VaultNetwork.netVault Network Boards
Author Topic: Would you play a server locked to vanilla content only? [Locked]
Blisteringballs  2 stars
Posts: 272
Registered: 2009-8-12 12:41:21
Arcilite_I posted:

You think TBC was a jump in accessibility for players? You're out of your f*cking mind...



Well in some ways it was, because it gave more casual players more to do - generally speaking. There was some massive grinds up ins, but there was also more elaborate quest chains and tons of dailies. It was definitely more accessible than vanilla in comparison.

 

-----signature-----
Arcilite_I  4 stars
Title: VN's Most Wanted
Posts: 1,260
Registered: 2002-1-27 08:46:24
I'll agree wholeheartedly with WotLK being the special needs version of WoW.

 

-----signature-----
PvPing since 1977
-Peo-  2 stars
Title: Caveat Lector
Posts: 408
Registered: 2005-2-2 08:38:42
Arcilite_I posted:

I'll agree wholeheartedly with WotLK being the most fun version of WoW.



Fixed.

 

-----signature-----
SWTOR, Maybe in a year.
Back to WoW for now.
With a lil f2p CoH.
Auenwing  3 stars
Title: straightface
Posts: 589
Registered: 2002-12-27 23:23:12
After Cata came out, and there was a lot of negative reaction, my husband chuckled and said, it would merely be a matter of time before Blizzard realized they had gone too far, and would need to pull a "Mythic" and introduce "classic" (Vanilla) servers to draw back/keep a segment of Blizzard's customers.


I think the minute you do that, you are saying the game is dead.


After years of yelling that the hardest part of raiding is organizing 40 people, and having the game move forward towards 5, 10, 20, 25 man content, are there enough large guilds left who would want to return to this style of play? Are there enough players that would be willing to go back to the kind of large guild processing that Vanilla would require?


Are there new players (see: LK and Cat expansions), that would want to see what the fuss/bragging rights was all about?


Top level capped at 60, no arenas, Warlord title PvP system, pallies on Alliance only, shamans on Horde only, no Draenei and Blood Elf races, massive afking in BGs, holy trinity LFG system (all others need not apply) for Strat, etcetera.....


...which features do you also include?


Three types of endgame:


1) 40 man raids


2) rolling new alts (level 1-59 "experience"


3) no sleep slog fests for PvP titles while exploiting the system


I don't think I personally would pay money to come back and play something that was already skewed at the time.


Would I pay to come back to WoW with Cata removed? Maybe.


Will Blizzard actually implement something like this? If they think they can get bang for buck, just on player's curiosity/nostalgia, even if it's only one-month's subscription? Does that really need an answer?

 

-----signature-----
There are those who play tank classes, and those that tank.
The weapon is only as good as the person wielding it.
Free advice is often worth what you pay for it: nothing.
Ugh_Lancelot  3 stars
Title: Ooo...bouncy!
Posts: 766
Registered: 2002-6-17 14:37:05
15-man UBRS again (which wasn't a guaranteed win even with 15)? Yes.
More difficult Strat/Scholo? Yes.
Much less linear questing? Yes.
Real elite world mobs? Yes.
Named quest mobs that required a 3+ group to complete? Yes.
No flight in old world? Yes.
Pre-4.0 (i.e.: non-homogenized/non-dumbed-down) talent trees? Yes.
No resilience? Yes.
No arenas? Yes.
Hunter pets that had a reason to be tamed aside from looks? Yes.
World PVP a la TM/SS? Yes.
Guards/Flight masters that aren't a joke? Yes.
Armor sets that actually look cool? Yes.

Rolling back all the other advances in engine, UI, etc.? No.

 

-----signature-----
WoW and DAoC - Too many alts to count
Charter Member - Altaholics Anonymous
kyrv  2 stars
Title: Lord Logicus
Posts: 263
Registered: 2002-1-31 13:09:58
Blisteringballs posted:

I doubt I would. In hind sight vanilla WoW was a great experience, but if you honestly hold it up against the advances the game has made since then it's really dated and grindy. Even by today's WoW standards.

