Which Patch?

Classic Discussion
That is the question, isn't it? Personally I would like 1.12.1 with staggered content, but I'm not sure yet.
I would say 1.1.

It seems that the only people that want to start at 1.12 didn't really want a "vanilla experience" but instead want to duplicate something else. I don't think we should cater to pirates instead of actual players. 1.12 means no content other than Naxx is relevant and, to me, that isn't a vanilla experience.
11/28/2017 07:26 AMPosted by Tourach
I would say 1.1.

It seems that the only people that want to start at 1.12 didn't really want a "vanilla experience" but instead want to duplicate something else. I don't think we should cater to pirates instead of actual players. 1.12 means no content other than Naxx is relevant and, to me, that isn't a vanilla experience.
And it seems that people that defend 1.1 don't know how broken the game was at the beginning.
11/28/2017 10:16 AMPosted by Vincentiu
And it seems that people that defend 1.1 don't know how broken the game was at the beginning.


I can say this also. I wouldnt want to go through that agony the earlier patches were... Got nightmares from those :(
In 1.0 Paladins and Hunters didn't have a talent tree yet. Perhaps not that one.

Up until 1.7 Hunters had Lacerate as a 31 point talent. The game was clearly unfinished. 1.12 introduced cross realm battlegrounds which smashed up PvP.

I think a decent classic server will need some changes to be the best it can be.
11/28/2017 10:25 AMPosted by Demostravia
1.12 introduced cross realm battlegrounds which smashed up PvP


Cross realm battlegrounds increased PvP by alot. Dunno what are you talking about.
Cross realm battlegrounds increased PvP by a lot. Dunno what are you talking about.


More games, much lower quality.

You stopped knowing your enemy and instead got randoms each game. Xrealm was the first major anti-social change, the next being LFG.
11/27/2017 02:50 PMPosted by Felene
11/27/2017 02:31 PMPosted by Vincentiu
...
Did i mention "MC too harddddd" or "these patches will have bugs"? No? Why should we start with any of the other nine problems i mentioned just to fix them later?


This is so beyond asinine.

Why is patching a client bad?

Why is Blizzard taking their time bad?

Pally reckoning was a bug and unforeseen consequence at best. Release it fixed. Doesn't need to be 1.12.

Work for the people they are hiring to do the job? Deary me.

Weather effects. Just launch with it on release. What's stopping you? Was this in Vanilla? Yes. Does it affect gameplay? No. Launch with it. Same thing for cloak and helm toggle. Don't need to wait for it just launch with it.

1.12 doesn't magically contain new content that will unveil itself once we hit the end of the game. Your last point doesn't even make sense.

You want to sacrifice pretty much ALL of the gameplay of 2 years just to have your patch version that was intended for Naxx progression and trivializes everything else.

NoNoNoNo.


Pretty much this.

Make a progressive release I say. Allow us to actually take the time to grind for our blue sets, then eventually open up MC and so forth.
11/28/2017 12:40 AMPosted by Rongente
11/27/2017 11:58 PMPosted by Frostchi
But things like Cross-realm BG's


Cross realm BGs are a good thing. They were added for a reason. People actually advocated on old forums for something like that to be implemented and for a good reason.

"People advocating" does not equate to "Good Idea".
11/28/2017 07:19 AMPosted by Rongente
Catch up mechanics were implemented for a simple reason. Only a small percentage of players really have the time for a full vanilla grind.


That is some entitlement garbage and a completely ludicrous "stat" you pulled out of your nether region. There is no deadline to do a "full vanilla grind" and not every person should be getting the same rewards just for showing up in game.

That mentality is PRECISELY what Blizzard catered to, which left us with the garbage game it is today. Posting that crap in this subforum is pretty much trolling.

11/28/2017 10:29 AMPosted by Rongente
11/28/2017 10:25 AMPosted by Demostravia
1.12 introduced cross realm battlegrounds which smashed up PvP


Cross realm battlegrounds increased PvP by alot. Dunno what are you talking about.


Clearly.
Why does it have to be a patch? Take the best of what "made" the Vanilla experience and combine them with rolling releases of "new" content. So you take the pieces of good in 1.1 and remove the bad and keep the good of 1.12.

As long as the difficulty is still hard - even if they scale it up. I don't want people clearing MC a month after it's released.
11/28/2017 11:15 AMPosted by Lakez
Make a progressive release I say. Allow us to actually take the time to grind for our blue sets, then eventually open up MC and so forth.


A progressive release does not mean obvious bugs shouldnt be fixed at the very beginning without waiting for vX.XX patch. Also in regard to things like AV, the progression for specific things could be stopped once they reached their best state, and not continue on to the broken states they became.
11/28/2017 11:05 AMPosted by Demostravia
More games, much lower quality.

You stopped knowing your enemy and instead got randoms each game. Xrealm was the first major anti-social change, the next being LFG.


