Doubles Advocate: If their introduction wont produce a significant difference in the game then your argument for them ushering in a new MMO is moot.
I never made the argument that adding 9 items would usher in a new MMO. You’re conflating two separate arguments.
The point of Classic is to faithfully recreate the original World of Warcraft. ANY change goes against that purpose, no matter how significant. Classic is not meant to be a new MMO where we can change things as we wish; it is meant to be World of Warcraft as it was.
I was also pointing out how an item for each class hardly seems to meet the OP’s expectations. Vanilla+ is 9 more items, one for each class? Really?
then why did tou say “new MMO” if that’s not exactly what you meant?
Classic plus sounds really good in theory but given what we know about blizzard nowadays, its a big risk to allow them to add/change stuff in the spirit of vanilla wow. I would love to have a new dungeon or new niche items like nature reflectors or even a loot table added to world leaders but it would cause so many headaches and balance issues to let actiblizz mess with a good thing.
You’re not reading what I’m saying, are you?
WoW Classic is NOT a new MMO; it is a recreation of WoW as it used to be, therefore we should not add new items. I am not saying that adding new items makes it a new MMO.
Me: A, not B, therefore C.
You: Not C, therefore B.
Do you realize how that is a logical fallacy?
do define your variables please. Also are you now are you claiming mutual exclusivity relationships exist between them?
This is very simple stuff, so I’m not sure where you’re failing to understand.
Making changes to WoW Classic doesn’t make it a new MMO. I’m saying BECAUSE it’s not a new MMO, we shouldn’t make changes to it.
The two that are mutually exclusive are changes and faithful recreation. It, by definition, cannot be a faithful recreation if you are changing it.
You are wrongfully concluding that changes makes it a new MMO, which isn’t what I said at all.
Define add new items, i wouldn’t mind seeing more fluff items added like toys and pets and mounts.
I like the idea of picking and choosing various abilities from multiple classes and forming it into one “class.” There was a game in WCIII. I think it was Hero Wars or something where you make your own champion and enter into an arena and fight.
The thing about applying that to WoW is that it will defeat class fantasy almost completely. It may be too drastic a change to implement as a Phase 7 addition.
But it would make sense to apply it in a separate server. I actually think there could be some legal problems with Blizzard taking Ascension’s idea. But that’s not relevant to this discussion.
I could easily see a case made for enhancement and retribution. Those specs could use love. Talking PvE gear at lower level than AQ.
Also could be cool to have a set made for bears, actually set up to tank.
Heck why not reallocate all the hybrid sets into 3 parts.
So in, the future, you can simply concede what I pointed out in my original post that addiing items WOULD be a significant change, contrary to what you originally claimed.
… that’s not what I said, at all.
What the hell are you even talking about? Are you trolling?
Again, another logical fallacy you’re committing.
Me: If A > 0 = B
You: B, therefore A = 100.
for reference
… WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
I didn’t say that it was a significant change. I was implying it WASN’T a significant change.
???
SURELY you understand that a change is a change, no matter how significant, and when I say I don’t want ANY changes, I can still point out that a change doesn’t seem significant and worth defining as “vanilla+”, yeah?
Bt your own words ALL changes are significant, at least to you. So you should stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Adding nine items would not be a significant change, but should still not be done because it is still a change, regardless of how significant a change it is.
Make sense?
the fact that you continue to post about changes proves that it is significant (to you)
That’s not what that means, at all. You are just full of logical fallacies, aren’t you? Do you have any idea how logic works?
Me replying does not necessitate the topic matter be significant.
In any case, the fact I’m replying is because you continue to misinterpret (either deliberately or otherwise) what I am saying and I want to clarify my position to you.
The replies are about making you understand what I’m saying, not about insisting how important or significant the proposed change is.
I only made one reply to the actual suggestion. Every other reply since then has been explaining what I said to you because you just don’t seem to understand what I’m actually saying.
Are you Cathy Newman, by chance?