Why do people keep asking for changes?

[Fesz-cenarius]

The same people who complain about lack of community want sharding. The same people who say there’s no content want catch-up mechanics. The same people who say choice no longer matters want dual specs.

People don’t know what the Hell they want. And the things they ask for they’ll complain about when they get them. There’s a short-sightedness that, quite frankly, with the benefit of hindsight is a little baffling.

One thing i realized is that people want what they want (duh). It was never about Vanilla as it was. It was about Vanilla as they want it to be.

And this goes not only for those wanting class balance and other stuff.

This goes to those that want nothing but an official private server to play on. How do you think people will react if Blizzard made MC a 2-3 hour grind? Or scholo/strath taking 2-3 hours? It won’t go over well at all.

No, few people wanted the actual Vanilla experience. And this includes the “no changers”.

To a certain extent you would probably be correct.

Every one of us has their own “dream” version of classic. In that sense, it is very unlikely that any two people wanted the exact same version of classic.

Most of the no changers, though, only wanted elements that were actually present during vanilla, even if all those elements were not all present at the same time in vanilla. That is a far cry from asking for guild banks, class balance changes, “finishing uncompleted quest chains”, adding “content that was supposed to be in vanilla” to classic, etc.

Most of those no changers would love to see MC be a 2-3 hour raid, and scholo/strat taking 2-3 hours.

It is those with that instant (figure of speech, not literally “instant”) gratification, convenience oriented mindset that is so common among retail players that would have a problem with MC or scholo/strat taking that long.

I didn’t start thinking that no changers were split into 2 camps until 1.12 as a base was announced. Or any sort of re-tuning suggestion.

I know there are some that would welcome a re-tune, etc etc. But there are plenty of others that want a flat 1.12 private server experience where they don’t want to experience Vanilla as a whole, but to sew their oats and beat Naxx and not care about the rest of the game.

To the best of my knowledge, the true no changers have always been open to a Frankenpatch, provided all the elements of that Frankenpatch were present in vanilla.

Since 1.12 as a foundation was announced, we have seen many pro changers and trolls try to misrepresent the no change philosophy and/or claim that anything other than a strict 1.12 (excluding those things outside of 1.12 that they want, of course) is “a change” in an attempt to justify pushing for their desired no vanilla changes.

[Xanthak-durotan (Xanthak)]

Either way, here’s to hoping for the best.

[Mddsteve-crushridge (Mddsteve)]

To the best of my knowledge, the true no changers have always been open to a Frankenpatch, provided all the elements of that Frankenpatch were present in vanilla.

Since 1.12 as a foundation was announced, we have seen many pro changers and trolls try to misrepresent the no change philosophy and/or claim that anything other than a strict 1.12 (excluding those things outside of 1.12 that they want, of course) is “a change” in an attempt to justify pushing for their desired no vanilla changes.

It would be foolish for them to use this to justify future changes, but it’s pure gold in exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the no-changers who request ‘changes’.

They disagree with you, hence why you refuse to acknowledge that they have a valid point. They deserve that inch, but you can’t see past the fear of the mile.

[Fesz-cenarius]

To the best of my knowledge, the true no changers have always been open to a Frankenpatch, provided all the elements of that Frankenpatch were present in vanilla.

Since 1.12 as a foundation was announced, we have seen many pro changers and trolls try to misrepresent the no change philosophy and/or claim that anything other than a strict 1.12 (excluding those things outside of 1.12 that they want, of course) is “a change” in an attempt to justify pushing for their desired no vanilla changes.

It would be foolish for them to use this to justify future changes, but it’s pure gold in exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the no-changers who request ‘changes’.

They disagree with you, hence why you refuse to acknowledge that they have a valid point. They deserve that inch, but you can’t see past the fear of the mile.

And here we have a perfect example of my point that pro changers will use a “frankenpatch” as justification for their desired non vanilla QOL convenience changes.

