WoW Legacy Survey Info

[Note to Crixa RPG readers. I’m doing work to help convince Blizzard to try and restore original vanilla World of Warcraft servers. This blog post is not about the space opera RPG]

To update everyone on the legacy petition status, we have a bit of time. While Nostalrius and I both have separate meetings coming up with Blizzard, a definitive date looks to be at least a week or two away. Current status:

  1. Petition at over 253k signatures – congrats!!!! (can always use more:
  2. Petition printed – DONE! Will be delivered when I meet Mike:
  3. My meeting with Mike – Awaiting scheduling (Mike ws booked solid for 2 weeks)
  4. Nostalrius’ meeting – Awaiting scheduling (see @Nostalbegins on Twitter for their status)

In the meantime, to prepare to discuss things with Mike, I’ve started collecting some (highly informal) survey data on Twitter. The one we’re talking about today are the surveys on progression servers and moving to new expansions from vanilla. Take a look.

Screenshot 2016-05-05 05.51.39 Screenshot 2016-05-05 05.51.14

The first survey on the left was a bit flawed. Since I can’t explain everything in a 140 char tweet, many people who voted for timeline based progression did so by accident, so I posted the second survey to clarify.

Basically what we are looking at here is a big question about how to handle expansions with vanilla or legacy servers. Only 15% wanted vanilla to never be upgraded. Anecdotally, I received many tweets (@Grummz, btw), that said TBC (Burning Crusade) was the sweet spot they would like to play.

It’s pretty clear that the majority of people want some kind of progression from vanilla thru expansion packs. Many pointed out that they would want the progression to stop at Wrath of The Lich King, as those people viewed Cataclysm as the beginning of the end of classic WoW. Cataclysm certainly is from the point of view of content, since they did away with much of the old content by then and reshaped the rest. Clearly if we want to play WoW as it was, we need to preserve servers that are pre-Cat.

Now there were two main ways we discussed moving from vanilla to expansions like TBC and WotLK: automatic and manual. Automatic is when the server you are on upgrades to the next expansion back at a certain interval (say, every 2 years), and brings everyone on the server along with it. Manual is when the vanilla server you are on isn’t going to change. If you want to play the next expansion, you would elect to copy your character to the new expansion server when it became available.

Automatic transition was by far the less popular choice. People pointed out that by automatically progressing the servers, we would a) end up where we are now at WoD and wishing we had vanilla again, and b) wipe out the historical content we were seeking to preserve in the first place (Naxx, etc.). It seems the only way automatically progressing servers could work and still preserve the past, is if we still kept servers around for prior expansions…which is, of course, what the second and more popular choice of “Manual” implies.

A manual expansion upgrade means that the vanilla server you play on would remain the same forever. If you wanted to go on to an expansion, you would need to transfer or copy your character to the next expansion in series. Now, there are open questions here. Are all expansions available at launch of legacy, or do you roll them out every 2 years? What happens to the population of a server when an expansion comes out? What happens to guilds who may find themselves split between servers?

The notion of being able to copy your character, rather than transfer it, is an important one to many people. Many felt that a one-way transfer would leave the prior, originating server, depopulated. By copying your character to the next expansion, you would have the option of playing on both. Your original character would still be tuned for vanilla, and your new character could progress in TBC with new gear etc. If you wanted to play vanilla content, you’d go to the vanilla server. If you wanted TBC content/features, you’d play on a TBC server.

Not many were concerned about guilds being split. Most seemed to think that guilds could self-manage this by either being large enough to maintain a multiple server presence, or by electing to transfer by a guild vote en masse. I tend to agree. I’m not worried about how guilds manage the transition. They will do what’s right for them.

The question of server depopulation is an interesting one. But I think it needs to be viewed in light of legacy not being the actual definitive business of WoW, but as a bonus feature. As a bonus feature, I’d be far less worried about a lack of payers on older expansion servers. The point is to offer it as an option, and only deploy the minimum number of servers needed to meet that demand and also preserve the historical importance of the game as a cultural icon. If vanilla servers start being collapse all the way down to one server when TBC launches, that’s fine. History is preserved, and the legacy option is preserved. The main game and legacy expansions will continue to carry the bulk of payers.

