Druid Feral
User avatar
Guild:

LFG


Bnet:

Selexin#1725


Posts: 618
Likes: 392
525 posts
Tauren
Druid
Tauren Druid 525 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

There are a lot of 'technical limitations' that were added in xpacs after vanilla - are you sure you want to open to door to allowing changes that were simply 'technical limitations' in vanilla? Flying mounts? LFG/LFR?

It's the old slippery slope adage. Sure you want cosmetic changes brought in from WotLK because it was just a technical limitation that has no direct impact, but where does it stop?

   Scheyp
ImageImage
Winterspring
User avatar
Posts: 24
Likes: 19
Alliance Paladin 24 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

Selexin wrote:
4 months ago
There are a lot of 'technical limitations' that were added in xpacs after vanilla - are you sure you want to open to door to allowing changes that were simply 'technical limitations' in vanilla? Flying mounts? LFG/LFR?

It's the old slippery slope adage. Sure you want cosmetic changes brought in from WotLK because it was just a technical limitation that has no direct impact, but where does it stop?
When they stop being technical limitations and start being game design decisions. Flying mounts and LFG/LFR are game design decisions. Simple cosmetic changes are not. They've already shown that game design decisions overrule tech limitations by adding the wait on mail and debuff limits back in. So far nobody has given a proper defense on why cosmetic changes affect game design other than saying they will. You've all made the claim, now back it up.

Warsong Gulch
User avatar
Posts: 92
Likes: 56
92 posts
Horde
Mage
Horde Mage 92 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
Razor wrote:
4 months ago
Being able to nullify any harm you have done to the community (think social abuse, ganking, ninja-looting etc.) or even the idea that you will have the possibility to do so whenever you'd like to brings absolutely nothing good to the table.
I really would appreciate it if you could tell me how a change in something as simple as hairstyle or color would make the community forget those things. Really, please do.
I respect your opinion and I'm in no position to argue who is right.

From my point of view - name change gives an opportunity to hide player's identity. This is harmful to healthy community. Appearance change itself does not have the same effect. Yet, it might open the pandora's box, which in turn could lead to decision of the developers to allow name change.

I personally would not like to encounter such course of events and therefore feel completely alright with unalterable decisions in terms of setting up your character.

   Scheyp Selexin
- anno 2005.
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
Just how slippery is that slope you're on? Just having something as simple as the ability to change your appearance will not cause everything to go as extreme as you guys are thinking without any actual proof that it was simple appearance changes that caused it.
It is not a slippery slope, it's a fact of the game (and of life really) which has happened and will happen again if it is allowed to happen. I'll try to explain it in detail with a different analogy.

When I was very young, everyone played outside. The coolest thing you could have then was a hand-held device on which you could play games and everyone wanted that.

As I got older, they became more accessible and it wasn't the coolest thing to have them anymore. However, everyone wanted to have some kind of console to play games on.
As I got older, they became more accessible and it wasn't the coolest thing to have them anymore. However, everyone wanted some kind of computer to play PC games on.
As I got older, they became more accessible and it wasn't the coolest thing to have them anymore.

I got to live through the excitement and thrills of acquiring several gaming devices and I have a solid appreciation for each and everyone of them. How many kids these days give two fucks about a Tamagotchi or Super Mario when you give them smartphones at the age of 6 and by the time they're 7 they're hooked on gaming PCs?

World of Warcraft players are exactly like that. One of the main reasons the modern version of WoW sucks so much is exactly that - instead of making the players adapt to the game, they've adapted the game to the players and just gave everyone what they wanted, whatever was the "coolest" thing to have at that current time.

By giving people a choice to alter their appearance, you are removing all the significance of meaningful choices made prior which have contributed to the end result. If you can't understand the difference between my character having a mohawk because:

a) I created him that way, with a specific purpose, history, design in mind
b) I paid Blizzard 20$

Then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Most of us don't want Blizzard to babysit all our decisions because we're not children and it would definitely reduce our satisfaction as a result of directly affecting our uniqueness in the game.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
The issue I have with this line of thinking is that it gets applied to everything when it really shouldn't.
*in your humble opinion, NOT in that of the devs and the vast majority of players who have stated, over and over again, that they wish to recreate the most authentic Vanilla experience possible.