 

-----signature-----
CO, LOTRO, RoM, PWI, CoH
Dragon Age
Azure-TheBlueOne  2 stars
Title: Made in Alaska
Posts: 319
Registered: 2003-2-24 19:25:37
Vanilla wasn't even that enjoyable. Big no from me. I liked the TBC and WoTLK epochs, personally. Cataclysm isn't that different from Vanilla for me, just somehow more watered down even with 25 more levels on top.

 

-----signature-----
"When the government scares people into thinking it must take their liberties away,
and the people let the Government do it.
They are sheep."
- Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Bremen_Gaheris  1 star
Posts: 182
Registered: 2003-1-29 03:33:24
Arcilite_I posted:

I'll agree wholeheartedly with WotLK being the special needs version of WoW.



Totally agree with you. Not sure if your remark was meant as snarky but I took it as WOTLK was a great expac that catered to all Blizzard's customers. There were raids totally doable by all but with hardcore modes for hardcore folks that wanted an uber challenge. It was good times.


Ugh_Lancelot posted:

15-man UBRS again (which wasn't a guaranteed win even with 15)? Yes.
More difficult Strat/Scholo? Yes.
Much less linear questing? Yes.
Real elite world mobs? Yes.
Named quest mobs that required a 3+ group to complete? Yes.
No flight in old world? Yes.
Pre-4.0 (i.e.: non-homogenized/non-dumbed-down) talent trees? Yes.
No resilience? Yes.
No arenas? Yes.
Hunter pets that had a reason to be tamed aside from looks? Yes.
World PVP a la TM/SS? Yes.
Guards/Flight masters that aren't a joke? Yes.
Armor sets that actually look cool? Yes.

Rolling back all the other advances in engine, UI, etc.? No.



I just want to comment on the talent trees question above. Have you already forgotten about all the classes with a talent tree for healing that their other talent trees were utterly useless? Druids (Feral lol), Paladins (Prot couldn't tank and Ret lol), and Shamans (Enhance only at top gear and Elemental lol) all had the most lackluster and crappy specs besides their healing (even those were pretty terrible) due to Blizzard wanting to force those classes into healing roles.

Nah, Classic sucked ass compared to WOTLK. Cataclysm is even worse though because while the classes are all able to actually use their other roles they can spec for they are so lackluster and boring it is pathetic.

 

-----signature-----
The VNboards are so much fun! Its like my own personal train wreck going 24/7
and noone is actually getting hurt which takes away the guilt of watching.
Ugh_Lancelot  3 stars
Title: Ooo...bouncy!
Posts: 766
Registered: 2002-6-17 14:37:05
Note I said "Pre-4.0" talent trees. I played both Feral and Ret in WotLK. I guess I should have clarified that I'd rather have those 3.0 specs back, not classic 1.0 stuff.

 

-----signature-----
WoW and DAoC - Too many alts to count
Charter Member - Altaholics Anonymous
Bremen_Gaheris  1 star
Posts: 182
Registered: 2003-1-29 03:33:24
Ugh_Lancelot posted:

Note I said "Pre-4.0" talent trees. I played both Feral and Ret in WotLK. I guess I should have clarified that I'd rather have those 3.0 specs back, not classic 1.0 stuff.



I see, totally agreed. 1.0 talents sucked. 3.x talents were pretty darned good and held a ton of versatility and playstyle differences for lots of folks.

 

-----signature-----
The VNboards are so much fun! Its like my own personal train wreck going 24/7
and noone is actually getting hurt which takes away the guilt of watching.

VaultNetwork.net is an independently operated community forum and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or technically based on IGN, GameSpy, FilePlanet, GameStats, or the former IGN/GameSpy Vault Network.
References to VaultNetwork.net mean this site/domain. VNBoards-style presentation is a visual homage only. By using this site, you agree to the forum rules.