Proposal for changes to Vanilla

[Winterflaw]

No, no, no. no and no
there's nothing to consider besides bug fixes.
You start with "Ah improvements", you will end up with pet battles and ingame shop.

^this

He's right, this is how we started to have shitty features like fly mounts and LFR. Let's keep Vanilla as it was, this is just what we want.

Vanilla from its inception in 2004 until the release we play in Nost, released in Sep 2006, changed constantly - yet we love the version we play.

Change certainly *can* lead to disaster, when the wrong changes are made. Changes made by the post-Vanilla team were appalling.

You are arguing that change is how we came to have retail. You are correct.

However, this not mean that change DOES lead to retail, which is something you are also implying, and this is wrong.

Change by an all-powerful dev team and where the players have no mechanism to approve or disapprove of change CAN lead to what happened to Vanilla.

However, even this is only a "can", because we see from 2004 to 2006, it did not happen.

I do not think the Nost team are the same as the Vanilla retail team. I also note that with the presence of large scale player votes, a la Runescape, the dev team would not have the final say in the adoptation of new elements.

Finally, I note that you are all in your fear of retail giving up wholly any thought that the game can be *improved*. That it could be arranged in ways which you like even more than you do now. It would be deeply unfortunate and ironic that Blizzard's catastrophic handling of retail were also to lead to the permanent stifling and stunting of Vanilla even when it managed to escape from retail and live a life of its own.

(In fact, it occurs to me, the fact the player base is divided over exactly which version of Vanilla they wish to be released - 1.12.1, TBC, etc - that clearly players are *not* wholly allergic to change; plenty of players WANT a given set of changes, that they have seen and experienced, know and prefer. Why would it not be such that players would want *new* sets of changes they see and experience *and would prefer?* the matter we are in fact afraid of is the dev team having complete power and the player base none, which is something rightly to be afraid of, and extends far beyond the question of game changes - there are a million ways for a bad, all-powerful dev team to mess up a server. 10x experience bonus days, anyone?)

[Galadourn]

I vote YES.

In its final iteration (1.12.1) Vanilla was perfect in many ways, but certain features needed further tweaking or reworking.

TBC fixed many of the dysfunctional features in Vanilla, but rendered all Vanilla content obsolete; I say let the Devs (assuming we even get an "official" legacy server in the first place) work on the game and take it to a different path fixing what's needed and adding small things here and there, as long as the core of the game is not fundamentally altered.

[drabus]

Keep all of the Legacy servers the same as the patch that they released. That's what I'm shooting for (and not just Vanilla - TBC and WoTLK too). I would like the same experience there - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

If they do ANYTHING to the code, fix the known bugs and exploits - but do not change the game play.

Just my $0.02.

[Hernia]

All you kids asking for changes to vanilla need to get the fuck out and go back to WoD

[Ickuss]

No one wants changes. Go play retail

[Winterflaw]

Hernia, Ickuss - which version of Vanilla do you wish to see Bliz offer?

Vanilla, TBC, etc?

If you wish to see something later than Vanilla, are you not yourselves asking for change?

And if you wish for Vanilla, are you then arguing everyone (and it's a lot of people) who wants TBC should - and I merge you both into a single quote - "fuck off and play retail"?

[Winterflaw]

Keep all of the Legacy servers the same as the patch that they released. That's what I'm shooting for (and not just Vanilla - TBC and WoTLK too). I would like the same experience there - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

You are then in favour of the set of changes represented by TBC and WoTLK and are in favour of those change sets existing.

However, imagine there had only been Vanilla, and then players asked for a set of changes exactly equal to the game as it was in TBC or WoTLK. You would presumably be against these changes - which are exactly the same as the changes you already *are* in favour of - because you wish not to change the game in any way?

Can I put it to you that - although I may be completely wrong! - it may be that your deeper concern is not actually change per se, but change which is *harmful*, in the light of the awfulness that is retail.

You have seen TBC and WoTLK, and so where these are *known quantities* and are for you not harmful, they are fine - not a problem - whereas change *in general* leads us to consider changes which as yet as unknown, for they have not happened, and here our fear of the terrible fate which befell retail hangs in the mind.