Nitpicking what you think alters the gameplay is irrelevant to everyone else.
Nitpicking what you consider is relevant to this game (technical/non-technocal limitation) is absolutely irrelevant to everyone.
Trying to justify cosmetic change with the passage of time as an objective argument is just silly considering the events of Classic take place in the span on 1 year - and is also absolutely irrelevant.

   Linguine
Warrior Fury
User avatar
Posts: 194
Likes: 86
188 posts
Horde
Horde 188 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
So here's my issue. Not a single one of you has explained how minor cosmetic changes (an appearance change without a name change) will suddenly affect your community and/or reputation. You keep saying it will, but I literally cannot even begin to fathom how changing your character's gender/skin tone/hairstyle will make people forget who you are. If that's enough to make you forget who somebody is, did you ever really care about the person behind the character, or just the character?
Razor wrote:
4 months ago
Being able to nullify any harm you have done to the community (think social abuse, ganking, ninja-looting etc.) or even the idea that you will have the possibility to do so whenever you'd like to brings absolutely nothing good to the table.
I really would appreciate it if you could tell me how a change in something as simple as hairstyle or color would make the community forget those things. Really, please do.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
I get that even harmless cosmetic choices sound good in theory, but players are like spoiled kids who want cookies from the cookie jar and the game should never cater towards them. The moment you give them access to the cookie jar, you have to find something else to motivate them with, you have to find better cookies to treat them with, and in two weeks time they'll probably hate or at best forget about the cookie jar entirely.
Razor wrote:
4 months ago
This is exactly the line of thinking that got us to the point of no return in terms of any credibility or accountability in-game, simply due to the fact that you can hide it.
Just how slippery is that slope you're on? Just having something as simple as the ability to change your appearance will not cause everything to go as extreme as you guys are thinking without any actual proof that it was simple appearance changes that caused it. Change is game design are what caused the issues, not the ability to change how you look. I guess I just have more faith that people who will actively choose to play Classic know that there's a difference between cosmetic changes and game design changes.
Linguine wrote:
4 months ago
The gist of it was that someone was saying that allowing others to have the updated character models hurt no one, but then someone who played a Tauren countered by saying that the models Tauren received looked like goofy Disney characters and that he wanted to retain the dignity of his representation knowing that the way he designed his character was the way others saw it as a noble and dignified being.
This actually supports my point pretty well really. If "how I want my character to be represented" is such a powerful thing that we should be forcing decisions onto others (no updated graphics) then it's also powerful enough that we should be letting people make choices for their own representation. Which includes letting them change when their idea of themselves changes.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
It wasn't in Vanilla, it was added in WotLK. Good enough reason for most of this playerbase.
Scheyp wrote:
4 months ago
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.
My own point has always been that Vanilla, and now Classic, is a type of game that does not "bow down" to whatever change people want, cosmetic or not. You are supposed to adjust to the game, the game is not supposed to adjust itself to you.

You are put into the world, given the tools, and now you do your best to survive with what you have been given. Not stand there and say how you want this and this because "it does not affect anyone and therefore I should have it."

Classic will not adjust itself to you, you adjust to Classic.

   Linguine Selexin
Alterac Valley
User avatar
Posts: 65
Likes: 170
Dwarf Paladin 65 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
Winterspring
User avatar
Posts: 24
Likes: 19
Alliance Paladin 24 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
It is not a slippery slope, it's a fact of the game (and of life really) which has happened and will happen again if it is allowed to happen. I'll try to explain it in detail with a different analogy.
X does Y which will lead to Z when Y and Z don't have any actual correlation is the definition of a slippery slope. Cosmetic changes do not correlate to LFR, or flying mounts, or welfare epics.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
When I was very young, everyone played outside. The coolest thing you could have then was a hand-held device on which you could play games and everyone wanted that.

