lol bro do you know how popular retail is compared to classic
or u trolling?
1 Like
Servers will be like era. No more content server are just going to stay up. The quote is them saying there will be no more content to the game. I’m sorry your high on the hopium brother.
1 Like
yeah ur probably right, but some easy lazy content like tbc stuff ported over wouldnt suprise me. a little sod era send off 8.5 patch would be amazing for the longevity.
1 Like
I think you are missing the point that ‘era’ =/= ‘add’.
1 Like
sod simply is not as good as you think it is. you guys need to go outside
I think the big send off was the Secret Agents quest line completion. In the final area there are big demonstrations, not the least of which is a huge “THANK YOU!” on the ground, that this is the end and Blizz appreciates you for playing SoD.
Most never see it, tho, because they can’t get past Khonsu. I recommend it for anyone who hasn’t to completed it. It is completely solo (except the harvest golem may give some classes solo trouble), so you can complete it even if no one is logging into SoD anymore.
2 Likes
Your favorite video game is probably not as good as you think it is either, but you want to keep playing it right?
The rugged outdoorsmen forum is on a completely different website.
1 Like
You can keep playing it. The servers are staying up.
Maybe the base that is quitting doesn’t like it like they thought they did or they’d still be playing
People still play on that era server almost 7 years why can’t sod players do that
1 Like
Personally I am leveling on Anni to prep for TBC. I will keep playing SoD till my guild stops raiding SE, then just tinker. Short term, I don’t agree that they should simply continue SoD. They had a schedule that was made public, I am good with them sticking to that.
However I do think SoD was great, it absolutely got me back into WoW. I hope that they do continue to develop content in a similar way, be it Classic+, SoD Season 2, SoD TBC, or whatever.
1 Like
Your argument that
ompletely misses the deeper issue at hand. It conveniently assumes that the mass departures reflect genuine player dissatisfaction, rather than acknowledging that Blizzard’s cancellation of SoD was a calculated move to transition the playerbase toward MoP. In effect, you’re feeding into the very narrative Blizzard engineered; by insisting that those who leave simply don’t like it, you ignore the fact that their exit was, to a large extent, a product of Blizzard’s manipulation—not organic abandonment.
Those who claim that true fans would stick it out are essentially acting like sheep, following the manufactured dynamics Blizzard set up. The cancellation wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to poor design or gameplay—it was a strategic decision designed to force the community’s hand. So, while you dismiss the departures as self-explanatory, you inadvertently reinforce Blizzard’s plan by overlooking the artificial conditions under which these choices were made.
In short, reducing the issue to “liking it or not” oversimplifies a complex strategy, and it undermines the reality that many players are simply complying with a system engineered to push them in a particular direction.
2 Likes
By playing the game at all you are already doing this. No matter how many alts you post on, your entire argument is just begging the question. Yes, be vocal in your support of new content and dissatisfaction with SoD’s end, but it is quite literally Blizzard’s game.
1 Like
Claiming that simply playing the game means we are automatically endorsing all of Blizzard’s decisions is a flawed and overly simplistic argument. Being an active player doesn’t equate to unconditional support, all it means is that we care enough to invest OUR time and that investment gives US a voice. Critiquing Blizzard’s choices, like the handling of SoD’s end, isn’t about rejecting the game entirely; it’s about holding the developers accountable and pushing for improvements.
Furthermore, insisting that our engagement implies consent to every decision only reinforces a passive acceptance of a system that many of us actively want to see change. The notion that
ignores the fact that every part of a game’s community especially those who continue to play and provide feedback has a stake in its evolution. Your dismissal simply sidelines thoughtful criticism as if participation automatically makes one complicit, which isn’t the case. Real change comes from vigilance and vocal advocacy, not silent compliance.
In short, playing the game doesn’t preclude us from calling out missteps or demanding better content. It’s exactly because we’re invested that our opinions matter.
1 Like
I covered this whole argument:
1 Like
Your argument is inherently contradictory. On one hand, you claim that merely playing the game means you’re already endorsing Blizzard’s decisions, effectively equating participation with approval. Yet on the other hand, you insist that players must be vocally supportive of new content and openly express dissatisfaction with SoD’s end. If simply logging in equates to complete support, then the need to speak up for change becomes redundant. This inconsistency not only muddies the waters but also undermines the very notion of meaningful critique. Participation doesn’t automatically translate to consent, and expecting silent compliance while demanding vocal advocacy at the same time is a flawed position that ultimately squashes genuine discourse.
1 Like
Yeah man, it’s pretty sad to see Blizzard just let it die. It’s been so fun, so popular and fixed a lot of problems with the classic version we all love. Plus, there’s no other version where we can Warlock, Rogue and Shaman tank, or mage heal. Plus, the way some classes play are unique to classic and classic only.
1 Like
Hello Enhmypants. Nice ChatGPT generated response you have there.
1 Like
Enough already. Your wall of text screeches with the cold clank of assembly-line code, and every time you dump another ChatGPT block on this forum, it’s like detonating a foghorn of artificial nonsense in our faces. We can practically hear the server racks wheezing behind each hollow flourish, reminding us you’d rather outsource your brain than risk a single authentic syllable. Stop insulting our intelligence by parading this lifeless algorithmic mush as “discussion.”
Your prefab jargon doesn’t just waste space, it strangles real conversation, handing Blizzard a free pass while human voices are buried under your sterile conveyor-belt paragraphs. The community is exhausted from scraping your flavorless word salad off the floor so actual debate can breathe. Either rip the cord on your bot, speak with your own pulse, or step aside and let people who still know how to think do the talking.
2 Likes
No, Blizzard will respond to a vocal player base, they care about your money. So vocalizing your thoughts on how you feel about the content they release is healthy and welcome.
I am not criticizing you for providing feedback on what content you enjoy, but your constant yammering on as though they are forcing you into MoP and making bottom line decisions that disregard players is circular. This is the same company that gave you SoD to begin with. If you don’t like the way they do business, why are you giving them your money?
1 Like
That’s actually untrue. Classic 2019 doubled the number of total subs lol.
There are somewhere around 3-4 million retail players. I’d wager all the classics combined today are approaching that number
1 Like
Your criticism dismisses detailed argumentation as “lifeless algorithmic mush” without engaging with the actual substance. Dismissing a carefully considered, structured response as nothing more than assembly-line text is a way to shut down a real debate under the guise of style. Detailed analysis isn’t about wasting space or outsourcing one’s brain—it’s about ensuring that every point is clear and every nuance is addressed.
If you’re calling for brevity and authenticity, then I invite you to engage with the merits of the argument instead of resorting to personal disparagement aimed at the writing style. Constructive discussion relies on depth and precision to challenge ideas effectively—not on reducing a well-developed viewpoint to a catchphrase. Let’s focus on discussing the content rather than critiquing the form.
Did you also notice how he used inaccurate WCL data to compare SoD and Cata? Comparing WCL numbers between SoD and Cata in this way is misleading because it ignores the fundamental differences in raid sizes. SoD raids are performed in 20–40 player brackets—with most groups doing SE clearing in a 40-man bracket—whereas Cata raids run as either 10- or 25-man groups. This disparity significantly affects performance metrics and overall figures, making a direct one-to-one comparison misleading. The larger raid size in SoD means that individual contributions and aggregate numbers will naturally differ, not because the content is superior or inferior, but because the dynamics of a 40-person encounter are entirely different from those of a much smaller raid group. Relying solely on these numbers, without accounting for the critical context of raid size and structure, only scratches the surface. A meaningful comparison would need to delve into how these differences affect gameplay, performance distribution, and overall player experience rather than relying solely on raw figures.