Reasonable compromises, you say? For sake of conversation: Would you be open to a reasonable compromise, in relation to DHKs?
1 Like
DHKs or no DHKs will not have an effect on the long term viability of Classic. Just on people’s willingness to camp fight masters and ‘pwn noobs’. So unless there’s a game breaking issue that no-one noticed in Vanilla, not really.
It has already been established that DHKs have a dreadful impact on the practice of city raiding. I do not appreciate being lumped into the pile with griefers, and neither do the countless others like me who enjoyed a bit of actual war in our Warcraft.
You cannot marginalize my playstyle by way of false equivalency, because I represent the majority. No one’s buying it. Look at the hearts.
I find myself doubting your sincerity. I think I’m done with you, too.
4 Likes
Level 1 human warlocks spelling out goldselling sites in mid air was in 1.12. Keep them in.
3 Likes
Lol, I am looking at the hearts here and on other posts.
As a point of note, if we were carte blanche reworking game systems for “better”, there’s a ton of less impactful things to address like herbing and mining being tracked at once.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, if I was part of making a “New Vanilla” it’d be that all PVE server civilians were non-aggro, non-attackable, and PVP would have free reign, no sanctuary. But we’re not trying to make New Vanilla.
DHKs were not removed because they were game breaking, or even a bad or ineffective idea. They were removed because Honor Kills were removed, so there’s not much point in having one without the other.
They will be. Glad you realise that.
1 Like
Ok, but sharding and loot trading were reasonable compromises that the community had to make with Blizzard since Blizzard said it was happening. We didn’t have a choice in that. Blizzard makes the game. They said they needed sharding, so we’re getting it. (Unless they change it).
DHKs were in Vanilla. They were a part of Vanilla. It shouldn’t matter if you didn’t like it or I didn’t like it.
People on these forums use to pride themselves on saying “oh Vanilla was harder than BFA. I can handle the old way to play the game.”
Guess what. DHKs were the old way to play the game. You couldn’t just go around killing NPCs without consequences. Did it suck? Sure did. Did it hurt world PVP? Sure did. But it was a part of Vanilla.
You cannot tell the retail players and complain about them and glorify Vanilla World of Warcraft as this super hard thing and then change a part that made it hard.
Dishonorable kills made the game harder. You couldn’t just run around town killing everyone in sight. I mean sure you could. But you don’t want to.
I’d argue that removing DHKs makes the game easier, since you don’t need to hold back your swords on certain mobs.
1 Like
But damn are they going to try…
For horde it was always orc warriors, and they’d do this in Org AH
Was the ability to track mines and herbs at the same time ever present in vanilla? I honestly do not remember when that was added.
If that ability was ever present in vanilla, then it would be in keeping with vanilla if it were present in Classic.
If that ability was never present in vanilla, then it would be a non vanilla change.
The important fact that those in favor of DHK’s being included in Classic are ignoring is that vanilla also existed without those DHK’s.
DHK’s make the game more convenient, which is likely why so many retail players insist that they be part of Classic.
They hide behind “aythenticity”, but then throw out “authenticity” when that authenticity would inconvenience them.
In the case of DHK’s, at least one poster badically admitted that they were more concerned about not being inconvenienced by dead quest givers and quest turn in NPC’s or landing at a flight path and being caught up in PVP.
Would you be fine with DHKs existing in Classic at some point or do you want them flat out removed from the game?
Personally I’d be happy with them not being in CP2, and being added in CP3 then kept from then on.
I think that’d be fair.
I’m just upset at people calling for their flat out removal. That’s an extremely big change from World PVP. I mean you’re supposed to be able to flee into towns to escape ganking. With DHKs it makes the ganker really think about if they want to chase you.
I’m definitely amused at this argument. Firstly, you’ve said you have no opinion on the matter.
Now you’re insulting people by saying they’re “retail players”, and yes, we all know you mean it as an insult.
Authenticity is to have CP2 no DHKs, and CP3 DHKs from then on. No-one arguing for removal wants that.
Regarding DHK’s specifically, I neither argue for them nor against them.
I do recognize that it would be in keeping with vanilla either way.
I also recognize that the players with that retail convenience oriented and driven mindset will likely favor the convenience that DHK’s provide. This thread alone seems to provide ample evidence of that.
There are other things that changed during Vanilla about which I am far more concerned.
That same retail mindset drives many of the same posters that insist that they have the convenience provided by DHK’s to also insist that they also have the most convenient option with regards to other things that changed during Vanilla. They are concerned only with theurviwn convenience and care nothing firbthe damage that was done to the game when those changes were made in favor of convenience.
Not all changed were good. In fact, with tje benefit of hindsight, many of the changes made during Vanilla were detrimental, even if they initially seemed to be good changes.
I think this is where we differ.
People keep saying it would be Vanilla either way. But excluding DHKs wouldn’t be keeping with Vanilla.
Right now with content release phases, Blizzard seems to be trying to recreate 2004-2006. They’re trying to recreate the experience of new patches. They’ve done that by having a phase without DHKs and then phases with DHKS.
I think that’s more fair than say no DHKs in Classic. No DHKS wouldn’t be a fair representation of a full Classic experience.
I don’t want to log into World of Warcraft Classic, go through the phases and only exist in a portion of Vanilla. I don’t want MC and ONY to be the only raids in Vanilla. BWL existed and it didn’t exist. So they could choose to exclude it, but why? That’s not the full experience.
That’s what I want. The full experience from 1.1 to 1.12 to the best of Blizzard abilities.
Being a retail player has nothing to do with it. Convenience has nothing to do with it. If I’m going to experience the game I played in 2006, shouldn’t I experience all of it? Why would I want to exclude certain parts?
3 Likes
Yeah, I was wrong about the lowbies anyway. x.x
OMG a reasonable post from Fesz I agree with, I think I’m going to faint! Hell might be freezing over… (checks windows for flying pigs) ![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")
Was there a time when DHK’s did not exist In vanilla? YES, there was.
Just like there was a time when an earlier, less convenient version of AV existed.
Some people with that retail mindset, though, refuse to acknowledge that the less convenient option would still be in keeping with Vanilla.
IMO, i the end, it comes down to mindset.
Those with a retail, convenience oriented and driven mindset will almost choose convenience above all else, including the benefit of the game. They will try to find some way to justify their choice of convenience over community and what is best for the game as a whole. They don’t want to admit, even to themselves, that they have that retail mindset and are more concerned about their own convenience than what is best for the game as a whole.
Those with a Classic mindset, however, will generally prefer the version which favors community or actually required effort and in which success meant something.
1 Like
I think what you’re missing from all of my post is that in the end, just as the end of Vanilla, we’re going to be sitting in a 1.12 world.
In patch 1.12, DHKs existed. So DHKs shouldn’t exist for all of Classic. No of course not. But they should be included at some part of Classic. Which as of right now, appears to be the case.
1 Like