I do think that we should start with vanilla and keep it running for 1-2 years before introducing any expansions. This will give people time to level and appreciate the old content. It’s also a lot easier to convince Blizzard to try, since its just one version of the game to start with. If successful, Blizzard would likely be happy to release additional expansions over time.

I’m looking for thoughts and comments, so please leave them here! Twitter is also good for quick suggestions, and you can reach me @grummz.

Thanks and let’s keep our fingers crossed for legacy servers!



    • ZackP says:

      I honestly Agree with the whole manual Option in the idea in which you can clone your Character for another X-pack!!! Seems like the logical thing to do because it gives the players the option to keep their original characters that they wish to keep on their favorite X-pack!!! It will cause less issues with population in some respect….The players will have the option of playing on any X-pack anytime they wished!!! Sounds like the lesser evil of all the other options!!! I for one am really excited about this idea!! I can’t see any harm being done if every player had the option to keep their Original X-pack characters on that X-pack Realm itself!! Great Idea and I hope they pick this idea over any of the others….But that does not mean there arn’t any better ideas out there after all this is why we are all here! SO FRICKEN excited about this whole thing!!!!!!!! never in a million years did I ever think that blizz would even think about doing this…I wanna thank everyone for all their dedication towards wanting to make Wow as classic as classic can be once again!!!

    • Winterflaw says:

      WoW was initially released and then over its life-time and to this day and in the future, received updates.

      WoW consists of the client and the server.

      We can see then, if we had the information to hand, a series of published versions of the WoW client (e.g. 1.12.1 being chosen typically by Vanilla servers), which presumably were quite often (perhaps usually) matched by similar version changes in the server.

      We will see then, if it were possible for the player base to express a preference for versions, a distribution of preferences over these versions. (Most players will never have played all versions, of course, and so cannot rate those not played).

      This line of thought then by the way it quantifies the situation leads us to think in terms of existing versions and so naturally that of which is most popular, whether the version in use should change over time, etc – all the ways you can consider that given situation.

      However, there is another option; and that is to branch away from the existing line of published versions.

      By sticking to the published versions, we can obtain all of their new content for free – we simply move up to a new client. This is great, of course, until we start to move up to poisoned new content, and begin to bring in material which is antagonistic to Vanilla. (It’s a bit like when an old star begins try to fuse iron).

      In the end, though, if we think in terms only of existing published versions, there certainly is a point beyond which Vanilla cannot progress, without becoming not-Vanilla.

      I think however of this two things; firstly, that regardless of that range of existing published versions from which we could choose, there are changes which would be highly beneficial, and, secondly, *the game must be able to continually evolve and change over time*.

      The lack of the ability to change would eventually condemn the game. The capability to change must exist. *The discussion here about progression is really this issue in disguise*.

      The necessity for this is of course both an opportunity and a risk, and for it to go well, requires sound stewardship, ideally with significant player base involvement (referendums) and my personal dream here is to see original WoW Vanilla team members being involved, in whatever capacities, with the dev team.

      So, I argue it must be at some point that Vanilla departs from the existing published versions. This I think may be difficult in some ways. WoW consists of the client and the server. The client I think will be of the two difficult and expensive to change, the server far less so.

      Nevertheless, the capability to change must exist, and so the problem must, in the end, be solved.

      If we then view the current situation in this light – that in the end, Vanilla will branch off, the questions regarding models and so forth, we are in a situation where choices we make now are not permanent; for in time, anything can be done.

      Changing subject, and turning specifically to the question of models, I would prefer the existing cartoony models, and in fact I’ve never played retail WoW with the new models, but they would be acceptable to me should it be advantageous to use them with regard to getting Vanilla off the ground in the first place. I would however look in time to be able to return to the character and style of the originals. I would however also in time look to see the originals improved – *retaining their feel and cartoony style*, but offering perhaps in the way of WildStar highly customizable face and body generation.

      Turning to the question of player population, I think, although I may be wrong, on the whole players look for as high a population density as possible on a server. Given this, the fewest possible number of servers should be run, always, anyway; ideally, just one. This itself naturally means even in the event of a couple of different servers, running different versions, the player populations will remain as high as they can be, and should be many thousands logged in on each server, given the population of Nost during peak hours. One worry I have if Bliz take this on is that there will be a considerable number of low population servers. This I think to be extremely harmful.

      P.s. Thankyou for posting here, where I can write. I do not hold a Twitter account, and in fact cannot seem to obtain a Twitter account, by dint of not keeping a mobile phone number. Twitter registration requires receiving an SMS.

    • Winterflaw says:

      How do I post a top-level reply? The ony “Reply” button/link on the page actually turns out to be “reply to this comment” (which is why I have posted a reply to the top-most comment in the comment list). I’ve looked over the whole page, I cannot see any way to post a top-level reply.

  1. exdeath2217 says:

    i think you should poll something about changes soon. that is my biggest concern.

    there are a few different types for me.

    my personal preferenc would be: give me the game as close as it was to vanilla as possible (i dont need bnet / new grapics as they also increase the costs on blizzards end and tons of costs would reduce the chance of getting a legacy server)
    fixing bugs would be ok.

    then there is:

    make minor changes that dont affect the gameplay aka new graphics / bnet. like i sayed i would be ok with that but that is not needed.

    and then there are the : lets makes speccs viable / reduce respecc cost of give dualspec. if any of this changes would be done then i would not be willing to play on them. if i want this stuff then i go play wod. i want the game as it was. i think ppl that suggest changes like (reduce respec costs) dont consider what that would do to the game. reducing the gold cost for respeccing would reduce the worth of gold itself. goöld back then was hard to come by. decreasing the need to farm gold would take a part of the game away.

    in my oppinion: the more you change vanilla the less ppl will actual play it

    • morrow says:

      I agree that making multiple changes to a Vanilla WoW server would defeat the point of its existence. However, I do believe that there should be some small elements that should be factored into legacy servers. Otherwise, in a worse case scenario, there will be a huge divide between vanilla veterans and players who have little to no knowledge/exposure. I think one way of preventing such a divide would be reduced spec costs so that players who weren’t familiar with vanilla wont be punished as hard when they are trying out specs for whatever reason. It shouldn’t reduce the worth of gold either, as gold back then was used for a wide variety of things, like professions, unforgiving item repairs, auction house, ect.

      And why are you against specs being viable? That doesn’t make sense to me.

      • Winterflaw says:

        Reduced re-spec costs is an example of giving stuff to players. The more you give to players, the easier the game becomes, the easier the game becomes, the less worthwhile it is to play.

  2. Glusk says:

    What about the players that start out as lvl 1 on a TBC realm? Won’t the transfers from vanilla have an unfair advantage? Not to mention the WotLK Realm First achievements!

    How do you combat stagnation of legacy servers? As you’ve mentioned, when the new expansion servers come out, the old ones will essentially become ghost towns. You can of course merge realms until you’re left with only one (extreme), but at the end of the day, if there’s going to be only 300 people on a vanilla realm, we’re not preserving anything. WoW needs thousands of players per server to come to life not hundreds.

    I hope this didn’t come out as an argument against legacy servers. On the contrary that has been my wish ever since Cataclysm was released. I really appreciate your commitment on this matter!

    PS: Me and my friend once wrote a sort of a fan mail to blizzard, crying out for legacy servers. Do you think that such materials can help the cause at all? If so, let me know and I’ll see if I can dig it up!

    • Mark Kern says:

      Fan letters can help, e-mail campaigns and organized petitions are even better.

      I really don’t see a single WoW realm in vanilla ever falling below 1500 concurrent, which is what a packed WoW server at launch was. The day Blizzard can’t put 300 people on a realm would the day WoW was closing for good.

      • Winterflaw says:

        Back in 2005 a new server started and I joined at launch. I remember over the following months (I played for about six months) the server being utterly packed. IF was *stuffed*, the common area around the bank/AH was heaving with players – *more so than Nost with 15k concurrent*. I can’t imagine for one second that server had a 1500 concurrent pop?

  3. Chniourf says:

    I agree at 99% with you

    “I do think that we should start with vanilla and keep it running for 1-2 years before introducing any expansions”
    This is the 1% I disagree. Please we already waited enough.

    • Winterflaw says:

      I don’t see why expansions should be deferred. What’s the advantage in doing so? obviously, there are dev costs, so it may not be practical or cost or risk efficient to bring them out immediately. Those are all good arguments for not doing so. However, if we imagine that we had all those raids and so on ready to go, why would we choose *not* to bring them out? I can’t see any reasons to hold back.

  4. esx says:

    Personally i would perfer being able to jump into TBC/WOTLK as fast as possible. I wouldn’t mind progression servers aslong as i have the choice to stay in my perfered x-pack once the new one was released, and i think if there is an option to play at multiple x-packs at the same time population wont become an issue. Nostalrious had 10k+ players online every day and so does Warmane, if these servers were supported by Blizzard they would have lots more, so i really don’t see population being a problem aslong as you have to option to play on multiple servers.

  5. Taviarn1231 says:

    My question is would i be forced to move into a different expansion at a certain time? Or would i have the option to remain in a certain one indefinitely? Im all for Legacy servers but id hate to be pushed ahead into content i dont wanna play. I wanna play vanilla and BC, possibly Wotlk. But i would hate to put time into a char when i know at some point im gonna be right back in cata and eventually MoP and WoD.

  6. Chniourf says:

    Um… I have few additionnal question. I don’t know if you already answered ’em, I didn’t found anything :

    For you, which one of these option is better ?
    – Having real progressive servers (like the evolution of spell’s mechanics from classes, the dungeons and raids…etc)
    – Or all the patchs will be available at the servers’s launch

    Legacy servers will open for english-speakers only ? If they meet succes, this can change ?

    Thank you for all you’ve done for us.

    • Mark Kern says:

      I think it would be better to launch a vanilla server as it was just prior to the next expansion. It just has so many fixes.

      I don’t see why the server would be limited to just English. The database had all a languages.

      • Winterflaw says:

        Other languages are usually discriminated against. Rebirth had an “English only on public channels” policy – I think Nost did, too. Crazy.

  7. Quipster says:

    Hmm my dream/approach on the copy/xfer stuff is:
    Keep vanilla at a steady pace if sucessfull move on with expansions.
    After having done the loop with Vanilla -> tbc -> wotlk. And now we got 1 server at vanilla, 1 server at tbc, and current “live” at wotlk. -> Time to start all over again, buuuut keep the wotlk server.

    So now we have 1 vanilla, 1 tbc, 1 wotlk and one progression server.
    Progression server will now move at a faster pace ( x months after last boss is killed, new patch rolls around) And it keeps going like this until after wotlk when it again reset. <— So if you follow my idea there, it would be copying the same pattern that diablo seasons use.
    Or perhaps just reset the vanilla/tbc/wotlk server = 3 progressive That are reset at a timely pace.

    Yeah, that's just how I feel!-woohoohooo-Am I wrong? 😉

  8. legacywowplease says:

    I have been following along on Twitter and other info via WoW forums, but I just wanted the opportunity to share my opinion. I don’t have twitter, and it feels like the WoW forums overwhelm any actual valuable posts.

    First off, congratulations to you and the Nostalrius team for getting a meeting – great start! However, don’t let them off easy 🙂

    I am a WoW veteran of over a decade, beginning in the very early days of vanilla and ever since expansions started releasing I have been calling for a legacy server, only to be flamed. It’s sad to see it’s taken this long and this much effort to finally have even a chance of seeing them happen. I have unsubscribed a few times from WoW, play at new expansions, get bored and move on – the game sucks compared to the early days.

    I would like to share some thoughts and ideas for a legacy realm.

    I think the best way to do it, is to have Vanilla servers, TBC servers and even WotLK servers and being able to copy a character over would be great. But I noticed some people were concerned about an unfair advantage, my thought would be there isn’t really any unfair advantage. Years ago when TBC released, my buddy joined the game and he started at 1 and I was already a 60 but he leveled through and got to enjoy the game, by time he was 70 I really wasn’t far ahead of him. Even someone who plays the vanilla server then manually transfers to the BC server didn’t really gain anything because they still had to put their 1-60 time in somewhere. Not like today where you can just buy a max level hehe.

