I haven’t gotten the feeling that spell batching is universally considered a success.
Whether it was considered a success or not isn’t really the point. The point being is that they went well out of their way in order to provide this feature to make sure it felt as authentic as possible. So they have shown that they have the capability to listen and attempt to make tbc patch by patch
And batching doesn’t feel authentic.
I would not want them to do patch by patch in BC if they fail as badly at that as they failed at batching.
That’s a fair opinion, I disagree considering there are tons of videos showing batching working similar to what it does today. But I would personally rather have a buggy patch by patch experience than a static one like classic.
1 Like
You’re pointing at something that is universally considered a failure at mimicking how spell batching worked in vanilla. If they actually went out of their way to provide a feature that doesn’t remotely feel authentic, that’s somewhere between doubly a failure and deliberate deception on their part.
Nobody asked for anything remotely like what we got. And what we got was something they called “spell batching”, but was like the vanilla version in name only. So it’s still an incredibly bad example.
I see. You’re one of those people who want them to keep bugs that were never part of vanilla, because bugs were in vanilla, so why not keep this one? And implement even more?
Batching will never feel the same for most people as the average latency in classic was far higher. And using a hacked together batching solution(which is not the same as vanilla) with the batching latency oif 400ms as in vanilla is simply not the same experience.
I’m not going to have a massive discussion over batching because it’s really irrelevant to this topic. But you have to realize how batching works in order to understand why it might ‘feel’ different today, even if it is working the same.
1 Like
Which is why I said that’s a fair opinion, even though it might be technically the ‘same’ it’s not going to FEEL the same for most people considering, like you said, most people’s connections are better today
But it is not technically the same.
They hacked the modern system to work on a 400MS cycle. The modern server architecture is not the vanilla server architecture.
It emulates the same ms structure as it did in vanilla. It worked on a server ‘ping’ system where the server would update every 400ms, like you said, even if it isn’t done in the exact same way, it’s still extremely similar.
And just like you said, it’s probably not going to feel the same at all for most considering what it was used for back then, most people probably never even noticed any batching because batching was doing it’s job.
But it doesn’t emulate the vanilla structure. The server design we are using is not the same as it was in vanilla and just changing its batch cycles to 400MS has not resulted in the same experience.
Any rogues want to fill in on that?
Alright I’m not getting into a discussion about how it was implemented because it’s irrelevant.
The point is, that they went out of their way to emulate it in some way to make it as close to vanilla as possible. So that means there is some hope for them to go patch by patch.
Now if your argument is “well look how bad they messed up X why trust them with Y”… there is a massive massive MASSIVE difference between trying to emulate spell batching and changing mages fireball damage by 5% from one patch to another. (Just an example)
Except it is relevant. As how it was implemented is very relevant.
If going patch by patch was an objective they would have done it.
It’s not relevant at all when discussing the topic of blizzard going patch by patch. It’s relevant maybe in another conversation like if you think it’s good for the game or not.
And how exactly do you think they would have done patch by patch already if they didn’t have all the patches?
If they’d wanted earlier data they would have gotten it.
And as for how it’s relevant to the topic? Batching is specifically a server side code issue, not a database data or art issue. They specifically chose to ignore the server side code. Which means the batching we have is a hack to fit into the modern server side code not at all authentic to vanilla.
Explain to me how they would have gotten it please. They told us it was gone, so why do you, random nobody poster, think you have more information than the company who made the game does.
Which ties to just copy pasting values from patches how?
They could have kept checking more backups 
Apparently blizzard stopped once they found a workable 1.12.
Go rewatch your own video
They aren’t using any of the server or client side code from vanilla, and that includes how batching works. The guy made a pretty big point that all they cared about was the data and the art not the code.
Are you just blatantly trolling now and just completely gave up on any form of acting like you are being honest with this discussion? You literally are making this up in your head
How does this relate to them changing values of things on a patch by patch basis for tbc, that’s the question. The question isn’t how well was batching implemented.
It doensn’t.
How does it change that regardless of data blizzard thought 1.12 was the best version for classic? And that the reason are the same for TBC?
There were things that worked in vanilla and things that didn’t, 1.12 had the best of what worked. Just as in TBC the final patch had what worked.
Glad we agree on that
You say regardless of data as if that’s not a huge deal. The whole ‘regardless of data’ thing meant for classic they had to choose a static patch for vanilla, no question about it. So yes, the last patch is the best option. If they decide to go static with tbc, yes the last patch is the best option as well.
The thing is with tbc they aren’t forced into static patches. They can go progressive if they want to.