Right, data, not the entire game.
Maybe Blizzard could do a better job of telling us where they are actually pulling their data from - because by all indications of what’s actually happened in game it’s a TBC client.
No, read what it says.
“Source code.” That is distinctly different than data. Even Blizzard separates those.
"
- The database data includes aspects of the game like the hit points a creature has, the amount of stamina an item has, spawn locations around the word, and millions of other data points.
- Art assets include everything from how a night elf looks when it Shadowmelds, to the sounds a Pyroblast makes, to the motion of an orc swinging an axe.
- The source code contains the instructions on how to display the game, process input, and connect people."
I did read what it says? The first piece of code that could be connected to WoW dated back to 1997, data was found going back to version 1.12 - and even earlier.
What makes you think they have anything earlier than TBC in regards to something substantial enough to recreate the whole game?
We literally have items as far back as launch that had to be redone due to TBC values - most people still believe that the fizzle effect added in TBC is effecting things like Nightfall and Annihilator to give them inaccurate proc rates.
Maelstrom Trinket doesn’t even behave how it did in Vanilla, I don’t even know if someone’s taken the time to test Tidal Charm to see if it has the same issues.
Skull of Impending Doom had TBC behavior and was reverted to Vanilla behavior.
List goes on and on and on, I think it’s a good indicator that they simply don’t have the data you think they do.
Your evidence is based on a developer who may be being misunderstood due to his enthusiasm over the project.
All evidence that’s actually happening in game says otherwise, no?
No, museums actually try to keep things as close as possible- that’s kinda the point of them. There’s a difference between Blizz not being able to give us the 1.1-1.12 experience because they lost all the old data, and Blizz giving us the 1.12 data they have buuuut deciding to change it up a bit… then a lot… and keep changing, oh and lets add kitty ears to the Mona Lisa while we’re at it because that’s more modern.
I mean… it was tho.
Do we have confirmation on that from Blizzard?
Is that a serious question?
Because… they said 1.12 “and even earlier.”
1.12 is vanilla. Even earlier is also vanilla.
They have source code for the game dating back to before its development even began (reusing code from another game, I’d wager). You think they have code from BEFORE World of Warcraft, but they don’t have the code for the game itself???
Okay, we’re getting into some crazy conspiracy stuff I don’t want to deal with.
Occam’s Razor. I think Blizzard is just bad at their jobs. I don’t think they have some nefarious plan to mislead people into thinking they have vanilla data and source code to trick people into believing they’re getting vanilla when they aren’t. Honestly, look at retail and tell me if you think Blizzard is competent enough to pull off a plan like that.
More than likely, they just had some oversights. Tends to happen when you’re copying an entire MMO’s worth of data and game systems into a new client that doesn’t read that data the same way. I imagine that’s especially the case for items with procs, considering the proc system was heavily reworked throughout WoW’s lifespan.
The things we’ve seen have been more akin to putting the mona lisa in a nice frame with an audio tour, totally what you would expect from a museum piece.
Indeed I think it’s probably a combination of a few things, the retail client bleeding over into Classic, a developer possibly not realizing they should have been as thorough as they could have been in describing what they said, the actual data not having been backed up properly during the infancy stage of Vanilla when it wasn’t known it would be as successful - or being lost/mishandled over time.
Point is nobody really knows, because Blizzard remain pretty silent on the subject.
Do we really need confirmation from blizzard? It’s pretty obvious that player outcry lead to those changes.
Depends on if you’re taking the stance that it was due to people complaining on the forums or due to their data indicating that the changes they made would be for the overall good of player retention.
Breh… You trollin
I’m not entirely convinced they actually care much about classic retention. In any case, forum outcry is going to be part of the data.
1 Like
think it is more a case of, someone muffed it.
they are using the same code base for retail and classic, which makes sense, only 1 major codebase to worry about.
I think someone probably muffed it on the “disable these things in the classic branch” check list while merging in some other necessary thing.
Considering that it appears to be very little used in retail, looks like they are taking the screw it, how bad can it be approach.
Of course classic is way more social than what retail appears, to me anyways, so i suppose it could backfire, and make them rethink that?
It would be interesting though, to see if anyone sets up an unofficial ladder, with PVP guilds participating, like in the old days before cross realm.
Be a much bigger ladder, maybe.
Then again, maybe no one will use it much, as it does entail having to become battlenet friends.
1 Like
How?
It’s a change they made.
Back before WotLK, transferring servers would also reset your raid lockouts.
So go ahead and defend this action. Why did they change this but not FD or Vanish? Why did they add Wargames?
Because…
IT ARE NOT TEH VANILLA!!! MUH VANILLA!!! MUH VNLA!!!
So the cult is automatically against it.
Lol, classic failed on the #nochanges since its beta. Balance changes notwithstanding, classic is not vanilla and will never ever be no changes because that bridge was crossed a long time ago.
Probably due to how the DB was structured then.
Classic can not use the original DB structure as the hosts no longer use it.
Your lockout data probably now carries with you, like luggage.
Perhaps originally it was house separately, or for some other reason was not transferable.
Don’t see the issue with that really, if you down Rag this week, you are not really supposed to down him again til next week.
Personally? I think someone messed up when merging in the parent code base for what ever changes (security, bugs, optimization etc), as classic and retail use the same base.
And they missed something on the checklist of “functions to disable in the classic branch”
In the case of classic, they probably means just 1 guy.
FD and Vanish, as far as i am aware, they do have fixed. At least to work along the lines that they did when they addressed them YEARS ago, in a thread very similar to the thread about them that we have now.
They had the same troubles with FD and Vanish many years ago
Maybe, but they could wipe lockouts on transfers easy enough.
I used to transfer a lot back in the day, and a main draw about it was I could double dip for a week. At a price though.
Oh, i am sure they could, i mean it is still just a database, they probably just do not want it to.