Forbes interview about Classic

Classic Discussion
Prev 1 14 15 16 19 Next
02/01/2018 09:55 AMPosted by Myronas
I really don't want new models. I don't want new music. I don't want class balance. I don't want them to touch anything. I don't trust them.


And there in lies my worry.

I've known from the get go that they were going to put all of this on the new infrastructure, adding it to battle.net and simply the way tickets and chat are handled pretty much guaranteed that. So those types of changes don't bother me in the slightest and haven't from the get go.

The bigger issue for me is that they seem to be up for discussion on things that are Vanilla itself. I have zero confidence in their ability to make changes and it not turn out to be some bastardized version of what Vanilla was.

I understand the argument that it wasn't going to be the same because of friends, etc., which makes me roll my eyes anytime someone points it out. That has been a given from the start and isn't even what people are talking about when they talk about not changing the game.

At this point I'm assuming we see the original content and maybe a version of the original classes, but they will try and cram as much modern stuff as they can in from live. Which is stupid because they will essentially end up keeping the private servers going strong.
02/01/2018 02:50 PMPosted by Harland
02/01/2018 12:36 PMPosted by Starman
LFG/LFD. Many people have told you specifically that its the same thing. Think about it - you use the LFG channel for groups and dungeons. You're arguing semantics.


LFD organizes everything, holds your hand, forms the group for you while you're in Q, and then teleports you there when the instance server readies the dungeon.

LFG is a chat channel.

Being able to remotely Q up for a dungeon and then being teleported too it is entirely different than a chat channel dedicated to dungeoneering.


Nope, sorry, I posted my original thoughts in November. I've stuck to them. Look at the vQueue add-on, it's called a "GROUP FINDER" (LFG) tool. G. Not D. Handles groups and dungeons.

You can keep trying to break down what I said but it won't work. Semantics.
02/01/2018 02:58 PMPosted by Starman
02/01/2018 02:50 PMPosted by Harland
...

LFD organizes everything, holds your hand, forms the group for you while you're in Q, and then teleports you there when the instance server readies the dungeon.

LFG is a chat channel.

Being able to remotely Q up for a dungeon and then being teleported too it is entirely different than a chat channel dedicated to dungeoneering.


Nope, sorry, I posted my original thoughts in November. I've stuck to them. Look at the vQueue add-on, it's called a "GROUP FINDER" (LFG) tool. G. Not D. Handles groups and dungeons.

You can keep trying to break down what I said but it won't work. Semantics.


You posted that you were advocating for LFD which is a terrible system that played a massive part in destroying the community. And as I already proved, you back pedaled and changed your tone to LFG after being called out on being wrong.

You are now simply recanting your recant out of an emotional need to not be called wrong. But you are.
Uh...UBRS a 5-man? Do they even know anything about vanilla? UBRS was never a 5-man. I'm going to hope he meant LBRS.
<span class="truncated">...</span>

OMG dude just LET. IT. GO.

Here's my original post. I don't give a rat's !@# what three letters you have tattooed to it.

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20759546746#post-8


I will not let it go because you DID IT. You advocated repeatedly for LFD, not LFG. It took several threads with several people correcting you before you finally back pedaled into stating LFG but you tried to do it silently instead of just admitting you were wrong. Truth has its inherent place regardless of how it makes you feel. You were wrong, you are still wrong.

Hell you still to this day advocate of LFD features, just an LFD Light version. And the answer is still no. There is also a practical reason to point this out, so that everyone who may take you seriously sees how absurd some of the systems you advocate for are. You simply don't look deep enough into the systems you ask for and the consequences of having them. You "feel" w/e way you want regardless of facts.


Dude, I'm just going to report your posts as trolling and move on. K? I know what I wrote. Let it go.
...

Dude, I'm just going to report your posts as trolling and move on. K? I know what I wrote. Let it go.


I also don't care if you report me, I use multiple accounts due to the fact we have a group of mods who are so against vanilla that they even change the titles of "No Change" threads to appear to be the opposite. You will never silence me. Get over it.


Ah, I see. So you're purposefully harassing people by skirting possible bans. Got it.
01/31/2018 06:00 PMPosted by Xanthak

Retail is probably hundreds or thousands of microservices. So the question is, how do they rip out Vanilla into 1000 logical retail pieces.

This is not the problem.

They already have the infrastructure to run WoW, and a client to work with it. They don't need to reinvent that.

The question is how much of the game behavior is actual C/C++ code, and how much of is just scripting (i.e. something not C).

The bulk of the UI, as we all know, is all scripted in Lua. They've updated and changed the Lua Runtime over time, but, if they had to, they could probably more readily port the Vanilla UI from the original Lua to the current system. However, they may simply choose to redo and re-skin it on the current platform, since, if anything, much of it is base removal of stuff than adding new. Work to be sure, but it's mostly infrastructure agnostic.

But the part I don't know is how things like quests and events are implemented. Something "tells" the boss to start casting XXX at 30% health. Is that "hard coded" in the server logic, or is that in some kind of scripting language.