Much better quality. I played horde side, and alliance on my server was very very bad in PvP.
And it is FAR FAR better to get new opponents than fighting the same guy over and over. The more opponents you fight the more your skill progresses. Think someone like Roger Federer would be such a great athlete if he played against his father over and over?
11/28/2017 11:50 AMPosted by Brokenwind
11/28/2017 12:40 AMPosted by Rongente
...

Cross realm BGs are a good thing. They were added for a reason. People actually advocated on old forums for something like that to be implemented and for a good reason.

"People advocating" does not equate to "Good Idea".


Yes, yes it was. Thats why they implemented it, and guess what - It got most unanimous praise. People seem to have a mindset that xrealm bgs = LFR, but no, not even close.
That is some entitlement garbage and a completely ludicrous "stat" you pulled out of your nether region. There is no deadline to do a "full vanilla grind" and not every person should be getting the same rewards just for showing up in game.

That mentality is PRECISELY what Blizzard catered to, which left us with the garbage game it is today. Posting that crap in this subforum is pretty much trolling


Yet they started doing it pretty early during vanilla. And even then less than 1% of people cleared naxx. Guess what - hardcore raiders are just a small minority and balancing a game for a small minority is not a smart business move.
And before you reply - no i dont want all of that to be present from the start, but just to be implemented in time. Just like it was in vanilla.
While later QoL improvements were a good thing in late vanilla, aspects like Scholo and AV were ruined by nerfs. They should think long and hard about all of the changes that occurred over the versions of vanilla, and discuss each aspect and choose the best of that period. No one version # within the vanilla timeframe was the "best" and it behooves them to take their time and cherry pick.

If it were up to me and I ran things, I would start with v1.0, then print out a detailed patch notes of each vanilla version and take a red marker to each change that in hindsight diminished the game. All of the other vanilla changes and fixes would be put in. But none of the damaging ones.

The endgame progression of content would exist but would only be accessible once the server population completes something akin to the war effort.


I'm in the 1.13 camp. Patch progression implies that they will implement such things as the increased debuff limit and a lot of the catch up gear (such as the tier 0 and 0.5 sets) that made MC much more trivial than it was intended to be. Since Classic is now its own standalone game they should be attempting to give all the content a permanent level of difficulty for all to experience no matter when they decide to try it Classic.

Now when I say 1.13 what I mean is a patch that restores various mechanics and difficulties of all the difference facets of the game all within one patch. For example, when in MC the debuff limit should be at 8 and the threat mechanics while inside the instance should be as they were at launch. On the same token, when in AQ the debuff limit should be 16 with the newer threat mechanics that they added in later. (Note: I am not a programmer but I understand that what is being suggested here might not be possible or extremely difficult to pull off from a code perspective. I'm simply defining what I mean by a 1.13 patch.)

The main point here is that whatever Blizzard decides to put into the game, it should be added in at launch and not at some later date. The time at which the player begins playing the game should not affect his experience with the game, and as I see it the only way to do that is to implement a static patch where we can mix and match aspects of each patch and call it a day.


I like the ideas in both of these posts, and I'm therefore more in the 1.13/amalgam patch camp. My greatest concerns are trivialization/obsolescence of content. I'd like to see a static world where we don't have to worry about radical power shifts or obsolete content every month or so. I'd like to see progression determined by player action and ability, rather than arbitrary time gates that exists solely because once one batch of content releases, previous content becomes irrelevant. The answer, to me, is to avoid making old content irrelevant in the first place through appropriate balancing/tuning.
11/26/2017 11:47 PMPosted by Ibholy
This is probably the biggest question I have regarding Classic. Which patch do we want? Straight from the beginning with 1.0? Or with the final balancing of 1.12.1 which lasted only a few months before BC released?

That brings to mind even more questions. What's the time table for patch release if we start from base? Once every three months? Four months?

I'm curious as to see what the general consensus is.
which patch is overly simplistic. For me, the QOL changes are a big factor in ruining the game. Like how AV changed after 1.5. Keeping AV at 1.5 is important.

But other things, like raids, were added later. So a simple Patch number hurts one or the other. So a pick and choose approach to making the best classic wow from vanilla seems like the correct thinking.

The 1.12.1 patch might be too far. Then again it might not be. If it hurts combat daggers, then I don't want it.
11/28/2017 12:02 AMPosted by Hiltimilleon
11/27/2017 07:53 PMPosted by Yadomaru
If Blizzard starts with 1.12 then no one will have the chance to get the original Level 60 mounts that don't have armor on them


Just release with 1.1 content and progress from there, giving people time to earn those mounts


I'd hope they start from the beginning with WoW version 1.0

I started in 2006 so I never got a chance to experience a lot of the in game events from new raids etc being added to Classic WoW, Burning Crusade came out not long after so I never hit Level 60 in time to raid, I would have if I wasn't trying to play multiple games at once
dont start too early, battle grounds are the main reason i want to play classic servers

i think 1.12 is fine, and it doesnt matter if people clear MC quickly. let them clear it and move on to harder raids
The patch where diminishing returns on enslave demon were removed, like 1.09 or thereabouts.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum