The boost is definitely a compromise. That’s why they had to limit you to one per account, to at least try and mitigate its damage.
Oh lord… bless your heart…
Who is to say it’s all new players? I never said new players. Your argument isn’t that new players shouldn’t get the boost you are arguing that the boost shouldn’t exist at all… This would include new and old players alike. Also, gold buying so they might have 3K gold. You don’t know them. So this comment means literally nothing…
Fair… you didn’t outright say “mage boosts are good”… you just said they’re acceptable… you basically say you don’t care about them because at least you are using in-game currency, regardless of how you got that currency…
You really tell people to “read my posts” a lot without understanding the context that people reply in. The paragraph you are referring to mentions a counter to your “well these retail people are all coming in and wanting the boost because they’re bad, and they wont know how to play the game!” A lot is similar between the classes and this just tells me you never played any class in current or previous iterations of retail.
People still need to level and for some reason you are not acknowledging this. There is still 12 levels. And for most classes, their features don’t even start until much later in their leveling process. Shamans don’t even get all their totems until level 30 (for the 4 totem items) and some totems not until their 40s. And come TBC, Paladins don’t get all of their seals until their 60s with the introduction of the new ones. Same with all the other classes. Explain to me, how someone who leveled from 1-60 would know MORE about how their class works than someone who leveled 58-70? Did they not still do quests and have to kill things? Is it that they don’t do dungeons? Who is to say they don’t do dungeons? Who is to say if they leveled from 1-70 without a boost they did dungeons then? You base a lot on assumptions that you tote as facts but they are nothing more then conjecture.
This has nothing to do with retail. I am referring to my point above of certain specs don’t really “exist” in their TBC proper form until 70. With the need for talents, and abilities that aren’t learned until later. So if you, Leonethas, are a level 58 mage right now… and I, isharya, boost a mage to 58. And we both want to go Arcane which uses a spell that isn’t learned until like 62 that is the base of that spec’s toolkit. How are YOU, Leonethas, better prepared then I, Isharya with the boost, better prepared? This also comes from classic class design where the mage’s spec is Frostbolt for 3 Phases and Scorch for 3 Phases… These aren’t astronomically difficult concepts for people that require a PhD.
Somehow changes blizz made 13 years ago has to do with the temperature outside? You lost me here… But when i said they made changes that de-value your “legacy”, or however you wish to phrase it, you basically replied with blizz should undo that. So you don’t even want TBC you want Classic… which isn’t getting boosts in the first place.
First of all, literally everyone one of your arguments against boosts are based on heresay, guesses, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, and repeating the quotes of other people. You claimed in another post of yours that there is no evidence that a boost retains players. You also don’t have evidence to the contrary because that evidence does not exist outside of Blizzard HQ. You HAVE no evidence as why these are bad. You have what you THINK might happen and how you FEEL about it. So then to say that i am talking about observations you are holding a double standard because you know your arguments don’t hold up.
The entire last Classic Cast podcast as about this topic, but here is a written form for you: Quest item deletion and restoration. : classicwow (reddit.com)
The exploit is that you can item restore quest items that are removed when you abandon the quest and they go into your mailbox. So then you just pick up the quest, grab the items from your mailbox, then turn the quests in. Instant XP. Many of the hardcore guilds are prepping to power level via this method.
You literally have a bullet point against boosting that says “but what about all the work i did! this de-legitimizes it!” And i am clearly bringing up a point that you weren’t aware of that you disagree with. So i fully expect to see a lengthy post about this from you in the next half hour or so since this is bad and shouldn’t be happening…
Yes logic 10/10. You are claiming that boosts are bad because of X Y Z… but X Y Z A B and C are already possible and will do far more damage… so you want to take away anyone who wants to legitimately use the boost to play with friends, family, etc. because of some perceived notions but are completely ignoring all of the other facts that could do far worse than anything a boost can.