I would assume that the quest system is fairly high level with basic scripting (I mean, who wants to write a C function to implement "kill 10 quill boars" -- makes no sense).

The questing is large part of the Vanilla experience, and after a conversion to the new formats, it should copy right over on to the new infrastructure (as modern WoW, too, has quests -- even quests from Vanilla that have been migrated over time).

So, I don't see a "new server" for Classic. I do see a new Client, if for no other reason that to simply isolate artifacts. But there's no doubt APIs that are published in the client for the UI that can be removed or changed to support the Classic experience.

But they should be able to create "Azerothland", convert a Vanilla MPQ file to a CASC format, adjust the graphical/sound artifacts as necessary (if at all - a PNG is a PNG, a BMP is a BMP, an MP3 is an MP3, maybe the models need to be converted).

They should be able to have a "hello world" "run around Vanilla Azeroth" up reasonably quickly. Then you can have a toon running around the terrain, with no mobs, not nothing, but on a modern client against a modern server.

Now, the terrain itself may not be compatible. They may well have had to make terrain tweaks and what not to eliminate "holes" and all sorts of other stuff over the years. But I bet they could get a rough cut up reasonably quickly. Fast enough to give false hope :).

Then its a matter of porting the quests, bringing over the various weapon values, copy over the combat system.

After it's the endless testing. The decision whether converting the old assets was worthwhile vs recreating them. Taking modern Azeroth, patching it up, filling in the holes from Cata, removing the trees in the Barrens, etc.

But, in the end, they already have an engine that will take a blob of assets that look like mountains, elves, and dragons, a tome of quest lore logic and mob routing, and let toons run around and bonk things and get bonked back. It's just a matter of making those objects more Vanilla like in terms of their numbers and what not.

So in the end, it's more a porting problem than a greenfield development problem.
No one is going to play a 10 year old turd.

LET IT GO


lol..Blizzard still hosts and supports and maintains Diablo2 LoD servers.
Now go play that game and you'll see some old, clunky graphics.
But the game itself has so much replayability that people overlook the graphics.
02/01/2018 04:59 PMPosted by Piddy
01/31/2018 06:00 PMPosted by Xanthak

Retail is probably hundreds or thousands of microservices. So the question is, how do they rip out Vanilla into 1000 logical retail pieces.

This is not the problem.

They already have the infrastructure to run WoW, and a client to work with it. They don't need to reinvent that.

The question is how much of the game behavior is actual C/C++ code, and how much of is just scripting (i.e. something not C).

The bulk of the UI, as we all know, is all scripted in Lua. They've updated and changed the Lua Runtime over time, but, if they had to, they could probably more readily port the Vanilla UI from the original Lua to the current system. However, they may simply choose to redo and re-skin it on the current platform, since, if anything, much of it is base removal of stuff than adding new. Work to be sure, but it's mostly infrastructure agnostic.

But the part I don't know is how things like quests and events are implemented. Something "tells" the boss to start casting XXX at 30% health. Is that "hard coded" in the server logic, or is that in some kind of scripting language.

I would assume that the quest system is fairly high level with basic scripting (I mean, who wants to write a C function to implement "kill 10 quill boars" -- makes no sense).

The questing is large part of the Vanilla experience, and after a conversion to the new formats, it should copy right over on to the new infrastructure (as modern WoW, too, has quests -- even quests from Vanilla that have been migrated over time).

So, I don't see a "new server" for Classic. I do see a new Client, if for no other reason that to simply isolate artifacts. But there's no doubt APIs that are published in the client for the UI that can be removed or changed to support the Classic experience.

But they should be able to create "Azerothland", convert a Vanilla MPQ file to a CASC format, adjust the graphical/sound artifacts as necessary (if at all - a PNG is a PNG, a BMP is a BMP, an MP3 is an MP3, maybe the models need to be converted).

They should be able to have a "hello world" "run around Vanilla Azeroth" up reasonably quickly. Then you can have a toon running around the terrain, with no mobs, not nothing, but on a modern client against a modern server.

Now, the terrain itself may not be compatible. They may well have had to make terrain tweaks and what not to eliminate "holes" and all sorts of other stuff over the years. But I bet they could get a rough cut up reasonably quickly. Fast enough to give false hope :).

Then its a matter of porting the quests, bringing over the various weapon values, copy over the combat system.

After it's the endless testing. The decision whether converting the old assets was worthwhile vs recreating them. Taking modern Azeroth, patching it up, filling in the holes from Cata, removing the trees in the Barrens, etc.

But, in the end, they already have an engine that will take a blob of assets that look like mountains, elves, and dragons, a tome of quest lore logic and mob routing, and let toons run around and bonk things and get bonked back. It's just a matter of making those objects more Vanilla like in terms of their numbers and what not.

So in the end, it's more a porting problem than a greenfield development problem.


No, they DO need to re-invent that. Blizzard already said they aren't going to mantain 2 MMOs. That means only 1 thing. They need to port Vanilla into the Retail intrastructure.