They refuse to acknowledge the difference between a “frankenpatch” which only contains vanilla elements and adding any number of QOL conveniences which were NEVER part of vanilla.

[Mddsteve-crushridge (Mddsteve)]

And here we have a perfect example of my point that pro changers will use a “frankenpatch” as justification for their desired non vanilla QOL convenience changes.

They refuse to acknowledge the difference between a “frankenpatch” which only contains vanilla elements and adding any number of QOL conveniences which were NEVER part of vanilla.

Didn’t I just say that it would be foolish to use that argument to justify changes? Yeah, pretty sure I just said that.

There is a difference between a ‘frankenpatch’ and a ‘QoL patch’, but you refuse to admit that your movement, #noChanges, is read literally to mean zero changes. That means a pure 1.12 experience, no franken’s allowed. Since you’re not interested in that, you’re not really a no-changer, you’re a ‘what I want’-changer. As is everyone else.

[Iridium-earthen-ring (Iridium)]

Because these people dont want classic wow. They never did. They were the ones saying “Vanilla is awful, you guys arent getting it, but if you did you would hate it because of the lack of balance and QOL stuff”.

Now we got classic anyway, and these people are sort of upset that time and energy is being spent on something they dont WANT. So they do the next best thing:

Try to change classic into the type of game they would want to play.

At the end of the day, these people just cant stand that something is being developed that doesn’t specifically target them. Thats why the “Its not for you” from the mod on this forum riles them up so badly. They KNOW thats true and it just breaks their hearts.

EXACTLY this!

[Fesz-cenarius]

And here we have a perfect example of my point that pro changers will use a “frankenpatch” as justification for their desired non vanilla QOL convenience changes.

They refuse to acknowledge the difference between a “frankenpatch” which only contains vanilla elements and adding any number of QOL conveniences which were NEVER part of vanilla.

Didn’t I just say that it would be foolish to use that argument to justify changes? Yeah, pretty sure I just said that.

There is a difference between a ‘frankenpatch’ and a ‘QoL patch’, but you refuse to admit that your movement, #noChanges, is read literally to mean zero changes. That means a pure 1.12 experience, no franken’s allowed. Since you’re not interested in that, you’re not really a no-changer, you’re a ‘what I want’-changer. As is everyone else.

No. That would be trolls intentionally misrepresenting the “no change” stance.

The no change stance has always been no changes outside of the vanilla timeline, with the exceptions of actual bug and exploit fixes, color blind access and BNET integration. The no change stance does not include loot trading or sharding, which is why there are so many threads opposing those non vanilla changes, even if it is likely that Blizzard will corrupt classic by adding them.

[Chuckymanson-aggramar]

“you think you do, but you don’t” is true for alot of people…

[Mddsteve-crushridge (Mddsteve)]

No. That would be trolls intentionally misrepresenting the “no change” stance.

The no change stance has always been no changes outside of the vanilla timeline, with the exceptions of actual bug and exploit fixes, color blind access and BNET integration. The no change stance does not include loot trading or sharding, which is why there are so many threads opposing those non vanilla changes, even if it is likely that Blizzard will corrupt classic by adding them.

How can you say the ‘no change’ stance means anything but no changes? You’re rewriting the definition of some extremely clear words.

[Jklockedout-proudmoore (Jklockedout)]

How can you say the ‘no change’ stance means anything but no changes? You’re rewriting the definition of some extremely clear words.

Because it wouldn’t be a 200 post thread if it didn’t devolve into arguments about semantics.

[Gnarbone-hyjal (Gnarbone)]

Because most gamers and MMO players are liberals…and liberals always want change(ask Obama)…even the good stuff needs to be changed. That is my uneducated theory

[Chuckymanson-aggramar]

I don’t care for the people you speak of, but damn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isCh4kCeNYU

[Fesz-cenarius]

No. That would be trolls intentionally misrepresenting the “no change” stance.