See and herein lies the problem. You are completely closed off to any facts or logic provided to you by the majority of comments in this thread. In your mind, you are right and it doesn’t matter. You think the (to use your own random example against you) temperature outside is 20 degrees… but even though the weather channel, thermometers, and people outside in shorts and a T-shirt tell you it’s actually 80 degrees out, you think it’s 20 degrees because that is the temperature you set your room to so how can anything else be since in your reality it’s 20 degrees.
don’t patronize me
The point is that the boost appeals to a different audience than mage boosts do due to the difference in currency to buy them. It won’t ALL be new players but a large bulk of them will be for sure.
Blizzard’s reasoning for the boost is that people who quit before 60 in classic or new players / players who didn’t play classic wow can catch up to everyone else and hop right into the action. So if I can counter the reasons why it isn’t good for new players, or explain that it won’t maintain new players, then blizzard’s own justification for the boost is void and therefore, the boost as a whole is not justified by blizzard’s own logic.
no, I said they are MORE acceptable.
No, I did not say that
this is a fact
no, not regardless. If you botted for that gold or bought that gold, you should be banned. Blizzard not enforcing their ToS is a whole separate problem.
This is a mischaracterisation of my original argument. They don’t want the boost because they are bad, they want the boost because they can’t be bothered and just want too see the new shiny content then bounce. My point is that, naturally, people who are inexperienced in something will not be as good as someone who is experienced and this applies on a spectrum. Someone who has only levelled to 60 is going to be worse than someone who has raided naxx at 60 but someone who has boosted to 60 (assuming it is their first char in classic ever) is going to be worse than the person who levelled themselves.
Actually it is due to my long time playing retail that I know that the classes play very VERY differently. I play warrior in retail and classic.
but the vast majority of your spells come from those previous 58 levels. The reason classic levelling is actually pretty decent at helping a new player come to grips with the game is because not only does it take a while for a solo player to hit cap which means they have a lot of time to practice but also because it spoon feeds the player their spells. A boost does not do this because the game was not designed around there being a level boost.
last time I checked, level 30 was not level 58.
Well that’s modern blizz’ fault not 2007 blizzard’s. And besides, that’s ONE spell vs the entire rest of your toolkit. Again, without prior knowledge or looking at external sources, how are you supposed to figure out which buttons are useless and which ones are useful?
Let me phrase it like this instead. How would someone who has levelled 1-70 know how to play MORE than someone who levelled 58-70? The simple answer is: because it takes more time (more time to adjust to the game) and the spells are given to you bit by bit.
yes but less of them.
Due to dungeons being optional, this will vary depending on type of player and time that they played at. If you played at launch you could do a lot of dungeons but if you played near end of game version then you probably didn’t do many.
whatever you say pal. He says she says at this rate. You say it’s conjecture, I don’t think it is. There’s nothing to say beyond that.
Because although we both haven’t received that talent yet, we have received all the spells from levels prior which I (the non-boosted player) have ‘grown up’ with so to speak whereas you’ve just had them thrown upon you. I mean you act like I’m making this up but it was precedented in retail. Just go back and look when retail released boosts, there was well documented struggles in automated content like LFR where people COULD NOT figure out how to play their characters because they hadn’t even begun to learn the basic mechanics of the game yet.
How would you know that without having pre-existing knowledge and/or doing research?
The point of the comparison was this. You might not mind or even like a certain thing to a certain extent but too much of it can be bad or too far for you. So for me, blizz’ diminishing previous accomplishments by reducing xp needed for 60 and so on back in actual tbc was ok because it was to a smaller extent than the boost does. However, I’m no longer ok with blizzard diminishing my efforts to the extent that the boost does. Just like the weather, I might like sunbathing in 30 degree heat but it becomes unbearable for me at 50 let’s say.
No I didn’t actually. Now since I’m pro #somechanges, I wouldn’t be opposed to it but it’s not something that I’d be overly concerned about either way.
My post was wholly original when it came out. It started on the EU forums then I reposted it here. So get your facts right. Secondly, my arguments are not hearsay, guesses, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. In fact, I often have to criticise others for using anecdotes because I always say that they don’t make good arguments. I simply don’t think you understand the definitions of the words you’re using but using them regardless to try and sound intelligent to a greater extent.