If change per se is not actually a problem, then the actual problem is finding ways in which change can be *safely managed*, so that it does not cause harm to the game.

[Ickuss]

Hernia, Ickuss - which version of Vanilla do you wish to see Bliz offer?

Vanilla, TBC, etc?

If you wish to see something later than Vanilla, are you not yourselves asking for change?

And if you wish for Vanilla, are you then arguing everyone (and it's a lot of people) who wants TBC should - and I merge you both into a single quote - "fuck off and play retail"?

I want blizz to offer what Nost offered... Retroactive changes to patches... Realizing the talent trees were 1.12.1, I would like to see a progressive vanilla server that will eventually progress from first patch to 1.12.1 then convert over to 2.0 for an extremely short time, then progress through tbc patch by patch.

Seeing as that is probably too much work for a company that has turned wow into a facebook game, I would settle for 1.12.1 client with buffed bosses to simulate actual progression. And then a 2.4.3 client with buffed bosses to recreate TBC progression.

I feel that any "changes" to what was on the live version during vanilla or tbc are unwanted by the community for the most part. We dont want streamlined professions, leveling zones that flow together in a logical order... that was the beauty of vanilla. It was a grind, and on that grind you meet a shit ton of cool people, make friends that you keep in contact with for years. I want every annoying bug, the serious hell it is to lvl enchanting, spending weeks to farm for an epic mount. I love end-game raiding, consuming and dying to bosses, but my favorite part of vanilla is the unpolished aspect of it.

Making a lot of these changes will make the game something other than vanilla. Like I said... Ideally I would want to play the game in the form it was in when these two expansions were live

[Winterflaw]

I want blizz to offer what Nost offered... Retroactive changes to patches... Realizing the talent trees were 1.12.1, I would like to see a progressive vanilla server that will eventually progress from first patch to 1.12.1 then convert over to 2.0 for an extremely short time, then progress through tbc patch by patch.

You are then in favour of the change sets represented by 2.0 and TBC.

Consider, however, that only Vanilla had existed, but someone then asked for changes exactly equal to those represented by 2.0 and TBC. You would then be against these changes - which you are already in favour of! - because they represent change.

In fact, it seems to me then you do want change, but only changes which are good for the game, and where you have seen these particular change sets already, you already approve of them, and so wish for them to occur.

It is then not change *per se* which is the problem. It is change *which is good for the game*, and how to ensure change is not harmful.

I feel that any "changes" to what was on the live version during vanilla or tbc are unwanted by the community for the most part.

Yes. These changes are widely deried by the Vanilla community.

We dont want streamlined professions, leveling zones that flow together in a logical order... that was the beauty of vanilla. It was a grind, and on that grind you meet a shit ton of cool people, make friends that you keep in contact with for years. I want every annoying bug, the serious hell it is to lvl enchanting, spending weeks to farm for an epic mount. I love end-game raiding, consuming and dying to bosses, but my favorite part of vanilla is the unpolished aspect of it.

Yes. This brings us back to the basic underlying problem - how to manage change so it is not *harmful*. We clearly see there are massive changes which are not harmful - 2.0 and TBC - and which are wished for. There are equally clearly other changes, which have not yet even been conceived in the mind of any man, which would be equally well received. There are also equally clearly other changes, some of which have come to exist in retail, which would be rejected by all or almost all.

I may be wrong, but I think the real solution to change is to have a dev team who *understand what is good*, and then in addition to endow upon the player base the right of referedums on changes.

As I mentioned earlier, there are a million ways for an all-powerful dev team to mess up a server, entirely without implementing changes. We already face this problem, for Nost did not provide for player base referendums. Where they were aiming toward Vanilla, there wasn't such a need for them in terms of game changes, but they could just as well have introduced say 10x experience days, which the player base would not have wanted, but where the player base had no way to reject them.

[melak]

Leave it.....it's vanilla and that's why we come

Exactly, if you change it, its not Vanilla, if you guys want improvements, go play some custom private server or retail, people want vanilla, as it was, just like Nost.