    I think what would be fun would be creating the realms as they were at the early/middle of their release (or near) as opposed to right at the end. I think, as a vanilla player, it would be fun to join a vanilla realm that didn’t have AQ or Naxx yet, gives us still some original progression (not that those raids would be able to be accessed for quite some time even if the were released immediately). But then people get to experience the AQ gates event, things like that. It gives us some “progression” within that expansion.

    Also, I think it would be great if there was a limited number of servers of each expansion, if that’s the route they go to release a servers of each expansion. That way all the realms have density to start, if there is a high demand, what challenges can we foresee with simply creating more realms?

    It seems the progression thing will be an issue for people because everyone has a favorite expansion (although I notice most people calling for vanilla). All my thoughts are contingent upon Blizzard releasing servers for each of the expansions at once. If they don’t release them all at once and they want to start with one – I think vanilla is the most fair choice because not only are many people asking for it, but it’s where it all began – it gives everyone a chance (former and current players) to play from scratch.

    If there is a high demand for BC, could it be able after some time playing vanilla to release some BC servers, players who want to move can move and those who want to stay can stay.

    If it starts with just vanilla, then a year passes and they want to release a TBC server, we all gain some kind of win.
    Players who wanted vanilla got vanilla, they are progressing through, then Blizzard releases a TBC – they have the option: stay on their realm and continue on vanilla, or move onto TBC.

    I know TBC fans say they don’t want to have to wait for progression to get there, which I respect but they have to remember – people calling for vanilla have waited longer than anyone, therefore they should have the first crack at this.

    In an ideal world, Blizzard can release a few servers of each expansion and we can all settle where we want to settle right off the bat. I still think some kind of progression within that expansion is important though. I am mostly familiar with vanilla, but like I mentioned, I think release of of AQ40 or Naxx is fun for the server to look forward to, but I know I’d be okay with something like Battlemasters or BWL released immediately upon server open. Maybe there is bits and pieces that can be used for “progression” (doesn’t matter we know the direction of the storyline and releases).

    As i mentioned, I am a long-time fan of vanilla WoW, anything I can do to help make this happen, feel free to contact me.

  9. Charax Silvershield says:

    Hi Mark.

    Thanks for all your support with this.

    In regards to your blog entry, I agree that you would ideally start it off with just Vanilla and run that until Naxx has been out for awhile before enabling the next expansion. The hype of TBC will get players excited again to keep the legacy thrill running for a few years.

    The copy character to TBC is highly preferable as it will allow players to continue the journey to the next expansion as well as allow players to finish unconquered content in Vanilla. Frankly, a lot of us are older now and do not want to be rushed through content. I wouod prefer a casual approach to WoW.

    The concern about existing legacy servers that are around for awhile and Naxx has been plundered is that they would become stale. Players may wish for a reboot, but others are may be concerned about lost progress. What I would suggest, and this may be a bit off the wall, is that you do eventually reboot the server, but temporarily freeze existing Vanilla characters for a short period of time (say three months) to allow players to enjoy a fresh Vanilla progression again. After the freeze ends, the old existing characters can be played again but any gear beyond the rebooted server progression would be temporarily unusable. I think this is the best way to keep Vanilla fresh with rebooted progression while not throwing out characters that people have spent time developing.

    Thanks again, Mark, for your efforts and good luck with your meetings.

    • Taviarn1231 says:

      I agree with most of what your suggesting except for – temporarily freeze existing Vanilla characters for a short period of time (say three months) . I mainly want to play Vanilla only. I shouldnt have my toons “frozen” to allow others to work up to what i have. Just saying.

  10. pendrius says:

    What you are suggesting is absolutely the way to go. Start with Vanilla for two years, and then move on to BC once that is successful. Manual servers are also by far the best choice. People are always going to want servers to stay in Vanilla, or BC. I love all the expansions before Cataclysm and that is exactly why I want separate servers. Progression is fun, yes, but for us to progress and not be able to look back would defeat the purpose of Legacy Servers entirely. As long as we can copy a character from a previous expansion and log on, everyone will be happy.