When someone makes a claim, the burden of evidence is on them not on the person refuting said claim. That’s basic rules of debate.
We have what happened to the original game and we can also make logical arguments. For example, in the real world, I don’t need to crash my car into a brick wall at 120 mph to know that I’ll probably die and my car will be smashed into smithereens but using your logic, I won’t technically know that it will break until I’ve seen it play out. The problem is, much like dying, the boost can’t be reverted once it happens so it’s best to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Again, same as last paragraph of yours, you ended it with petty ‘no u’ and surface level claims that my points don’t hold up despite the fact that they do. There’s nothing more to add here.
Honestly I’d have to look further into it to truly understand what you mean since your explanation doesn’t quite make sense to me but it’s irrelevant. If it’s an exploit and wasn’t an intended part of classic and will create a meta that drives us away from the game experience we had back in 2007 then it should be patched out / against ToS. We aren’t in disagreement here I think.
my argument isn’t a what aboutism because it isn’t in direct response to any other individual’s argument. A what aboutism is if someone proposes one problem and you counter it by saying ‘but what about this completely separate thing’. Just using the phrase ‘what about this’ doesn’t make your argument a what aboutism.
but that’s assuming that XYZ and XYZABC can’t be fixed simultaneously and you either have to fix XYZ or XYZABC. It isn’t a choice to me. Both are bad and both need removing. The difference is that if the boost isn’t removed before pre-patch, then it never can be which is why it’s the priority rn.
What you mean to say is that I haven’t conformed to your way of thinking because people have disagreed with me which means that I’m unreasonable in your eyes. Basically, you’re trying to imply that I’m arrogant and dumb for thinking what I think and you are intelligent and open minded for thinking what you think.
just using temperature like I did doesn’t make it anything like my example because the context of the comparison is completely different.
Okay… so then do that. You haven’t proven in any way that blizzard’s reasoning for letting people return and jump in on the action is flawed. You are arguing that there are negatives along with the positives, but you refuse to acknowledge any positives thus you are not arguing the point you are trying to make.
No where in any of the posts you made, do you say this. You said, in the direct quote i gave you that you accept them. More or less is still acceptance. I might like a certain food more or less than another, that doesn’t mean i hate the ones i like less. So by accepting it at all at any level means you accept it. So you need to rephrase what you are saying and stop double backing and “well what i meant to say”.
Sure there are no warrior stances, sure there are some new abilities. But we aren’t talking in this example of people who have never played wow before, we are talking about people who have played their classes and know them from retail. If people figured out back in the day by reading tooltips that stances existed, they can do that again in the 12 levels it takes to level.
Many people who played in classic will still need to relearn their class in the prepatch. many specs have changed. For example, paladins have Crusader Strike in their rotations in TBC but not in Classic. So i wouldn’t say that level 1-58 in classic is strictly better as a tutorial for your class than 58-70 in TBC.
You know the exact point i was making and chose to select half of the point out of context to try and look better. Not working, sorry.
Im sorry… but what? are you saying that it is modern’s blizzard’s fault… the people who made shadowlands… it’s their fault that in 2007 blizzard added new spells from 60-70 that aren’t available before 60? Someone call the avengers we got ourselves another time heist…
So i need more “go kill 20 of X” and “go loot 10 Y” quests to know how to use my spells? It’s not like retail in that 58-70 is going to be 5 hours. From what ive seen around here, people are guessing that the “speed levelers” will take 40-50 hours, and more in the 80-100 hours for casual players. And if you are “bad from the boost” you wont be in the 40 hour range. So you are telling me that 80-100 hours (assuming the sentiment of the forums and reddit are to be believed) isn’t enough time to know how your spells work? Even though 1-58 in classic takes less time than that?
We aren’t talking about what i know in classic… we are talking about what new players can read offline or watch in a youtube video for TBC…
Where is your hard and fast evidence… where is your links to numbers and facts? You come here with claims that what blizzard says to be true is not true even though they are the holders of the facts and data. But you have nothing to back that up other than… well… exactly what i just said…
Enough said… i provided you with data and counter points. you have not… You can say all you want about how the game makes you feel, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. You made points, i (and many others above me) have provided counter points. You are yet to provide evidence. If you are making a claim you have to back it up, and as the dissenter, the onus is on you to provide why. And to quote you again
So again i ask… where is your evidence… you made a claim that there is no evidence that a boost retains players… you still haven’t shown me that data but then try to say i should show you data that contradicts your beliefs? That’s not how this works.
