“We built an authentic model T. We enlarged the engine compartment and put a turbocharged 289 smallblock engine in it because the supermajority wanted more power. We gave it racing slicks because the supermajority wanted those, also. Again bowing to the supermajority, it has upholstered bucket seats, a 6 speed transmission, 6 speaker satellite radio system with CD, navigation system and a few other goodies. The supermajority also wanted it painted red, so we painted it red. It’s an authentic model T, though.”
3 Likes
gotta say no to this. people dont think of the ramifications of their choices . they just say “ooooh shiny” and click yes instead of thinking “how will this affect the game” they instead think selfishly and screw the consequences .
2 Likes
and then scream and cry when it turns out to be exactly like BFA. which defeats the entire point of an authentic vanilla recreation.
which the op isnt able to grasp, it seems.
1 Like
aye. if blizzard screws this up man ,i just dont know.
2 Likes
Exactly this! Too many private server and retail kids already trying to lobby for outlandish changes. If they want Vanilla+ then they already have it with BfA.
2 Likes
vanilla wasnt anywhere close to instant gratification. too many people would vote to change it cause todays players dont understand or dont want to delay that gratification till they actually earn it.
its just a sad reality today ![:frowning:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/frowning.png?v=6" ":frowning:")
1 Like
This should’t be allowed to happen… how do you think retail got to the state is currently is in?
2 Likes
Not by player voted changes, that’s for sure!
You said it yourself.
Not reproduce flawed, non-essential features.
What “features” which were never part of vanilla could even be called “essential” if vanilla not only survived, but thrived without those features?
At best, those features might be called “desired by some”, but definitely not “essential”.
1 Like
You are not responding to any point I am making. I’m saying all the essential features will be reproduced, and improvements will be made. Is it really an “essential feature” that two classes don’t have completed class quests in ST? No. Only an idiot would try and claim otherwise. But alas, here we are.
If the goal is to make classic as close to vanilla as orcishly possible and provide an authentic experience, then why would it not be an essential feature to have no quests that were not part of vanilla?
Because it’s an obvious oversight and the game would be better with the obviously incomplete feature completed.
Better in your opinion, maybe, but definitely not an authentic experience nor as close to vanilla as orcishly possible.
1 Like
Okay, but is there a way that the game is made worse? Nope. All you can say is that it wasn’t in vanilla, which no one is disputing. Literally no one would actually be negatively affected if these quests were put in the game. The issue is very sad people have repeated a contradictory mantra so many times they get mad when someone suggests an obviously good idea with no drawbacks.
When blizzard opens the door to their delorian that might matter.
i posted the definition of Authentic. look it up yourself.
what is essential or what isnt, is completely dependent on the project and is a topic on its own.
in regards to vanilla, every change demand i have heard- is changing what is essential features to classic. respec cost, no guild banks etc etc.
If you can explain why it’s an essential feature to have 2 classes with incomplete class quests in Sunken Temple I will admit you are right. If you cannot I will take it as an admission that I’m right.
And yet then you open the door for other post vanilla changes.
1 Like
what?
according to you, two classes have incomplete (aka broken) quests. why wasnt this reported to blizzard at any point in time? and why is this now being used as a basis to argue the definition of authentic?