I mean, that train already left the station the moment they used a branch of the retail client. Updates to net code, cheat prevention, bot prevention, Battle.net integration, colorblind mode, and changes in the rendering engine are all there. Classic has been changed at a cosmetic level, and potentially at a gameplay level (spell batching).
Just because something has been changed or could be changed doesn't mean all the changes are alright, good, acceptable and so forth - that's a logical fallacy. Until we have a Beta available, there is no telling what has changed and everything. The programming part and the user experience part are two different subjects entirely. When people say they want "no changes" they are referring to, of course, the user experience part.
Why? Because it wasn’t in The original.
The issue I have with this line of thinking is that it gets applied to everything when it really shouldn't. Design decisions should remain unchanged. Technical limitations should be allowed to be changed. We've already changed some things due to technical limitations or changes (net code, Battle.net integration), and I don't see the lack of appearance change in vanilla as anything more than a technical limitation.
I see it as a design change not a technical change. However you are arguing semantics, so let’s just agree to disagree.
So if I get this straight, you choice of hair color, hair style, and skin tone which will be exactly the same on hundreds of other players makes them uniquely individual?
Among other things, yes.
You have to factor in the fact that we will all be on different realm, different guilds, different timezones and so forth - but yes, our choice of skin tone, hair style and hair color adds another layer on top of what makes our character unique.
Think about real life for a moment - if somebody decides to shave off their mohawk they're still the same person, they just changed their hairstyle. Or do you think he was born with a mohawk and has never been able to change it?
Yes, to me they are a different person.
We have to ask ourselves what a man with a mohawk is to us, as random strangers on the street. From an all-knowing, detached and objective perspective (let's say that of a GM on the server) the man with a mohawk is just as unique with or without the mohawk because his identity is tied to his name, personality, being, whatever.
However, to us - a man with a mohawk is just a man with a mohawk. The mohawk is probably his defining feature among the masses of people we see every day. You shave that mohawk then he becomes just another man to us. You might be the same person to yourself, but to everyone else who doesn't know/cannot see anything else which is identifiable about you, you are a different person.
So if he decides that he no longer is feeling the punk scene, too bad so sad you've got to be punk forever? Or maybe he should be able change his hair style to fit his new interests? I never said anything about allowing more mounts. I said if today I decide to use my pally mount, and tomorrow I use a standard horse, why is that any different than having one hair cut today and a different hair cut tomorrow?
And if he regrets it the next day, he should be able to grow it back right? :lol:
The point was that if you were to give people the ability to grow/drop a mohawk on a daily basis, the whole point about having one would go out the window as anyone could just choose when to have it based on their feelings rather than a pre-planned commitment.
The difference between haircuts and mounts is that mounts is that mounts are optional and equipable, whereas haircuts are part of your character (whether they are visible or not is up to you).
Mounts are obtained via in-game question/gold, haircuts are obtained on character creation. Mounts (much like gear) are cosmetics which derive significance from the practical applications of speed increase ("I like this mount because I can go faster in outdoor areas"), the value directly tied to this effort ("I like this mount because I worked hard to get it") as well as personal preference ("I like this mount because it looks good").
Haircuts are cosmetics which derive significance solely from personal preference ("I chose this haircut because I like it") and the permanence of the choice ("I like this haircut because I've grown attached to it / it's been with me since day 1/it's part of who I am/it is something that defines me").
They are two different things, similar but still different.
Do you honestly think other people won't make the same choices for those as you? Why is this little bit so important when there's so many other uniqueness factors?
Because the BiS lists for every patch are pretty much known and almost everyone touching this game is going to be wearing roughly the same things, doing roughly the same activities with roughly the same goals in mind. Every little bit matters.
Yeah you going to point me to proof that cosmetic changes (the topic of discussion here) has lead to the "downfall" of WoW other than saying they happened at the same time? As far as I can see there is 0 causation between appearance changes and any other changes.
And again, you are putting words in my mouth in the same exact sentence where I asked you not to imply what you think I am saying and to just comment on what I am actually saying. I never said it would lead to the "downfall" of anything. I argued that they would significantly impact gameplay because they will affect player uniqueness and identity, it would definitely impact the community which is predominantly against any changes which were not part of the 1.12 patch, and so forth.
Incidentally, one of the major sources of our complaints vis-a-vis the current state of WoW, as well as one of our main concerns in opposition to any changes (cosmetic or otherwise) has to do with these changes. They do not constitute the sole reason for these commonly shared feelings among the vocal majority of the Classic WoW community, but they are definitely among the reasons often quoted.
The best and final argument against these changes lies in the inherent nature of Classic WoW's existence - to attempt to recreate patch 1.12 as authentically as possible. Any other change or implication on its change is only speculation, though it is worth taking notes from history as to where and how small changes have impacted the community to try not to repeat the same mistakes.
My man why you keep adding posts after your original. Makes it so hard to keep up with commenting. :lol:
It's called the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility . It's very easy to understand, I learned it when I was 17 in a basic course in high-school. It basically states the obvious that the more you indulge insomething, the less satisfaction you will get from each item. If you failed to understand 1-2 simple examples, I don't see how an elaborate discussion on negative marginal utility is going to suffice, but if this is the proof you want to "see" there it is.
That is certainly a theory. While it does apply here, the problem I have with it in this context it assumes both that whatever zero point exists and that satisfaction from consumption is the same for each person. You might not receive any satisfaction from any change, but somebody else might experience roughly the same level of satisfaction 10 changes down the road.
Neither have you addressed the fact that I've already pointed out multiple post-creation customization choices which seem to go against the "you can't change things, deal with it" concept.
Yes, I have.
If by "post-creation customization choices" you mean the changes implemented over the span of 2 years of patches in WoW, I did tell you that:
I think you misunderstood what I had been saying here. I meant things like choosing to hide helm/cloak, choosing what mount to use, or what companion (if any) to have. In the context of post-creation customization choices how are any of those different from being able to change your appearance? How is changing your appearance any different than deciding to wear a piece of gear for looks over power? Ignoring the "because it wasn't that way" argument because that's not going to lead this conversation anywhere.
Yeah, but definitely has suffered ever since it decided to appeal to more casuals to the point that they've stopped releasing subscriber numbers. This is a different subject entirely but just because it's not dead doesn't mean it's not suffering.
It might be suffering because of that, but there's more factors than just features in play here. The decline of the MMO market in general definitely plays into it, and we've seen that trying to appeal to the hardcore doesn't necessarily work.
Among other things such as mounts, guild names, in-game titles, activities - yes.
So why is their character's appearance specifically the one point of uniqueness that they can't change? What makes that so sacred?
Keyword: authentic.
Sure, initially it will be the authentic 1.12 experience (ignoring the whole content release plan bit), but we don't have any proof yet that they won't change things later. I think a number of people don't want them to, but we don't actually know which way they'll go. How long can Classic last on just the vanilla content? We honestly can't predict that.
Just because something has been changed or could be changed doesn't mean all the changes are alright, good, acceptable and so forth - that's a logical fallacy. Until we have a Beta available, there is no telling what has changed and everything. The programming part and the user experience part are two different subjects entirely. When people say they want "no changes" they are referring to, of course, the user experience part.
Sure, not all changes would be good, but tossing out all potentials is as much a fallacy as accepting all changes. Each should be determined on individual merit.
Yes, to me they are a different person.
...
However, to us - a man with a mohawk is just a man with a mohawk. The mohawk is probably his defining feature among the masses of people we see every day. You shave that mohawk then he becomes just another man to us. You might be the same person to yourself, but to everyone else who doesn't know/cannot see anything else which is identifiable about you, you are a different person.
If somebody is so unimportant to you that a simple change of hair makes them a different person they how does their decision to do so affect you in any way? You didn't know who they were before, or who they were after. Nothing about their relationship to you has changed. So with that in mind, why does it matter what they do? If anything the fact that it doesn't affect you shows that they should be allowed to do it.
And if he regrets it the next day, he should be able to grow it back right? :lol:
The point was that if you were to give people the ability to grow/drop a mohawk on a daily basis, the whole point about having one would go out the window as anyone could just choose when to have it based on their feelings rather than a pre-planned commitment.
But this still comes from the standpoint that it has to be a pre-planned commitment. We have proof that it doesn't need to be. With that in mind, it has to be proven that it should be and so far I've not seen the upside to that.
Mounts are obtained via in-game question/gold, haircuts are obtained on character creation.
Let's say instead of this being real money appearance change tokens they just implemented the in-game barbershop. Would that still have the same issues for you?
Mounts (much like gear) are cosmetics which derive significance from the practical applications of speed increase ("I like this mount because I can go faster in outdoor areas"), the value directly tied to this effort ("I like this mount because I worked hard to get it") as well as personal preference ("I like this mount because it looks good").
Sure, mounts do have practical value, but how do we weigh the difference between two mounts of the same speed? Purely personal preference.
Haircuts are cosmetics which derive significance solely from personal preference ("I chose this haircut because I like it") and the permanence of the choice ("I like this haircut because I've grown attached to it / it's been with me since day 1/it's part of who I am/it is something that defines me").
To be honest I think this drastically undervalues people's desire for self expression and changing decisions about their personality and appearance. If anything I would value this higher because it only ever increases total happiness.
Because the BiS lists for every patch are pretty much known and almost everyone touching this game is going to be wearing roughly the same things, doing roughly the same activities with roughly the same goals in mind. Every little bit matters.
Eh, that assumes that people are both lucky enough to get BiS and care enough to always wear it. A lot of people are going to be choosing to play the game casually, and likely won't care about BiS. There's a reason transmog has been so successful, and that is that people like to be able to choose what they wear. People will absolutely wear subpar gear for looks. (Note: I am not suggesting adding transmog, I know the value of showing off gear in vanilla)
Classic fundamentalist vs progressivism exchange. The fact vanilla is being revived is case in point against any progressive argument.
Classic fundamentalist vs progressivism exchange. The fact vanilla is being revived is case in point against any progressive argument.
I think this is the statement that really illustrates where my disagreements come from. I've never seen Classic as "reviving" vanilla. It's not vanilla, nor will it be vanilla. It's essentially a remaster of vanilla. Ignoring all potential changes because some could be bad feels wrong. Some changes could actually be useful, and they should be considered. Especially in an environment where you can say "hey, turns out that didn't go as we expected, we're rolling it back".
I fully acknowledge that myself and fundamentalists will never see fully eye on eye on what classic should be. I think a lot of my disagreement in this thread is the fact that I don't see some parts of your character creation choices as something that needs to be sacred and permanent because there's no objective advantage to it being that way, and it can provably be different.
Classic fundamentalist vs progressivism exchange. The fact vanilla is being revived is case in point against any progressive argument.
I think this is the statement that really illustrates where my disagreements come from. I've never seen Classic as "reviving" vanilla. It's not vanilla, nor will it be vanilla. It's essentially a remaster of vanilla. Ignoring all potential changes because some could be bad feels wrong. Some changes could actually be useful, and they should be considered. Especially in an environment where you can say "hey, turns out that didn't go as we expected, we're rolling it back".
I fully acknowledge that myself and fundamentalists will never see fully eye on eye on what classic should be. I think a lot of my disagreement in this thread is the fact that I don't see some parts of your character creation choices as something that needs to be sacred and permanent because there's no objective advantage to it being that way, and it can provably be different.
And you being one of an infinite number of unique opinions should understand that the market demand for the revival was by and large a product of fundamentalist protest. That is why your opinions are not valid.
That is not to be rude, only in frankness. Your thread of opinions can be argued from a million differing perspectives but that’s not who the game was revived for and you should accept and respect that.
By https://classic.wowhead.com/zone=293/thoradins-wall , I say ! It's getting outwalled by Nymbus who makes one https://classic.wowhead.com/object=243463/wall of https://classic.wowhead.com/object=211754/curious-text after another !! This https://classic.wowhead.com/npc=16057/rotting-maggot will turn out to be an https://classic.wowhead.com/npc=3468/ancient-of-lore in https://classic.wowhead.com/spell=5170/disguise !!!
And you being one of an infinite number of unique opinions should understand that the market demand for the revival was by and large a product of fundamentalist protest. That is why your opinions are not valid.
That is not to be rude, only in frankness. Your thread of opinions can be argued from a million differing perspectives but that’s not who the game was revived for and you should accept and respect that.
If you want to believe my opinions aren't valid then go ahead. You're not going to stop me from giving them though. You are free to ignore them.
The game was revived for anybody who wants to play it, regardless of who they are or what their opinions are. Trying to declare one group the "one true audience" and ignoring all opinions to the contrary is just going to drive away potential players.
And you being one of an infinite number of unique opinions should understand that the market demand for the revival was by and large a product of fundamentalist protest. That is why your opinions are not valid.
That is not to be rude, only in frankness. Your thread of opinions can be argued from a million differing perspectives but that’s not who the game was revived for and you should accept and respect that.
If you want to believe my opinions aren't valid then go ahead. You're not going to stop me from giving them though. You are free to ignore them.
The game was revived for anybody who wants to play it, regardless of who they are or what their opinions are. Trying to declare one group the "one true audience" and ignoring all opinions to the contrary is just going to drive away potential players.
Except it’s not my opinion, it’s the stated opinions of the devs and the majority of the player base.
I’m attempting to do you a courtesy since you are talking to a wall and appear to not realize it. It’s not gonna happen.
My man why you keep adding posts after your original. Makes it so hard to keep up with commenting. :lol:
Way easier to reply in point to every idea. Though I think I'll stop replying after this, I've been at it for far too long.
That is certainly a theory. While it does apply here, the problem I have with it in this context it assumes both that whatever zero point exists and that satisfaction from consumption is the same for each person. You might not receive any satisfaction from any change, but somebody else might experience roughly the same level of satisfaction 10 changes down the road.
The point is about repeated satisfaction - doesn't matter what person or reward we're talking about, if you are craving a snickers bar and I give you one snickers bar, then you are going to receive a certain amount of satisfaction. However, with each extra snickers bar right after that you will not receive as much satisfaction as you did with the previous one and at some point you will grow to hate it and stop considering snickers bars to be a treat as a whole.
And the only way for someone to experience the same level of satisfaction 10 changes down the road is to not allow this person to have 10 changes in a row, just like you would not allow children to have 10 cookies in a row but only give them a cookie every time they do something right. Or dog treats for dogs if it's a better analogy. You give 10 dog treats in a row, they stop being treated as "dog treats" and become regular food for the dog. Dog treats lose significance. Same thing with cosmetics - it becomes a pointless thing.
I think you misunderstood what I had been saying here. I meant things like choosing to hide helm/cloak, choosing what mount to use, or what companion (if any) to have. In the context of post-creation customization choices how are any of those different from being able to change your appearance? How is changing your appearance any different than deciding to wear a piece of gear for looks over power? Ignoring the "because it wasn't that way" argument because that's not going to lead this conversation anywhere.
Well, we can't just ignore it because if we do go down the "it could be this way" argument it's definitely not going to be relevant to anyone.
Gear is something you acquire, appearance is something you are "born" with, just like your race. The fact that you chose one race/appearance over the other was your permanent personal preference - your armor is a temporary acquired personal preference.
The post-creation customization choices trade value in permanence (because they can be changed) for value in effort (because they take more effort to acquire). Allowing for changes to appearance diminishes the value of permanence that a character has (think race/class/quest choices you will make in terms of items and what not) - if anyone could change their class/race at any point then it really wouldn't matter what sort of class/race you were playing, it would only matter what level your character was, then it would also affect how attached you felt to your race/class, and so forth.
appeal to the hardcore doesn't necessarily work.
Yeah, definitely a remarkable idea to launch with a subscription, terrible servers, dreadful design and balancing and so forth. This guy explains exactly why BfA and modern WoW is garbage.
So why is their character's appearance specifically the one point of uniqueness that they can't change? What makes that so sacred?
Not saying they can't change, just that the change would affect character uniqueness. You barely have a few things that you can permanently choose about your character.