Okay. Then where is the data that shows that people used boosts in MoP then left? There are fewer players, yes. But that doesn’t mean that was due to boosts. That is an assumption on your part and not actual data. You are manipulating point A to prove point B when point A and B have no direct correlation.
Well this is why i provided you reference material. Something that has not been provided by you.
This is true if you said “boosts are bad” and i said “yeah well this other exploit is worse!” i provided you a laundry list of reasons why i disagree with you. You choose not to agree with those points but that doesn’t mean i didn’t make them. I then, in addition, pointed to other issues. You can’t just say “that’s what aboutism” without properly understanding it.
If the other exploit i mentioned isn’t removed before launch, it’ll be too late and the economy will be in the state you are dreading that boosting will cause. Then you will falsely claim that it is in that state solely due to boosting trying to prove a point. However, it would be a false equivalency because there were other factors you weren’t aware of. But by bringing this to your attention, you simply choose (twice now) to ignore that and instead simply reject the comment as “what aboutism” and move on with your day.
What i mean to say is that you haven’t acknowledged any points that are counter to yours as having any weight or merit in being true. In all of my responses i take your exact quotes and tell you why i disagree with them. You simply shrug off any response as it doesn’t fit your dialog and then claim those individuals don’t know what they’re talking about.
This is how analogies work. I simply used your bizarre random example of temperature to make a different analogy.
My biggest issue with the 100 other threads made on this topic (aside from people keep making threads instead of contributing to what is already there because they feel that what they have to say is unique and deserving of being its own thread) is that none of them provide actual evidence. They are all about what they think will happen, or about what someone else thinks will happen. And in many places ignore facts when provided back to them.
I don’t normally like double posting but i was thinking about this just now and had to bring it up
So let’s fully commit to this example then. If the speed you are going is the boost… and you dying from the crash is all the negative you think will come of it… then by logic the car manufacturer is Blizzard… and since Blizzard makes a retail version and in the past made an older “vanilla” version then the car manufacturer makes the current car and older versions of the car… we know from factual historical data that the older cars couldn’t go 120 mph due to limitations in technology.
So You think that the car manufacturer should limit how fast a car can go, because there is a potential that someone could crash at a high speed and total the car / die.
If blizzard should go back to their old ways of thinking, then car manufactures should go back to making slower cars.
This is basic A = B and B = C so A = C logic.
so following your example of outlandish jumping to conclusions, you are against cars going above a certain speed and think they should limit it to something that wont allow you to potentially get hurt… say… 5 mph?
1 Like
sigh… I have…
Blizzard hasn’t given made any arguments as to whether the boost will actually increase classic tbc’s population beyond a month (maybe 2). They’ve just said that their reasoning for the boost is that it allow people to catch up. I’m arguing that 1. Bringing more players does not always = good and 2. That the perceived player population increased may actually just be a spike of tourists who then leave shortly after which doesn’t do long term players much good at all.
I’ve acknowledged what people call the positives but then making my case as to 1. why I don’t think that they hold up 2. That there are more negatives than positives or that the negatives are more substantial than the positives.
Using the word acceptable in the way I did in the OP, it’d be like this. Drinking pss is more acceptable than eating sht. Both such but one is better than the other.
Says who? You?
I don’t need to double back because I said what I meant to say as I said it the first time.
You were, I wasn’t. I didn’t actually know what your retail point was.
but guess what? They didn’t learn what stances were at level 60 back then. They learnt it as they were levelling AND whilst at max level AND whilst having played at max level throughout vanilla.
Again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what my point is. Crusader strike is ONE BUTTON. When you boost, you don’t have 1 button, you have ALL YOUR BUTTONS (almost).
The spoon!!!
