The downside is that it wouldn’t in any way, shape, or form be an accurate recreation. Just like the one on private servers isn’t accurate.
But that’s not even true!
Since 1.12 to today, zerg rushs are happening 90% of the time. There is close to no PvP, and only a boss fight with no mechanics.
4 Likes
This gets no less untruthful each time you post it.
Thank goodness we have WotLK players to protect us from inauthenticity of vanilla AV. ![:roll_eyes:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/roll_eyes.png?v=6" ":roll_eyes:")
6 Likes
good work keeping this thread active. they can’t smother the desire for a better AV experience.
2 Likes
Very true people on near balanced servers didn’t have any problem.
Only people who had a problem were those who caused the problems themselves.
Either way imbalanced faction having longer ques and shorter fast ques is pretty much balance caused by imbalance yin and yang. 70% 30% of yin and yang deserve 30% and 70% to balance itself out, just as 50% and 50% yin yang and balance by 50% and 50%. The power of karma is at work in those situations it can be corrected when people decide oh I am going to join the imbalance side or join another realm on the imbalance side when its near 50 50.
1 Like
Sadly I don’t think blizzard cares enough to be proactive about faction ratios.
1 Like
So go maker PvP happen, without NPC’s getting in the way it’s easier.
Technically since nothing has actually changed it doesn’t become more or less true.
No it’s not. It’s clearly not. What’s easier, moving around a group of enemy players or moving around a group of enemy players and enemy troops?
It seems to me that you don’t like the -concept- of AV as it has been presented, and calling for people to ‘make PvP happen’ in a ‘PvP battleground’ is silly. PvP should happen because it’s designed to happen.
Having strong NPCs in the design encouraged PvP by default, no ‘make PvP happen’ words necessary. Creating different goals for people that were supported by the existence of NPCs meant that people would go to different places to achieve different objectives. By creating a variety of objectives, you create friction between the teams, and when those objectives stop being supported by NPCs, the objectives fall to the wayside.
In 1.12 AV, without the support of NPCs, the goals are minimized to ‘Kill the enemy’s general.’
The goals are not ‘Progressively take the enemy base,’ ‘Re-secure our own base,’ ‘Buff our troops,’ ‘Summon our elemental,’ ‘Call in airstrikes,’ or ‘Call in our cavalry,’ not to mention the goals of slowing down the enemy from doing the same things. All these goals shift and become just one:
‘Kill the enemy general.’ And guess what? That’s -still- an NPC. The BG is built around NPCs, and removing the NPC presence has made AV a shell of its original design.
10 Likes
AV 1.5-1.8 is a special event for me. I could play it every day and would have fun just being there participating. AV 1.12 is totally different for me. I will join long enough to get exalted and finish the available quests and I will never return. Now one of these versions will keep me coming back and enjoying the experience over and over and the other will not. It’s no mystery which version will keep players entertained for longer.
The mystery is why would Blizzard choose the version that players will become bored with first to implement in to Classic. Maybe they don’t have enough data to recreate 1.5-1.8 properly. But they have yet to say “Hey we don’t have that data”. To me it seem’s that 1.12 data was readily available so they went with it and now don’t want to use any more resources implementing other versions.
11 Likes
No doubt a gem of a post that has an actual introspective and civilized argument against early AV.
At this point I just know that they want horde to lose the zerg rush vs pallies thus losing AV. As horde we now HAVE to turtle to win or just drag it out forever because we can’t afford our NPCs to even dent the Allies
1 Like
Actually it said something like ‘I absolutely agree with your post.’ I removed it because your post was kind of outdated, and the discussion has gone nowhere since.
Loosen up. Purity for purity’s sake is just another form of filth.
4 Likes
How dare I expect a faithful recreation of a game when that’s the whole point of the project.
7 Likes
What is only having one version of a battleground throughout the life of the game faithful to exactly? Because that wasn’t how it was “back in the day” at all. You’re arguing for a recreation of something that doesn’t even exist yet. Having a debate over what content and version from Vanilla is in Classic is part of this entire project.
And IMO, having just one version of an iconic battleground:
-
Isn’t “authentic” in the first place.
-
Has no positives.
3 Likes
Exactly.
100% agree.
Today’s announced bad decisions still haven’t overshadowed this subject.
6 Likes
Broken record more like it topkek
How clever.