    Thanks for all the work you’ve done to help us, Mark. I have wanted Legacy Servers since Cataclysm and have been consistently told that I’m insane by retail fans… all because I want to play a video game I like. Here’s to enjoying those games again.

  11. Winterflaw says:

    So, thinking it over for a bit, it seems to crystalize down to picking say two or three major expansions, and running one server for each, and allowing character copying between servers – indeed, when a new server begins, it begins with the existing character database. Players then gravitate towards their prefered expansion and the legacy player base, with its varied preferenced, is as well catered for as can reasonably and economically be achieved.

    I can’t see any advantage in delaying for its own sake the release of the expansion servers, although I can well imagine it being impractical or impossible to actually release them all at once. I can see value in it as a substitute for the capability to make actual real new changes and modifications in the game (If you only have three sugar cubes, better to have one every six months or each year, than three at once).

    However, this then brings us to back the question of change and divergence.

    Change and divergence can be considered in terms of a *single* server, where everyone plays, and the game evolves over time; or it can be considered in terms of *bifuricating servers*, where at a given point, a server can split off from the existing server, and then follow a separate route.

    The scenario where we consider (say three) expansion servers is a specific example of the latter case; there was an original Vanilla server, which bifurcated, and where the split off server bifurcated again.

    It is perhaps unfortunate in a way that the expansions already exist, for it rather implies there will be distinct groups of Vanilla player preferences – one group for Vanilla, one for TBC, etc. We have already lost the situation where there is a single server and change can occur within that single server and single population, and having multiple server implies multiple ongoing workloads for change and improvement over time, which is costly.

    The only way back to this would be convergence, which would of course be a process of many people loosing things they want.

    In this sense, this situation, it rather seems there is a fundamental choice; do you bite the bullet, and take a decision which will be unpopular with some of the player base, but by which the game moves back to a single version and development and ongoing change occurs on that single server and so with the whole population; or do you aim to avoid the unpopularity of that choice, and provide multiple Vanilla versions, with the problems that in turn induces for future change and development.

    There is a practical aspect to this. The player base has to be large enough to be financially viable. If the player base spread over three servers is too small for the servers to be viable, this route is in fact not an option anyway.

  12. Vegarbeid says:

    I fully agree with the character copy option into the expansion realms. But what is your thoughts on the timeline progression on the realms? How would that be solved? Would the zul gurub and AQ20/40 events already be completed upon release? And if they follow a legacy timeline, would they reset some time? Thanks for your answers and your true commitment. You’re a true hero Mark 🙂 cheers from Norway, have a good weekend.

    • Louk says:

      If possible, they should handle it like Halloween, Children’s Week, etc. Yearly events that happen regularly. Each Raid teir, on a vanilla server, could be a “season”, 3 months of pre-next raid nerf level (MC before BWL was released, BWL before AQL was released, etc), and then it is the next raid tier’s season. You could do a version of the AQL event, and the Scourge invasion every year so people could experience it, maybe lower the AQL requirements, something completable in like a week or 2?

  13. HelzBelz says:

    I am good with just having a Vanilla WOW server to start with. The ONLY require I have for that is to please have PVE and a PVP server. Some people like myself are not big on playing on PVP servers.

  14. merendir says:

    You know guys, i have one petition, if Blizzard just decide to make his own legacy server, please introduce more languages, like Spanish to the server and client of course, thats all for my part, a lot of Spanish users well be glad if they come true, seeyas and good luck to the project.

  15. Detharious says:

    There is something I’d like to mention that some on reddit have also mentioned. The idea of being able to copy to the next expansion is great however, the reason I opt’d for the ‘forced move’ is a different reason entirely. My idea of a legacy server is to maintain that progression style of play that wow had on retail. This means that the server is ‘updating’ itself to keep in line with new content. Blizzard could work this in their favor as they could launch a server (or how many they feel they need to) per expansion and have them run in conjunction releasing content based upon when it was released when it was live. Due to the massive downtime at the end of an expansion they can lop off some time the expansion has and average it out (for example each version would last maybe a year and a half). At this point the server would proceed to the next expansion.

