May 22nd 2009 5:11PM You are absolutely right that this would not recreate the vanilla WoW experience. The only way to do that would be to create separate, back patched servers and Blizz is never going to do that.
It could, however, be a bit of a compromise. It would at least give people a way to temporarily stop off at these old leveling caps and to mess around with old content, maybe pick up some extra achievements. Stop and smell the brimstone and sulfur... of molten core. Sure it's a cop-out, but it would be better than nothing and with nothing to loose. And who knows, on a few servers, there may be much to gain.
I started playing in the fall of 2006, just before BC was released. I hadn't quite leveled my main up to 50 when the expansion was released, so I had heard a lot about the old world high level instances but never got the opportunity to go to even see them. I know I would take a break from wrath to level an alt to spend some time there. I bet others would too, even if its not really vanilla wow.
May 22nd 2009 4:11PM (This would generate interest in leveling a capped alt.)
This should have been two paragraphs up right after point #2.
That is, the new achievements would generate interest in these new level ranges, thereby helping the population to grow at that level.
I should have also pointed out that as soon as a player is tired of that level range, they can simply re-enable experience gain and move up to the next decade of levels.
May 22nd 2009 3:59PM Ok, I am sure there would be a host of practical problems with this but one thing it would solve would be to give those who want to go retro an option without being unduly difficult to implement.
1. Allow people to artifically cap their leveling for any given toon at 60 or 70. Also restrict them from going into outland and northrend as appropriate.
2. Create achievements for doing the old content only with level appropriate toons present.
I understand that this will not reproduce the old world as it one was and that is what a lot of people are going for but, as so many have said, "Get over it, those days are gone." What it would give us would be simply a different way of enjoying the game. A different tier of endgame so to speak but without getting rid of all that has been changed. Yes, old time nostalgia-boys will complain that it is just not the same with blood elves and draenai running around. Very true. In a way it would create a "New" old world. Is that so very bad? It would at least create the option of doing the old content in a somewhat challenging format.
Sure they can do #1 by simply buying a new non-upgraded or partially upgraded account. This is, in fact, where the idea comes from. I have seen a forum post, I don't remember where now, advertising for recruits to a lvl60 capped guild. The problem is that not everyone wants multiple accounts it would stink of Blizz just trying to nickle and dime people. (This would generate interest in leveling a capped alt.)
The problems I can see with doing this would be, that given the class changes that have happened in the last 2+ years, all the new talent trees and abilities, the old content may need some tuning to be playable with these "new" characters, especially the vanilla stuff. I suspect it would mostly be easier now rather than harder but that would probably not be the case on every boss. Secondly, or rather more specifically would be how death knights would effect these old instances. DK's had some pretty awsome gear going into outlands it seemed so this could be a problem for simply capping at 60.
Other problems might revolve around a given level cap not having enough people to support playing that that level. I suspect this problem would work itself out on a server by server basis. It would suck to have to pay to transfer to a server with a high pop of capped 60s just to have fun but what can you do. This is also why it would be important to have the achievements available, it would give people a reason to play at these levels. The population would need to be big enough to support a raiding guild or more at that level and would also need to be big enough and active enough to generate an economy for the items that interest people at that level. Fiery Core anyone? If a server were to only have a few hundred at 60 and a few hundred at 70 it would still create interesting changes in population distribution. Imagine Shatt with just a hundred people running as opposed to almost nobody. Giving people a reason and the tools necessary to repopulate the old areas might even has some positive effects. Levelers not feeling like they are all alone and having more fun at those levels even if they are not capped. Generally spreading the population over more zones and instances. Reviving unused world pvp zones like EPL, Silithus and Nagrand.
Over all. I wouldn't mind seeing something like this happen. Overall, it doesn't strike me as requiring a lot of development time. Even if it didn't work out, it wouldn't be so bad, we still do have the real endgame. What would there be to loose.
May 15th 2009 11:19AM The essential problem with the zombie invasion was that it was essentially free for all pvp that you could not opt out of. Great event. Lots of fun to play, especially on my paladin. But after you have had enough and want to move on for the day you couldn't because people were keeping the auctioneers and other essential npcs dead for hours during primetime.
