through the patches. As I said above, there’s a legitimate case for progressive adjustment of AV from 1.5 through to 1.12, but since that’s not good enough, people keep dismissing it. AQ’s elements as well as the leftover quests from the AQ event were still in the game.

Additionally, any new server that opened up, would have to go through the AQ event sequence, building up materials until Patch 3.0.8a the Wrath release, when the gates were automatically opened. So at 1.12, your argument is absolutely false. 1.12 did contain all the elements of the AQ opening event and if your server hadn’t done it, you didn’t get access to AQ40. They removed the quests in Cataclysm.

If you’re going to argue from a point of passion, please do so. I understand the passion. If you’re going to argue specifics, please don’t get them wrong.

[Enshui-sisters-of-elune]

They’re not trying to make a franken-version though. They have said they’re recreating 1.12 as it was in 2006. Considering that 1.11 was in June 2006, its a good quarter of Vanilla that was in the state you’re disliking, and 1.5 was June 7 2005. So yes there was “More” of pre-1.11, but for any one stable version, 1.11 - 2.01 was the longest single running “format”.

Once again, not about my ‘dislike’, I’d just prefer to preserve more things. However, in reference to the time-frame, I’m afraid that’s likely a tie.

Patch	Date dropped	Summarized Changes to AV	Days AV Had This Patch
1.5	06-07-05	BG Added.	35
1.6	07-12-05	NPC respawn timers adjusted.	90
1.8	10-10-05	Map trimmed.	169
1.10	03-28-06	Korrak retired.	83
1.11	06-19-06	Guards largely removed.	169
2.0.1	12-05-06	TBC Pre-patch.

(Dates and patch numbers sourced from the wiki.)
If I remember right, the pre-patch actually had the server down on the day before, but since I can’t remember every day that the servers were down (and can’t swear on my memory of 12-04-06, it being over ten years ago), it’d be wrong to take the day away from 1.11.

I’m not even going to get into the “best” argument, because that’s a passion debate, which has nothing to do with their decision making process.

I concur, that’s what I specifically was responding with, that I am not seeking a ‘best’ version. I’m not out to determine the best. I’d pick 1.8 strictly based on it being the most ‘only Vanilla had this version and it was the longest running of all AV versions in Vanilla’, but that is literally the reason I would pick it – but it’s not up to me. I’m just presenting an argument for why I would like to see any version other than 1.11’s preserved for Classic.

As a concession to the players, they have replicated the progression cycle one time only to allow people to experience the movement through the patches.

I’m honestly curious – is there a source on the ‘one time only’? I’ve seen people talk about resets, new servers, etc etc. So I’m honestly curious if it’s been said specifically by anyone at Blizz. I think resets would be pure insanity, so I’d actually like to have it on-hand if I need it.

As I said above, there’s a legitimate case for progressive adjustment of AV from 1.5 through to 1.12, but since that’s not good enough, people keep dismissing it.

The only reason I would consider this as ‘not good enough’ is that this would be the same version as a different expansion’s AV (TBC), or TBC would share a version with Wrath. I’m seeking diversity if those servers happen, and that is all.

Additionally, any new server that opened up, would have to go through the AQ event sequence, building up materials until Patch 3.0.8a the Wrath release, when the gates were automatically opened. So at 1.12, your argument is absolutely false. 1.12 did contain all the elements of the AQ opening event and if your server hadn’t done it, you didn’t get access to AQ40. They removed the quests in Cataclysm.

Ahh, that’s fair.

If you’re going to argue from a point of passion, please do so. I understand the passion. If you’re going to argue specifics, please don’t get them wrong.

My apologies for the AQ comment then, as I hadn’t thought about the new servers which were spun up during 1.12. I was well-entrenched elsewhere.

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

Once again, not about my ‘dislike’, I’d just prefer to preserve more things. However, in reference to the time-frame, I’m afraid that’s likely a tie.

I will concede that. I thought (though didn’t confirm) there were changes to AV in every patch. I do remember them constantly tweaking it, but didn’t realise nothing changed in 1.9 (or 1.7 but it was a faster cycle).

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

I’m honestly curious – is there a source on the ‘one time only’? I’ve seen people talk about resets, new servers, etc etc. So I’m honestly curious if it’s been said specifically by anyone at Blizz. I think resets would be pure insanity, so I’d actually like to have it on-hand if I need it.

Only in implication about what they intended for it going forward. I’ll have to find the museum piece quotes, as one had it as “always available from then on”, implying it wouldn’t reset.

The only reason I would consider this as ‘not good enough’ is that this would be the same version as a different expansion’s AV (TBC), or TBC would share a version with Wrath. I’m seeking diversity if those servers happen, and that is all.

We have no confirmation or even inkling that they’ll even make a TBC server. They said “no plans” repeatedly and once said “no plans yet”.

[Park-rexxar (Park)]

Looking at the timeline from Enshui’s post anywhere from 1.6 to 1.8 Would be perfect, anything after that seems like major overhauls and drastic changes to the overall experience of an epic warzone feel.

[Enshui-sisters-of-elune]

We have no confirmation or even inkling that they’ll even make a TBC server. They said “no plans” repeatedly and once said “no plans yet”.

That’s very true. But since I don’t expect Blizz to go back and change what version is in Classic later if they opt to do so, I feel it deserves being brought up sooner rather than later.

Mind you, in a perfect world, you could enter any of Vanilla’s versions of AV in Classic because they were all markedly different, but again – shooting for what I think is more on the possible side.