    This has 2 parts to it. One- the last expansion released (in this case WoD) would become legion so the players would be shuffled onto a ‘dump’ server and be able to play on live uninhibited. Two- A new vanilla server is released at the same time letting the progression continue from zero all over again. This keeps the limit of legacy servers down to a minimum and gets characters towards retail ‘eventually’ (long ways away if they started in vanilla). There are flaws though, as this assumes there are enough playeres in ‘unpopular’ expansions like Mist to support an economy. The other flaw being the players that don’t intend to play a certain expansion at all are moved to it without their say. The latter being something I few as less of a problem then some as 1. that is how it was in retail anyway, 2. The progression on the server has been done for a long period already, and 3. There isn’t character bloat.

  16. NicholasGFX says:

    I see two ways to go about character progression in this system if new expansions, specifically TBC and WOTK, are introduced over time.

    One way is that everyone must follow standard progression on vanilla servers from level 1, then once dinged 58-60 they have the option to character-copy to TBC and progress to level 68-70 and then character copy to WOTLK and follow progression through end-game WOTLK. This would ensure that populations don’t fall off in any particular expansion because of new people leveling through the content rather than just going from 1-80 all on a WOTLK server or 1-70 all on a TBC server. This method of implementation would allow the dungeons to stay relevant and keep the current content for each expansion alive all throughout 1-80. It also gives players the choice of going back and progressing in vanilla raids when they’re still relevant on Vanilla at level 60, or swapping back to TBC and doing level 70 content at any given time. Of course, there would be the implication that no one on TBC or WOTLK are under their minimum level requirement of (58/60) or (68/70) and old world consumables/collectables would be extremely scarce on new newer servers unless people actively went back and farmed them since no lower-leveled players would be running the content at any given time. Low level Twinks and “bank alts” for example, wouldn’t exist in the newer expansion servers. It would also be beneficial to reset all items and only retain non-tradeables upon character copying to the new expansion to keep tradeables from being duplicated, which would otherwise have obvious negative impact of players amassing large sums of a particular item or gold and then just having it all “doubled” upon server copying.

    The other way to handle progression if multiple expansions are introduced, is to allow new characters to be started at level 1 in their individual expansion, whie still retaining the option to copy from prior expansions. This would thin out the playerbase a bit, but would allow the most feasible authentic experience for both TBC and WOTLK where people under current content levels actually exist.

    • liambrown92 says:

      I like your ideas but new characters need to be playable on the TBC realm at launch since there are new races and low level content added.

      I dont think the vanilla population will dwindle. Some will re-roll on TBC and some will stay. Others will elect to finish leveling on vanilla before deciding to copy their character.

      I do agree that a character should be level 58 in order to copy over. If you allow players to copy their level 20 or 30 alts it may mess up vanillas low lvl demographic.

      Unfortunately this may have to be limited to 2 copies per account per expansion. Otherwise everyone will level on vanilla and copy over later instead of leveling on TBC except for Draeneis and Blood Elves which will be the vast majority of low level populace.

      So i believe that a player should be able to copy a character over once at the appropiate level but not every character.

      I say two character copies each. this will ensure that some people will level the original class/race combos on the new server.

  17. Ascares says:

    Avast Ye, Admiral!

    You got me extremely excited 😉 , xD . . .
    For a classic server , the ideas posted here are already pretty good . Personally I support manual transfer/copy or any kind of it implementation…

    P.S.: Best hopes , we will make it 😉

  18. tnt02 says:

    Pure Vanilla, as is. Similar timeline, manual upgrade, copy characters.

    Keep it simple. Don’t get Blizz started messing with things or we’ll end up with something unrecognizable.

  19. Wartem says:

    Keep vanilla. Add expansions but keep max level 60 and change all mobs lvls, stats etc to fit vanilla so that nothing gets obsolete in vanilla. Instead of new levels, add a new parallel progression system like they did in GW2 when their expansion came out.

    • Wartem says:

      And of course new gear and items in expansions should be on par with vanilla and stats be depending on difficulty. Naxx should probably still be the hardest instance for example and therefore give the best loot in the game across all expansions.

  20. Zagy says:

    Why are people asking for all the extra features like new Character Models,Arenas,Updated Graphics and all kind of crazy wishes.I thought we all wanted the REAL Vanilla WoW not the pimped up version of Vanilla.What do you think is going to happen when Mark presents all of your wishes to Mike (Arena,Character Models,Graphics) we’ll get one simple answer ˝We have WoD where you can enjoy all those features and the upcoming expansion˝.

    The only thing legacy server would get is the,and if you are not cool with that then you might want to rethink if you really want legacy server.Because one of reasons why Blizzard probably doesn’t want to make Legacy servers is for that reason alone (even if its an old game people want new stuff in it) which kinda just proves what Blizzard said year ago.

    Either you are WoW vanilla fan and want the game as it was and enjoy the heck out of it again (hopefully),or you don’t really want it,if you want all changes.

    • naitguolf says:

      No, you are wrong. It not, everything, or nothing. Is not that simple. And that’s because we do not know how that vanilla will be deployed. We do not know if they will use the latest vanilla version, or will be emulated using actual engine. If they use the actual engine, then more options will be open (hoping those changes will not change gameplay wise).

      But if the real 1.12 is used, maybe is better to not change anything, at least at first once a community of players stabilizes and then players will ask if something needs to be added/changed or not.

    • liambrown92 says:

      I agree with this. Unmodified versions of the original game. With legacy and retail as two different options. I know ill switch over to retail from time to time and play. I dont want the legacy server to become twisted. Its there to be refreshing and pure. Something to step out of modern wow into a perfectly preserved museum of the past.

  21. ZeroUm says:

    The release cycle should be done per content, not per expansion.

    E.g., WotLK:

    * Questing, Dungeons, Onyxia, Molten Core, : 6-7 months
    * Zul’Gurub and Blackwing Lair, 3-4 months
    * Ahn’Qiraj, 4-5 months
    * Naxxramas, 5-6 months

    * Questing, Dungeons, Karazhan, Gruul, Mags Lair, SSC, TK, 6-8 months
    * Hyjal and Black Temple, 6 months
    * Zul Aman, 3 months
    * Sunwell, 6 months

    * Questing, Dungeons, VoA, OS, EoE, Naxx, 6-7 months.
    * Ulduar, 6-7 months.
    * Onyxia and Trials of the Champion and Crusader, 3 months.
    * Frozen Halls dungeons, Icecrown Citadel and Ruby Sanctum, 6 months.

  22. tnt02 says:

    I think it would be good if there was a venue for people to write “open letters” to Blizzard, since a lot of us are unsubbed so can’t post on their forums. We need to keep momentum. I also think a snail mail letter campaign would be good, but only if it has huge participation. They still don’t think the numbers are there for legacy to be worth their investment. If they see huge numbers, they’ll start seeing $$$ and then they’ll actually do something.

  23. Pingback: url zumfap ru
  24. Pingback: check this out
  25. Pingback: follow the link
  26. Pingback: taken from here
  27. Pingback: link
  28. Pingback: source
  29. Pingback: go to the page
  30. Pingback: visit the page
  31. Pingback: link to details
  32. Pingback: click to go
  33. Pingback: more information
  34. Pingback:
  35. Pingback:
  36. Pingback:
  37. Pingback:
  38. Pingback:
  39. Pingback: go to the source
  40. Pingback: address
  41. Pingback:
  42. Pingback:
  43. Pingback:
  44. Pingback:
  45. Pingback:
  46. Pingback: click for details
  47. Pingback: on this page
  48. Pingback:
  49. Pingback:
  50. Pingback: follow this post
  51. Pingback:
  52. Pingback: click for details
  53. Pingback:
  54. Pingback:
  55. Pingback:
  56. Pingback: click
  57. Pingback: click to read more
  58. Pingback: check this out
  59. Pingback: 2019
  60. Pingback:
  61. Pingback: #macron #Lassalle
  62. Pingback: a2019-2020
  63. Pingback: facebook
  64. Pingback: facebook1
  65. Pingback:
  66. Pingback: tamoxifen

Leave a Reply