Designed or overlooked?
Myself and a few others are leaning towards overlooked.
3 Likes
Well, letâs think about it logically:
Why should a melee player who uses swing procs have them sometimes not happen because they used a certain type of ability before their swing?
I donât think that a warrior should lose their ability to proc just because they cast Battle Shout after charging.
I am an FQA Tester myself, and I would bug the heck outta this.
1 Like
How many bugs were found by blizzard and fixed compared to how many bugs were found by players and subsequently fixed.
As I said just because it was not found in vanilla does not mean this was not a bug.
2 Likes
Speaking as an FQA tester myself:
We miss a lot
1 Like
The only thing yâall are overlooking is 4th grade reading comprehension. Read the quoted sentence again, and again, until you understand what âspecific provisions built into the game to force this to be trueâ means.
It means they deliberately did this, and went out of their way to create extra rulesets to ensure this.
Then it is bad coding and laziness to try and make it better. The items do not say that they cannot proc if you are currently using another skill while using a melee attack.
So basically, theyâve said they donât care whether it is supposed to be one way or another and you can figure out what actually works in the system they do not understand how to fix.
But sir, I believe you may need to expand how far you read. Their immediate following statements were
âHowever, we discovered that this is true only if the spell or ability that triggered the GCD was flagged as a magic-based attack (or more specifically, spells flagged in our data with a defense category of âmagicalâ).â
Which means that they did not foresee this occurring as a result.
Itâs an old error that did not mean enough back in the day to be caught by players or devs alike. This kind of stuff sweeps under the radar of released games all the time and gets fixed later when found.
yes, Vanilla wow patch history is full of fixes just like this. I for one donât care if they fix it or not but it would be nice to see a response to the inconsistency with what they said and the wingclip tests that have been done.
Well⌠every bug has code that forces them to occur. That doesnât make them intended.
Itâs a stretch that any dev would be like: yes! This weapon can trigger this cool thing⌠but not if the warrior activated find minerals before he hit!
Some abilities that can even trigger the weapon, like wing clip, then prevent the weapon from triggering for 1.5s after use.
Plus one of the original devs already commented on it, and said he would have considered it a bug.
4 Likes
Whether itâs a bug that was never fixed or not is impossible to know without going back in time. Even a old dev saying âI think itâs this wayâ youâre just going off the word of the dev on what they remember happening 15 years ago⌠Nothing against him, just saying the World of Warcraft is vast and itâs unlikely they remember specific details on everything especially quirks like this.
The goal with classic isnât to identify bugs and fix them, itâs to recreate a true as possible version of classic with warts and all. Typically the only things that are changed from their reference client are exploitable bugs or things that just donât make sense to be in place or that donât impact the balance of the game. A lot of it is a judgement call and itâs generally easier to err on the side of #referenceclient rather than change something that was intended to be part of classic as well. Whoâs to say a lot of things arenât bugged? Should they fix everything that is consistently inconsistent?
1 Like
exploitable bugs or things that just donât make sense to be in place or that donât impact the balance of the game
I would debate that it, indeed, does not make sense to include a consistently inconsistent occurrence in which a player is denied an ability granted to them by their composition simply because of an arbitrary overlooked piece of code.
I would make the bold statement that this is indeed an exploit, but rather an exploit that works against the player, and would make the argument that it indeed impacts the balance of the game by causing melee characters who rely on weapon procs to be effective (such as paladins, shamans and some warriors) to be literally unable to perform a job that they are attempting solely to perform (apply the proc).
After reading a few responses I did want to clarify one minor thing; a spellâs âSchoolâ is not the same thing as its Defense Category. There are spells with the school of holy/shadow/frost/etc. that have a defense category of melee/physical, and spells with a school of physical that have a defense category of magical.
âŚand before itâs asked; no, we are not going to post a full list of which spells are in which spell school or defense categories 
Iâm also going to go ahead and close this thread since weâve concluded our investigation into this issue. We very much appreciate everyoneâs efforts to help us track down inconsistencies between WoW Classic and the original game.
7 Likes