Now normal pvp is an opt in sort of thing. You choose to flag up or join a fight if you want to participate. I will grant that that would have been overly restrictive for what was a temporary event. What blizz should have done was given the option to opt out. By default you are part of the fun but when you have had enough just go to a argent crusade medic and get a free inoculation that last say 2 hours. For the vendors, trainers and auctioneers, simply make them immune for 30 minutes after the last time they died. Simple. You still get to infect everyone, even essential npc, you just can't keep them dead all the time. Problem solved for everyone but the hardcore griefers.
This is why it was a problem and a colosal screw up on Blizz's part. There are a lot of different ways to enjoy the game and people like being able to choose how they want to play. Not everyone is interested in participating in holiday events, even on time holiday events. Does that make them boring stickes in the mud? Sure, I think so but that is up to them, I also cannot figure out why hardcore RPers do their thing, oh well.
Having an event get right up on people's faces is fine, but there really does need to be a way to opt out of it. And simply saying that people should get over it or just take a break belies a childish, petulant attitude that entirely lacks the ability to see things from another's point of view. You don't have to agree, you don't have to even understand it. Simply accept that not everyone in the world is you.
May 5th 2009 1:00PM I think Mal hits it here. I think Blizz's real goal with dual specing was to open up dps to every class. Sure different people will use it differently. Many people will use their second spec for PvP because PvP is really important to them. But most often a PvP spec is really a specialty dps spec. Of course, not always. Others, like priests, might spec two kinds healing or some tanks might spec for choosing between single target tanking and aoe tanking. That's cool, but it is unlikely to be the norm. Most people that get dual spec for one of the 6 hybrid classes will most likely have a specialty (tanking or healing) and a dps spec. Regardless if that dps spec is a PvP spec that they sometimes use for extra dps in raids or a raid spec that they use for extra dps in an occasional WG.
Another way of seeing it is like how the Marine Corp trains its soldiers and officers. At the end of the day, everyone is a marksman. Every single Marine can fight, and fight well. Some do nothing but, snipers and infantry for example. Most will have some kind of specialty. But everyone who learns a specialty must still keeps their marksmenship up.
Now, in Wow, everyone can, if they choose to, easily maintain a solid dps spec, even if they have a specialty like tanking or healing. Others will do nothing but dps, but they will be able to, if they choose to, do dps in more than one way. Hunters, mages, warlocks and rogues, those are our snipers and spec ops. But at the end of the day, everybody knows how to fight.
Dual specing made a LOT of sense to put into the game.
May 5th 2009 12:23PM I very much doubt we will ever see tri-specs simply because it would be dramatically more useful for paladins and druids than it would be for any other class. With dual specs, pretty much every class can benefit from it. Perhaps slightly less so for the pure dps classes but still, being able to bring two kinds of dps to a raid is useful for some min/maxing raid guilds. Tri-specs will not have the same, across the board, usefulness that we see with dual-spec. And as Tom intimated, they still want players to have to make some tough choices.
May 5th 2009 12:13AM if the druid is going to proc on the average 20 seconds sooner than you it will be considerably more powerful in the those hands. And everyone that the druid has hots on will immediately get bubbles.
It is not most useful in a pally's hands.
May 4th 2009 4:20PM Seems like a druid with multiple hots ticking on the raid or a priest with a hots, a pom and a CoH landing on the melee group every 6 sec, could probably get it to proc faster.
May 4th 2009 4:00PM So a pally can create the biggest bubble on a single target. The pally is also the most likely to waste it by hitting the bubble cap. What about being able to put a bunch of smaller bubbles on half the raid using chain heal or prayer of healing or circle of light during a fight with heavy AOE damage. It could be argued that it makes the most sense to put it in the hands of whom ever could produce the highest overall healing throughput. Not just single target throughput.
May 4th 2009 3:49PM All this "It's a pally weapon" crap is getting so annoying that I would sooner give it to a hunter than any pally who dared make such a claim.
Even if some heavy theory-crafting were to show that it was a bit better in the hands of a pally healer in the abstract, I cannot imagine that it would be "better" by anything but a very thin margin. Small percents. And this would depend on a lot of other factors like other gear, skill, spec, glyphing and such. So are you sure that you 1% greater efficiency is going to hold up in your particular situation? Are you willing to bet a crap-ton of guild drama on that?
No way. Not me. I would not trade good guild relations even for a provable and consistent 1 or 2% efficiency gain. Broken, drama ridden guilds don't get the job done, even with legendary weapons.