Mists was a failure? Its literally seen as one of the best WoW expansions. Yikes
I was always a classic plus supporter. We never should have had TBC or Wrath.
We also never should of accepted “no changes”
1 Like
??? I never hear people say it’s the best. I occasionally hear arena try hards have found memories of MOP. But that’s the only group of players I see liking it.
1 Like
It lost as much players as cata but some delusional yts and streamers wanna convince people that it was good lol.
MoP was more single player oriented compared to cata, you still had the world being the character.
I see no real reason why blizzard shouldn’t do Cata, they 100% should, as long as they add TBCC era servers alongside wrath era servers. That would be a great expansion to revisit, especially since people are going to be flying threw wrath like it’s nothing.
Cata lost so many subs, it’s disappointing to see people on the community council defend it and influence Blizzard. Classic going down the same road of WoW declining.
1 Like
I think Vanilla’s world is much better than tbc/wotlk. I don’t like outlands and I don’t think Northrend is better than Eastern Kingdoms & Kalimdor. I want to see the Vanilla world with the Classes more fleshed out 
1 Like
Subscriber counts largely disagree with you, but when the game was watered down to try and attract a new age of players after the Activision merger (aiming for a younger audience), I have no doubt it appealed to some players. Just not the ones that tend to have long-term tendencies, leading to the Jack Russell terrier of population numbers we see today based around expansion releases. I guess it depends on what base of player you want. They grabbed a new audience, but lost a lot of their core as the game lost any long term benefit to staying active.
Agreed completely. When you see a mistake, the last thing to do is go off and repeat it.
By MoP over 100 million unique accounts had been created yet WoW only ever held 12 million concurrent subs max despite them trying to pump their investor call numbers by using pay per hour in Asia as a “sub” for the quarter reports.
Trying to tie sub numbers to specific design features, when the vast majority of those subs never made it to level cap ever, is kind of hilarious.
Cata lost its highest numbers when MOP was announced not to say it didn’t have its share of problems but from my memory it started off strong and slowly became what people bash it for. Just like how beyond broken DKs were for most of wotlk everyone forgets that an xpac was a progression.
I’d have voted for classic + all day over progression servers. When the grindy daily chores go full swing (wotlk and beyond) is when I started falling off.
Ofc it’s lazy… Blizzard will do whatever requires the least amount of resources to yield the highest possible profit. It’s ez money
just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean others feel that way too, consider this a time to take a break from classic wow for an expansion while everyone else can go down the timeline in order?
Where did you hear there’s no ruby sanctum eh?
Ok, so honest question then, why shouldn’t blizzard do cata classic? Your argument is roughly that it’s on retail, so is TBC and wrath. That legit makes zero sense that you dislike blizzard doing this. WHO CARES. If blizzard does keep wrath era and people go onto Cata, again who cares. Let the players play whatever expansion they want to play on. And I really wish blizzard would make tbcc era servers too, and it they were fresh, that’d be better.
Again, there’s no real reason for blizzard not to do this. I’ve also suggested that blizzard should have flagged servers prior to classic launch to mark servers that go well and beyond classic. This would have solved a lot of things when blizzard launched this whole classic project. And in all honesty, this would have been great for people to emulate project guilds since we would have had era servers, at least that was the idea.
I remember a blue post covering the phases and ruby sanctum was not mentioned, could be an oversight. I’ll try to find it / see if they ever corrected for it.