If You're Not With Us, You're Against Us

[Espure-proudmoore (Espure)]

Remember early on after the announcement? So many new posters asking for a plethora of changes that would make them play Classic. It’s likely that experience left a bad taste in our mouths so that’s why we’re so tired of the 0 post trolls.

[Sírre-malfurion]

Go say that in the AV Blue Post. “the enemy” is the people who don’t want changes.

Yes the 1.12 AV crowd seems to be in the minority here in the forums as the forum majority wants an earlier iteration. That is where this line comes in.

The authentic crew is here to say no to all changes outside the scope of Vanilla and attempt to help Blizzard make the best decisions when it’s about matters inside the Vanilla timeline.

Now I don’t care about AV myself as I’ve never really liked any iteration of it.
It will be interesting to see though if Blizzard listens to the forums and does some sort of compromise. They have already changed their plans on loot trading and content phases so it’s possible on AV as well.

[Mergons-terenas]

People back then were upfront about it and we had a clear pro-change camp, now we have people who are more on the troll side of pro-change because they bring it like its good or for the better and we should all like it… Im no change but… and this is even more annoying.

[Zonkabonk-blackrock]

Ok so people are viewing classic as a trip to a museum.

I don’t go to a World War Two museum and start saying “wow… they should include World War One stuff here. That’d be great!”

Let classic be the museum it was meant to be.

“If they don’t add a civil war exhibit to this WW2 museum, it is destined to fail”

[Eloraell-moon-guard]

They have already changed their plans on loot trading and content phases so it’s possible on AV as well.

None of the progression affects the final museum result though. The only “changes” that they’ve made to the final product are non-Vanilla ones that are done for financial (loot trading reduces GM work, same with RCR) or technical (sharding, using the modern client and infrastructure) reasons.

They aren’t actually asking us for any ‘pick and choose from Vanilla’ feedback, because there’s no compelling reason for them to break their museum recreation.

(Despite what the President of Blizzard, a HR weenie said).

[Mergons-terenas]

@Eloraell-moon-guard

loot trading reduces GM work

They actually stated they won’t be doing anny GM work regarding loot.

@Kaivax

Customer Service will NOT be transferring items in WoW Classic and the system that we outlined will be in the players’ hands.

[Espure-proudmoore (Espure)]

Correct, that’s why loot trading is there. The GM work we will see is for other things.

[Twiinkedd-moon-guard]

At this point he has clearly admitted trolling as he is not even discussing the “point” of the troll topic to begin with.

Report and move on folks. We’ll see if there is selective enforcement of the CoC or not.

[Stimpäk-proudmoore]

can’t wait to see all the different non-vanilla addons people come up with and then the demand from others to ban their addons because it messes up their “museum”

[Mergons-terenas]

non-vanilla addons

the idea is, of getting a Vanilla like API, and alot of thing can be build with it that wasn’t in vanilla.

[Espure-proudmoore (Espure)]

Addons aren’t really the same thing as core game mechanics.

[Sírre-malfurion]

They aren’t actually asking us for any ‘pick and choose from Vanilla’ feedback, because there’s no compelling reason for them to break their museum recreation.

There is the very compelling argument of authenticity though.
Personally what they should do is something close to original AV progression.
If they don’t have the different iterations of AV available in their databases then they could start with some sort of close approximation of 1.7 AV for example and then evolve it into 1.12 in a later phase.

It would be far more authentic than just straight up starting with 1.12.

[Mergons-terenas]

But lets say they really have no official data on AV prior to 1.12. I think they just see it as something unfortunate and don’t think of tinkering with something manny people will say of not to be like it was and then they have nothing to fall back on. Different people will say different things on how 1.5 av was, where the mines lay and all that stuff. What are they supposed to do then?

AV 1.13?

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

They aren’t actually asking us for any ‘pick and choose from Vanilla’ feedback, because there’s no compelling reason for them to break their museum recreation.

There is the very compelling argument of authenticity though.
Personally what they should do is something close to original AV progression.
If they don’t have the different iterations of AV available in their databases then they could start with some sort of close approximation of 1.7 AV for example and then evolve it into 1.12 in a later phase.

It would be far more authentic than just straight up starting with 1.12.

The basic problem with this is we still end up with 1.12 AV in the end anyways.

[Sírre-malfurion]

But lets say they really have no official data on AV prior to 1.12. I think they just see it as something unfortunate and don’t think of tinkering with something manny people will say of not to be like it was and then they have nothing to fall back on. Different people will say different things on how 1.5 av was, where the mines lay and all that stuff. What are they supposed to do then?

If they don’t have sufficient data to recreate a close approximation of an earlier version of AV then they should just say so and end the pointless debate there.

[Mergons-terenas]

I think its pretty clear with the wording they used

@Kaivax

we’re picking an original WoW patch that gives us the most clarity for WoW: Classic, and 1.12 is that patch.

Most clarity, and i heard they said at blizzcon they didnt have anny pripr data to 1.11.
Then it’s jusr deduction, but yeah it’s not 100% clear.

[Sírre-malfurion]

The basic problem with this is we still end up with 1.12 AV in the end anyways.

That is not a problem we should end up with 1.12 AV in the end because that is authentic.
Authenticity does not care if it’s garbage or not.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

The basic problem with this is we still end up with 1.12 AV in the end anyways.

That is not a problem we should end up with 1.12 AV in the end because that is authentic.
Authenticity does not care if it’s garbage or not.

Except they’re not doing progressive versions of anything, all they’re doing is time gating.

[Sírre-malfurion]

I think its pretty clear with the wording they used

No what they said is “most clarity”
If they had said that they don’t have sufficient data on the earlier iterations that would have been clear.
This is nowhere clear.

[Sírre-malfurion]

Except they’re not doing progressive versions of anything, all they’re doing is time gating.

This is true with the exception of reverted loot tables to pre 1.10 patch state, but it does not mean that they could not do progressive version of something if they so decided.