Blizzard is a quality software shop. You think they're going to stand up some hack job of a product like a private server and put their brand behind a piece of garbage like that? They'll do it in the most scalable, maintainable way possible.

And chances are they are following the same architecture trends that google, amazon, netflix, etc are all following.

Writing code is the last of their worries right no and it'll take the least amount of time. Re-creating the graphics will be the last thing on their list. How to rip out Vanilla into Retail will be priority #1 one. Bank on it.
01/30/2018 05:03 PMPosted by Harland
Strawman, still grasping at straws as usual.

Newman: Let’s talk about some of the bigger decisions, which may or may not have been made. Are we talking about WoW in its original pristine pixelly glory? Are we talking remastered, something that’s built for the modern engines that Legion and Battle for Azeroth are using?

Brack: That’s a decision that is in front of us. I think my starting place is, the compass heading should be to try to re-create the original 2004, 2005 experience. That’s the compass heading we should be following. But there’s a lot of nuance there. Should we be using the high definition character models? That’s an interesting question, I think, that the community will help us decide.

More importantly Strawman, they have made not actual choices on these things yet. They clearly state that, but what they do spell out right is that Brack him self desires to re-create the original 2004 - 2005 experience.. I genuinely feel he is sincere on this.

He then goes on to state that there is a lot of nuance, and as for the WoD character models there is no choice, just "I think, the community will help us decide".

In current WoW you can essentially switch all the graphics settings to low and turn off new models and the game more-or-less looks like WoW did many years ago, some places are still not updated or changed from Vanilla, graphically. In WoW Classic, all default settings could be made to imitate Vanilla graphics; textures, models, objects, etc., and there could be an optional toggle to use updated graphics.

They could limit or restrict these things at the start, but there would be a demand for it and they'll cave eventually and probably add it, anyway. Would people be hurt by it? Blizzard should also make a "Hardcore" server where death is permanent.. that would be fun.
02/01/2018 05:23 PMPosted by Nerdraged
No one is going to play a 10 year old turd.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuOYmqSF6OQ

they will do :3
All that I care about is that the core mechanics are the same. I don't mind updated graphics. "WoW Classic: Remastered" is fine by me.
Still can't wait to play BfA and WoW: Classic, the latter aiming to create a "Blizzard-quality vanilla-like experience".

BfA is going to be bad though, because Harland said so, folks. His massive, self-blinding, rose-tinted goggles can be seen from miles away.
02/02/2018 04:21 PMPosted by Xerash
BfA is going to be bad though, because Harland said so, folks. His massive, self-blinding, rose-tinted goggles can be seen from miles away.

Something funny about biases - other's bias looks far more extreme when our own bias isn't obvious to us.

I think BfA has an audience who will very much enjoy it. It may even draw some interest from those who enjoyed the RTS aspect of Warcraft and want to see how the island stuff plays on that. It's likely to attract long-time alliance and horde who have wanted the other faction's elves for a long time.

Then again, Blizzard hasn't made a peep about mission tables, hasn't made a peep about how flight will work in phased areas (after the battle changes up the continents), or the new island areas. There are a lot of things they've been carefully quiet about that may make people very upset with BfA. How will people used to RNG legendaries going to feel when they replace them with BfA greens? Or will Blizzard do a weirdo stat thing and make Legion end-game gear nearly equivalent to BfA? What will talents look like after their stated revamping, where they want to give back some unique utility to each class, give classes meaning again instead of just specs.

The only thing I know for certain? Nothing in BfA makes me excited. Nothing in BfA makes me want to drop cash on playing it. I read their interviews and shake my head knowing how those things will actually FEEL compared to the hype they're trying to attach to them, and the only way I'm likely to touch BfA content is another expansion down the road when it is rolled into the base game if an RAF pays for game time and I get free game time out of that.
Forbes has a right leaning bias so i wont go there and give them views which gives them money, it only will help fascists by doing so.
02/01/2018 05:23 PMPosted by Nerdraged
No one is going to play a 10 year old turd.

All of you vanilla goons thinking you're going to log back in to the vibrant and busy single server communities fail to accept that 10 years later, most of the people are no longer playing or WANT to play WoW.

>dead
>families
>playing other games
>dead

I'll tell you RIGHT NOW what is going to happen. Blizzard will release "Classic" with an option for upgraded 2018 graphic models, and the choice to turn them off and experience the true miserable Vanilla game.

Then you're going to go to the middle of Org or Stormwind or where ever Alliance losers go to idle and see maybe 5 people hanging out. 2 of which are bots spamming.

Yeah, that's your Classic experience. Dead Auction Houses with nothing for sale. No group finder or LFR. No one in the channels to even talk to, except one 75 year old guy that plays for 2 hours before nap time.

Classic WoW should remain how you remembered it, and in your head. It cannot be re-created because the people that made it great are no longer there and will not ever be there again.

LET IT GO

LOL

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum