You’re talking about items; I’m talking about tools/features.
Ah, but we’re not. They’re releasing content based on a schedule from 14 years ago. However, with Dual Spec coming in with Patch 3.2 initially, they’ve screwed up the argument that “RDF wasn’t in until 3.3 - it wasn’t in at launch!”
How can any of us know? With so much different than the first wrath can anyone actually prove that some dragon didn’t get drunk with the timestone and we got wibbly wobbly timey wimeyed?
I did not have enough coffee yet.
Um and ICC dungeons and raids - that’s absurd. Clearly the feature and content release schedule is not being based on the patch … I think such a contention is more than a little disenguenious.
Thing is they set the patch late for class balance reasons - not content and feature reasons.
While I personally have no issue with an early release of the RDF - it would be early if released now. You can’t seriously argue that the game is more inauthentic at this point due to not having it. I mean when we were all doing Nax originally there was no RFD simple as that.
Oh its obvious because the interweebs professional forum lawyer says so. Well glad i pay you to be my lawyer. Oh wait, i don’t. Oh well, guess I’ll keep doing me and not worry about it since and if i need legal advice I’ll call an actual legal advisor since, “oh your honor, some guy on the World of Warcraft Forums gives me my legal advice.” Doesn’t pan out so well.
Content and tools are two COMPLETELY different things.
Again, as I’ve said before, by them releasing Dual Spec, Queue-able BGs, etc., before they were originally, the whole argument of “RDF wasn’t in yet!” goes out the window. Common sense, not context.
The game, as a whole, is 100% inauthentic. Zeroing in on RDF as a cause for this since it’s not in yet is valid:
The current changes destroy ANY argument based on authenticity.
That’s not necessarily true - that depends when you started AND your progression.
Edit - I’m gonna continue on with this
Call to Arms - Patch 3.3.3
BG Exp - Patch 3.2
Queue-able BG - Patch 3.1
Class balance - Patch 3.3.5
It’s obvious because of the several paragraphs long post with reasoning you chose to totally ignore because you couldn’t come up with a single rational counter argument to refute them. What you demonstrated with that post is you lack the intellect and education to engage in serious debate but your ego was so fragile you had to respond in some way
It’s a feature. It’s not a bug fix or a class balance adjustment.
RDF? It’s not a feature; it’s a tool.
That sounds like you’re trying to save face while losing a debate. When some individual started is not relevant to the argument. No, this isn’t an authentic wotlk progression server, but yes its as close to wotlk many of us need as we’re the one’s enjoying it. If your personal opinion is that it needs rdf to feel complete, then stop trying to win a battle with semantics. Just stick to your fond memories as that’s not something we can take from you. As far as rdf goes, you’ll just have to wait it out and see.
Simple counter argument, responsibility falls on the server host, not on the individual. Have a nice day.
It’s a feature and a tool and your effort to push a distinction is disingenuous.
Ya like M+ is coming with uldir . I do not remember M+ in WOTLK
A feature would be the barbershop. RDF is a tool. Hence why people say, “LFG TOOL” - LFG and RDF are both tools, not features.
Then, please, please, explain to me why we already have these:
Call to Arms - Patch 3.3.3
BG Exp - Patch 3.2
Queue-able BG - Patch 3.1
Class balance - Patch 3.3.5
When they were not in originally.
OH! And another thing I JUST noticed is that the skip in CoS (Talking to Chromie to skip the RP stuff) didn’t come in until 3.3.3 originally, but it’s in there right now.
The four additional bag slots we get for adding an authenticator to our account? Yeah, that started in Patch 7.3.5. Yet, it’s in Classic.
That’s not a counter argument. It’s a reassertion of your previous argument that I’ve already addressed. Though it’s common for the uneducated to simply repeat the same argument over and over again when they can’t come up with a rational response that’s not a counter argument. A counter argument directly addresses an argument with rational reasons the argument is flawed.
Give one example of Blizzard going after the players and not the host and I’ll concede my argument.
Again you’re just repeating the same argument that I’ve already addressed with out addressing that argument. That blizzard hasn’t prosecuted any players isn’t evidence that it’s legal. It just means that it’s to expensive to sue them. Any fine assessed would be significantly less then the cost to sue. But blizzard has shut down streamers for streaming their play on private servers. If it’s legal to play on a private server how could it be illegal to stream that play? Also it’s illegal to download intellectual property from anyone but the content creator and only for use as the content creator deems appropriate based on the contract you sign for the download. Players have broken the law the moment they downloaded the content.
Because Blizzard chose to include them. So?
Look, my point isn’t that they shouldn’t include RDF, it’s that not including it doesn’t make the game in phase one less authentic to how it was originally in phase one (which is what you’re arguing).
You want the feature and think adding it early would be good - woot great just make that argument then. Not this bogus “not having it has spoilt the authentic WoTLK experience” argument.
Adding RDF would be far more authentic than the current LFG system they have in place… which is brand new. Authentic is out the window, that argument has died.
Yawn, i don’t care what you’ve discussed, i want evidence. Give me somwthing tangible.