It works for me
you were referring the new cross-faction seals that paladins get at 70. The seals that paladins actually got back in 2007 were unlocked at level 62, not 70.
more time = more practice
precisely
btw funny that you bring this up since it kind of counters pretty much EVERY OTHER DEFENSE I’ve seen for the boost from I don’t have enough time to classic levelling takes too long…
so you’d have to have pre-existing knowledge / do some research on external sources, like exactly what I was saying a game shouldn’t be designed around a new player doing?
I don’t think you actually know what they’ve said. They haven’t made any empirical claims, they’ve just said that their intent with the boost is to let new players catch up to everyone else. That’s not evidence.
WHAT DATA??? you’re actually in fantasy land…
no the claim is that it does retain players. That is being used as a merit of the boost so I am asking where is the evidence that it does retain players as that is what it is being sold on, that it will bring players to TBC.
It’s not the claim that I made. If you want a video that talks about what I actually claimed, then look no further than the preach gaming MoP LFR video.
Wasn’t the claim I made
you’re just going off on a fantasy tangent now with an invisible person, not me clearly.
… mate, I dunno what to tell ya. You haven’t done sh*t
these 2 things are not mutually exclusive. You can make what aboutisms whilst making a list of arguments against my points. In fact, I’m directly accusing of making some of your arguments out of what aboutisms.
I can because it was and all any1 has to do is scroll up and read it.
I’ve not been in disagreement about this exploit at all. From what you say, it seems bad and it needs removing asap. But why are these 2 issues mutually exclusive in your mind? This whole exploit thing is the what aboutism I’ve been talking about.
But I haven’t done that, you’re assuming I will do that. That’s no grounds for an argument.
By refuting them I must acknowledge them. By debating you right now I’m acknowledging what you’re saying and then responding with what I see as the short comings in your arguments. That’s how debates work.
No it isn’t…
My thread was one of the first across EU and US, the US thread just came a bit later.
62 is still past 60… because math…
cries i know your quote doesn’t include my quote but you literally just agreed with my point that there will be countless hours spent learning from 58-70 and players will have ample time to play with their class…
This is all im going to comment since you just admitted that by taking things out of context, by limiting the scope of the argument you win by default. So there is no having a debate with you. You don’t want to actually debate this. You want to tell people what to think and your way or the highway…
No, the video really isn’t “good.” At best, I call it speculative. I found a lot of his “points” to be either reductive or circular. I did agree that issues like gold-buying and dungeon-boosting need to be addressed, as both are violations of the ToS. I don’t see the level boost from Blizzard as a way to circumvent those behaviors, however. The gold-buying and dungeon-boosting does demonstrate that there are enough members of the community who would rather pay to get to max level (or closer to it) than go through the work. It’s basic marketing, and not unprecedented.
:mind_blown:
1 Like
Any amount of new players into the game is good for it. No game dev says ‘nah we don’t need more players’. What is wrong with tourists? EVERY game has tourists. I play games all the time for 10 minutes and then uninstall. Not every game is for everyone, and there’s nothing wrong with that, nor does it hurt the long term players even a little.
3 Likes
There is one exception. More players are good if they are players that actually want the experience that is being provided. Fooling players that aren’t the demographic of that game type into playing under the illusion of a more convenient experience only for them to be shocked by the inconvenience of the rest of the game is only going to create conflict and toxicity within a community where this new sub group of players demand that the rest of the game match the experience they thought they were going to get whilst the pre-existing player base obviously wants the game to remain as it is (that’s presumably why they have been playing it so far). The reason this is bad is because the devs are basically left in a no-win situation where either they cater to this new demographic of players and alienate their pre-existing audience or they cater to their pre-existing audience and alienate the new demographic.
