Thanks! I enjoy doing them, and I also wish I had enough time to do them more often!
Iâd love to have mythic Naxxramas, but if weâre randomly going to make Sapphiron literally do 100% more damage why donât we retune the entire instance too?
Blizzard wonât do it though because theyâre trying to recreate the 2006 version, not make mythic Naxxramas.
I donât think youâre really understanding how huge the PTR buffs were, and the effect of every healer having a vendor nearby that sells flasks for 2g they can use as infinite mana potions.
Love seeing deep dives like this. This is another great one off instance to throw in Caverns of Time when you do TBC
- pre nerf Cthun 1 boss instance
- 1 second Sapphiron instance
- and maybe hardcore death = delete servers (not in CoT obviously)
Yeah, I understand that time is a constraint, I didnât intend for that to sound like I was dissing you in any way. Just wanted to voice my general feeling (that I think a lot of others have as well) that I love this sort of communication, and would really love if Blizzard started to open up more in general like this. I love these deep dives because Iâm a developer myself and really enjoy reading about the thought processes behind everything, but itâs also great for the game to get more communication.
Just my two cents. Thanks again!
(Edit: I said âloveâ a lot. Whatever.)
So did fixing the ectoplasm dispeller effectively make all threat based encounters a âmythicâ version. No of course not. Fixing a game to design intent was the driver behind fixing that bugged item. In my personal opinion design intent was that this was supposed to be a difficult fight that required much more preparation that other fights. Fixing a bug to isnât making it mythic.
No one in 2006 used the ectoplasm distiller to make threat irrelevant and if they did it wouldâve been hotfixed the next day.
Everyone that did Sapphiron in 2006 did the version theyâre releasing.
IF this fight had released in this state in 2006, with the tactics and knowledge they had then, it wouldâve been unbeatable. So you wouldâve seen it nerfed anyways.
Well you cannot be sure of your first claim, so I wonât argue you there. And yes I agree with your second claim. But my point is, it differs from intent. Which if they want to do that, fine so be it. Iâm merely voicing my opinion that it wasnât the outcome I was hoping for.
Thanks for the update, did you guys look into taking the ticking aura while in sapphironâs ice block?
Loved reading the deep dive. Love to read more of them!
People acting like itâs going to tick once every second, nah fam, its going to tick once every second for one person in the raid, every 2 seconds (on average), and once every 2 seconds for everyone else. Gives healers something to do other than mindlessly chainheal. The buffs on the ptr was just a shorthand version of full wbuffs.
How itâs âsupposedâ to be, is how it was in vanilla, which is what they are replicating.
We sure did! That is definitely a bug and we will have it fixed by the time this content is released
Awesome, thank you for the replies. Good to know what to prepare for!
Posting this in a âDonât Nerf Sapphironâ thread is next level trolling.
Just curious, I see you guys replicated the tick every 2 sec but did you add a 1% chance to make the dot tick an extra time, like when it resisted in vanilla, giving those extra ticks on individuals now and then?
For those who donât understand:
-The original 2006 intent was for it to tick every second.
-Coding, however, made it so it mostly ticked every 2 seconds, with a rare â1 sec tickâ
-WoW Classic will replicate the behavior of 2006 Naxx (damage every 2 seconds) rather than the designerâs intent (damage every second)
This is good as itâs mostly what happened during Vanilla. Kudos and thanks for the insight.
but why? It wouldâve been actually a challenge, unlike every other piece of content you guys have churned out in their nerfed states.
Thatâs an excellent summary, thank you!
Because challenge is good, but borderline unkillable bosses who do not follow their original documented behaviour are not.