Then they would have had to listen to even more of the rants we see today, it was never this easy, these numbers aren’t right, this isn’t the right version, etc.
At the end of the day they chose the safest route, and yes it was probably the easier of them as well. They can reference what they are putting out with what they have on hand. They know it’s right whether anyone else does or not.
The thing is do I like some of your suggestions? Maybe, but then those were things that were changed before I hit ZF for example and it was plenty tough still. What you are suggesting changes my own personal experience with Vanilla WoW, so would I like it better? TBH it probably wouldn’t matter.
The thing is we really wouldn’t know if it would be better or worse. In your mind it would be, but like I said, I think Blizzard would rather go with an known and leave it at that.
But like I said, what is the proper experience? If you started in 2004 and I started in late 2005, we had totally different experiences. So who determines which one is proper, because for all we know that may be exactly what Blizzard is doing already, giving us the experience they think is the most proper.
Keep in mind I’m playing a bit of devils advocate here. I’m not someone that thinks it should be hard and fast 1.12.
I should have said to deliver the content at pre-nerf difficulty or as it was at the launch without the bugs that made fights impossible. Then nerf the content as it was nerfed back in the day at the appropriate phases.
The same tuning as it was at launch with buffs to offset the better classes than back then. Basically a poor man’s version of the actual patch progression.
It’s all in my initial post - where Jeff Kaplan goes through the games initial design philosophy.
Again, if you for example can multipull and faceroll a dungeon or as an alternative having to use strategies as a group to overcome it - the feeling of accomplishment will be different.
I’m assuming you are basing this of off the beta experience? If so you do realize those players are geared in a way that normal players will not be, and so they are able to do things normal groups will not be able to do?
I didn’t start Vanilla until around AQ40, so my own personal experience will be much closer to what they are putting out than what you are suggesting, so no I am not lying.
No it won’t because AQ40 won’t be out and everyone will be steamrolling “current content”. 1.12 is fine when Naxx is out, but NOT when BwL isn’t even out.
Sure it will, for me anyways. By the time I got into MC, Ony, ZG and BWL they were being steamrolled. The first " hard " raid I hit was AQ40. It’s why I keep trying to point out that your experience and mine were completely different. TBH I’ll probably walk into those places and they will probably feel about right, same goes for the 5 mans.
The only difference will be is that I might actually need to wait on those places to come out. The only one I predated was Naxx, and I was already at max level when it was released.
That means as you said, there will be no hard raids available until AQ40 is out. AQ40 filled the role as the hard raid when you started, and Classic won’t have anything for that until then.
I’m a little confused. You said you consider it a problem to
You suggested reverting these changes:
The first is a few basilisk mobs and we have no idea how much their damage was reduced.
The second is a rare mob that sometimes spawns from graves. Optional.
The third is a boss.
How would reverting any of these changes stop what you call “multipull faceroll”?
So it mimics my Vanilla experience pretty well then * shrug *
Here is the problem, those old raids, no matter what they do are not going to be hard. They were pretty basic, because like us Blizzard was learning. We already know Blizzard said they are not going to tune numbers, so that is just going to be something we need to deal with going in.
![:slight_smile:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")