The no change stance has always been no changes outside of the vanilla timeline, with the exceptions of actual bug and exploit fixes, color blind access and BNET integration. The no change stance does not include loot trading or sharding, which is why there are so many threads opposing those non vanilla changes, even if it is likely that Blizzard will corrupt classic by adding them.

How can you say the ‘no change’ stance means anything but no changes? You’re rewriting the definition of some extremely clear words.

That has been the no change stance for over a year and that has been stated numerous times on these forums.

You do you, though, and continue to intentionally misrepresent the no change position in a feeble attempt to justify your desired non vanilla QOL changes.

[Xecks-stormrage (Xecks)]

people making up things about a position that has been stated to mean something different than what they profess to know all about.

funny.

[Sabetha-turalyon (Sabetha)]

How can you say the ‘no change’ stance means anything but no changes? You’re rewriting the definition of some extremely clear words.

Because no changes has always meant what Fesz is telling you it meant.

It’s you who are attempting to undermine the position by arguing the semantics and claiming we’re not part of that stance because we aren’t adhering to the literal definition of the phrase.

It’s a shortened and easier way of saying “no changes to the gameplay that was outside the scope of the original Vanilla timeline”.

I’m not going to type that out every time just because you want to pretend like you don’t understand that’s what it means and try to tell us our stance means what you want it to mean rather than what we’ve always defined it as.

[Xanthak-durotan (Xanthak)]

How can you say the ‘no change’ stance means anything but no changes? You’re rewriting the definition of some extremely clear words.

Because no changes has always meant what Fesz is telling you it meant.

It’s you who are attempting to undermine the position by arguing the semantics and claiming we’re not part of that stance because we aren’t adhering to the literal definition of the phrase.

It’s a shortened and easier way of saying “no changes to the gameplay that was outside the scope of the original Vanilla timeline”.

I’m not going to type that out every time just because you want to pretend like you don’t understand that’s what it means and try to tell us our stance means what you want it to mean rather than what we’ve always defined it as.

I don’t know if people are really that daft where they don’t get it due to semantics. They gotta be trolling to some degree.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

How can you say the ‘no change’ stance means anything but no changes? You’re rewriting the definition of some extremely clear words.

Because no changes has always meant what Fesz is telling you it meant.

It’s you who are attempting to undermine the position by arguing the semantics and claiming we’re not part of that stance because we aren’t adhering to the literal definition of the phrase.

It’s a shortened and easier way of saying “no changes to the gameplay that was outside the scope of the original Vanilla timeline”.

I’m not going to type that out every time just because you want to pretend like you don’t understand that’s what it means and try to tell us our stance means what you want it to mean rather than what we’ve always defined it as.

I don’t know if people are really that daft where they don’t get it due to semantics. They gotta be trolling to some degree.

There are a number of people who claimed they wanted a vanilla version as is. Then suddenly when 1.12 was announced they wanted changes to a vanilla version.

[Xecks-stormrage (Xecks)]

There are a number of people who claimed they wanted a vanilla version as is. Then suddenly when 1.12 was announced they wanted changes to a vanilla version.

wrong. i made the post you responded to stating exactly what no changes meant.

i believe one of the posts i named “changes that even purists find acceptable”, which you responded to.

you know full well what it means.

[Ziryus-doomhammer (Ziryus)]

There are a number of people who claimed they wanted a vanilla version as is. Then suddenly when 1.12 was announced they wanted changes to a vanilla version.

wrong. i made the post you responded to stating exactly what no changes meant.

i believe one of the posts i named “changes that even purists find acceptable”, which you responded to.

you know full well what it means.

It means there is no such thing as no change. Yet suddenly a lot of people who just spammed #nochange suddenly were accepting of change but only the changes they want.

[Xecks-stormrage (Xecks)]

It means there is no such thing as no change. Yet suddenly a lot of people who just spammed #nochange suddenly were accepting of change but only the changes they want.

lol its never meant no change totally.

just no changes outside of what happened in vanilla.

you know this well.

you just blindly dont accept it cause youre too focused on changes outside of that timeframe.