The #nochanges slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy

I dunno about any of this stuff, but for real, it would be kinda cool to see some balancing done down the road, like class balance, but tailored towards maintaining a level 60 population instead of balancing towards a population that is getting higher level caps. Just my thought.

Dual spec, though? No way. Dungeon maps? Meh, we didn’t need them in '05. Guild banks? Why tho? So everyone can have their own personal guild banker with a ton more space at low cost? Bag and bank space is expensive by design in vanilla.

All I want is for me to be able to have nameplates enabled and not have unflagged alliance appear with nameplates.

It is worth nothing that retail didn’t get bad and still had over 7 million players even during content droughts, until WoD came along.

Up until that point, even the quality of life changes had largely positive impacts of the game.

Adding things like a shorter hearthstone, or a few additional flight paths or graveyards will not in any way detract from the game.

I’m not in any way advocating for wholesale changes to the game, that’s not what I want at all. But as more people level, leaving fewer people in leveling zones, it will be more and more difficult to retain people. So making things less tedious is a good thing.

I’d certainly want as few changes as possible. But it’s difficult to have any meaningful discussion with people that say ‘no changes’ when the game client is already different than it was in classic. If they want to make the statement as you did, no changes from this point that is an entirely different argument than many on here are falsely making.

1 Like

A recent interview says otherwise.

1 Like

According to you maybe.

1 Like

According to data.

If you think people quit because they had increased run speed when dead, or because items had increased stack sizes that’s on you. There were still over 7 million players post 5.2 in the game, even with a 14 month content drought.

Data >subjective feelings

2 Likes

Data showed that after going ham on quality of life, basically the start of wrath, subs stopped growing, stagnated, and then declined.

Classic and BC. mininal quality of life. Lots of growth.
Wrath onwards. Lots of quality of life. Minimal growth followed by decay.

1 Like

There was a thing called churn that used to be discussed.

Just because the game had a net increase in subs doesn’t mean that millions still didn’t leave.

If you are going to say that vanilla and TBC were the absolute pinnacle of the game, you’re conveniently leaving out tens of millions of players who came and went during that time.

Unless your basis for your issue is a veiled attempt at lfd as a game killer, you’ve got to get through that on your own.

No it doesn’t, considering they’re still making changes to classic…

1 Like

Difference is. For 5 years the churn was positive. For 2 it was neutral. Then it was negative.

Its not just LFD. Cross server grouping chipped away at community and reputation mattering, transmog impacted the economy, LFR has its downsides. But lets pretend every change was a GOOD THING

1 Like

You’ll need another strawman, because I’ve yet to see people say every change was good. But according to some they were all bad I guess?

But they wouldn’t say that aloud because that would ruin their nochange meme.

I won’t disagree that cross server stuff hurt the game, but my contention is that blizzard did that so they could still collect money for transfers, not because they wanted people to group up more. If that was the case they never would have removed the priority of server and battlegroup.

No changers admit that some changes over the years have been good. Thing is though, the goal of classic is not to be vanilla + the good changes over the years.

The goal is as close to vanilla as possible.
In blizzards own words, warts and all

1 Like

And I am largely okay with that. The problem is with retail wetting the bed so much, they will be left with the same issues vanilla had.

If you want to increase revenue you need to find ways of attracting new players and retraining existing ones. Having a code base that doesn’t change won’t help that.

But change it and you chase away people too.

Classic was never made to have widespread appeal. It was made to appeal to those who wanted vanilla wow. Weve seen what happens when blizzard tries to appeal to a wide variety.

1 Like

In the end whatever makes them the most money will win. They aren’t in business to keep small numbers happy.

I mean, I love the game, but the last 3 expansions are utter garbage to play, and level scaling was one of the single worst things in the game.

I love the power progression of classic. So much that I may never really play retail again.

Everything they have ever said disagrees with your statement. If whatever makes them money is important, where are the character services? The wow token? Etc?

2 Likes

Okay? And let’s also pretend every change was negative.

I guess you fail at reading.

1 Like

They don’t need a token because you play this game for free, with your retail sub.

They also don’t need character services, but that doesn’t mean they won’t have them at some point. I’d rather they not, so people can see the results of a crappy server reputation.

It’s all a balance. If character services made them 10 million a month you better believe they will be there.

Also, please don’t say things like ‘everything they have said’. The people at blizzard have said they’d never sell charter boosts, allowing flying in the old world, or allow pallies on the horde.

Things change. Even if I dislike it, failure to recognize that would be foolish.

1 Like

/shrug that wasn’t in the post I quoted.

I guess you fail at reading.

And what about those who dont play retail?

You act like no changers are anti changes because changes are bad. Were anti changes because the goal is authenticity. If the game was supposed to be “vanilla like” i would be all for some moderate balance changes, barbershop, bank, new models and animations.