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

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
82

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).

83

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

2 Likes
84

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

85

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.

1 Like
86

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” :smirk:

87

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

88

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

1 Like
89

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.

90

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?

91

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

92

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.

93

I think its pretty clear with the wording they used

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.

94

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.

95

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

96

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.

97

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.

98

He considers that time gating even though it is gating progression as well

99

If they were doing progressive patches that would be great but they’re not, we’re getting 1.12 talents at launch, we’re getting 5/10 man strat/scholo/ubrs and we’re getting 1.12 AV.

100

I believe he meant more on the line of progressive UBRS for example being 15 man originally or strat/scholo being 10 man and so forth.

101

Here is where I would personally use selective judgement on the issue at hand.
1.12 talents and the later iterations of those particular dungeons have not triggered a meaningfully widespread debate. So they can be considered accepted as is.

AV has triggered a massive storm of debate. So perhaps it warrants some degree of closer inspection.