The second part of this ‘any amount of new players into the game is good for it’ is more unique to wow. Due to server population caps, layering and laggy servers, too many players can actually worsen the experience for every player overall both in the short term and in the long term. The more players you have in HFP at launch, the more layers you are going to need. This means more duplicates of resources and therefore, gold. When the layers are collapsed / reduced after the hype phase, the remaining players are still left with economical impacts of layering. Now whether the boost is in or not, this will be a problem, but due to the fact that the boost will put even more players in outland at launch, it will undoubtedly create more layers which means more of a problem. As for servers, due to each server only being able to hold a certain amount of players, if the boost brings in too many new players (that are tourists), then blizz will be forced to create more realms that, after the hype phase is over and the tourists leave, will die due to lack of players. And finally for lag, no1 likes playing on laggy servers. Blizzard’s servers sucks so to a certain extent, too many players makes playing the game unfun because lag is unfun. It’s kind of that simple.
You’re right, no DEV says that, but we aren’t the devs. We should be arguing about what is best for us. Devs want more players for a few reasons. 1. because they have a financial incentive. The game needs to successful in order for them to get paid / have a job and 2. for pride reasons. If you develop a game, just like a painter, you want every1 to see your art and give it the acknowledgement you feel it deserves. But neither of those actually have to do with the quality of the game necessarily.
The reasons I just mentioned.
yeah but no reason to bring in more of them (from the player’s perspective)
Funny you say that cus I tried using that as an argument against the boost and people called me elitist…
New players are always good
1 Like
you aren’t even trying. Stop, I pity you
You think new players is bad? I pity you.
Suppose more I’ll play with them and you can roll solo on your high horse.
At least I attempted to explain my point of view. You don’t even try. You just bait and troll. Replies from you I’m choosing to ignore from now on. I don’t even mind if you have the last word. Trying to have that last word up on you would only be wasting my time further.
Is there really a debate? More people is better always. More people to level through the outlands, do dungeons with, do BGs with, do arenas with, grind reps with, raid with.
But i get it, you are above them. Please do ignore me. I like them must be beneath someone of your mighty stature
Been fun watching you make things up and grasp at straws just to make no valid points though
1 Like
What the hell did i just read? Absolutely NONE of this has literally anything to do with anything. Firstly, the demographic for wow are nerds who are into MMO’s. Most of us have played WoW in one form or another and know what to expect, and what an unrealistic expectation is. Blizzard isn’t going to cater to 1% of players that are asking for LFG/LFR, one reason is because no, the second is because Blizzard doesn’t care.
I’d say that most people that aren’t into art, aren’t going to go to an art museum. Sure, I may appreciate a piece here and there, but generally don’t go looking for it. Same goes for your ‘tourists’. Let’em come and look, maybe they’ll stay, maybe they won’t. Doesn’t matter, its good for the game and doesn’t hinder anyone.
2 Likes
How specific.
What an over simplification of gaming demographics. Firstly there’s the divide amongst platforms. Then there’s divide across view on microtransactions. Then there’s the divide across convenience vs inconvenience. There’s a divide on difficulty vs ease. And so on and so on. All these factors create different demographics of players.
What makes you believe that LFD/LFR andies are 1% and boosters are above 50%? I’m sure you don’t have numbers and I’m not convinced by observational evidence. I’d wager your willingness to believe this is predicated upon what features you personally like vs the ones you don’t.
Now what does THIS have to do with the original point. I was talking about why DEVS want people not why someone would want to play. Your dissection of my art example is from the perspective of the museum visitor and not the museum owner or the artist who’s art is in the museum.
I watched this whole YouTube vid, he goes over everything that has made the game negative over the years.
I support no boosts this is classic TBC no one wants to see it slowly but surely turn into retail.
So great to hear from a player that has played since 2005.
2 Likes
None of this matters. I haven’t seen a single person ask for boosts, or a forum post asking for it pre-announcement. The boost was 100% a blizzard decision without player suggestion. The argument that the ‘andies’ asking for more retail features and blizzard caving to them is irrelevant.
Not sure what you’re saying here. Gaming demographics are more simple than you’re implying. Are you into MMO’s? Yes/No. If you’re considering a boost a microtransaction, I’d suggest you reconsider. Don’t forget, we already have paid server transfers. Its a transaction, but its not a micro transaction. It has a cooldown, thus giving it restrictions. Same with the boost, I doubt the price will be low, and its once per account, giving it even more restrictions than the paid server transfer, which we’ve had for a while.