...

I got to live through the excitement and thrills of acquiring several gaming devices and I have a solid appreciation for each and everyone of them. How many kids these days give two fucks about a Tamagotchi or Super Mario when you give them smartphones at the age of 6 and by the time they're 7 they're hooked on gaming PCs?
That's not even a slippery slope. That's just life changing. Of course kids don't care about Tamagotchi or Super Mario, those things are in the past. To make a similar analogy, how much do you care about 1970's pop culture films? And I don't just mean the award winners, I mean the high grossing but artistically mediocre ones.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
World of Warcraft players are exactly like that. One of the main reasons the modern version of WoW sucks so much is exactly that - instead of making the players adapt to the game, they've adapted the game to the players and just gave everyone what they wanted, whatever was the "coolest" thing to have at that current time.
Which is funny because that's the exact opposite of people's complaints with retail. They can't get exactly what they want because of how RNG everything is.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
By giving people a choice to alter their appearance, you are removing all the significance of meaningful choices made prior which have contributed to the end result. If you can't understand the difference between my character having a mohawk because:

a) I created him that way, with a specific purpose, history, design in mind
b) I paid Blizzard 20$
I would like to respond to this quote with well, a quote from yourself.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
Nitpicking what you think alters the gameplay is irrelevant to everyone else.
You said it yourself, what you think alters gameplay is irrelevant to anybody else. With that in mind I'm going to, quite naturally, go for the side that allows for more freedom and choices with no actual gameplay changes.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
Then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Most of us don't want Blizzard to babysit all our decisions because we're not children and it would definitely reduce our satisfaction as a result of directly affecting our uniqueness in the game.
If you care so much about the hairstyle of somebody else's character then I really don't know what more to say here. You have yet to explain how what other people do with their character's appearance affects you. Or even why that doesn't apply to gear. Or the ability to toggle your cloak and helm. Or what mount they use, or mini pet they have with them. There's already a ton of ways to change your character appearance in game, why is this where you draw the line?
Firelord wrote:
4 months ago
My own point has always been that Vanilla, and now Classic, is a type of game that does not "bow down" to whatever change people want, cosmetic or not. You are supposed to adjust to the game, the game is not supposed to adjust itself to you.
I mean, this is just provably untrue. Players wanted to hide cloak and helms (*gasp* post-creation customization), so vanilla changed. Rogues wanted a place to grind lockpicking, so they added them. Players wanted to be rewarded for PvP, ways to grind rep, queue for PvP in town, apply more debuffs, have better BG rewards, linked auction houses, have quests be useful at 60, have cheaper respecs, and potentially stand a chance in pvp on heavily one-sided realms. Vanilla changed constantly, and every change was "the death of WoW". Yet here we are, wanting that final, very changed, version.

Ashenvale
User avatar
Posts: 202
Likes: 124
202 posts
Alliance
Shaman
Alliance Shaman 202 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
I get that even harmless cosmetic choices sound good in theory, but players are like spoiled kids who want cookies from the cookie jar and the game should never cater towards them. The moment you give them access to the cookie jar, you have to find something else to motivate them with, you have to find better cookies to treat them with, and in two weeks time they'll probably hate or at best forget about the cookie jar entirely.
Great point! When retail was given an inch the players never stopped asking for more.

I'd like to add that many of these cosmetic changes seem harmless mainly because it is more difficult to see how far their consequences will reach in tainting the feeling of classic wow. It's dangerous to change anything because anything could give us a Monkey's Paw scenario. And yeah, there are going to be a few small differences, but I'd rather it be due to the code team's limitations than outright putting something in that's got a giant flag on it.

@Scheyp If it isn't too much trouble could you correct your comment for your last post on page 1? Burns my soul that such words are attributed to me.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
Posts: 194
Likes: 86
188 posts
Horde
Horde 188 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
I mean, this is just provably untrue. Players wanted to hide cloak and helms (*gasp* post-creation customization), so vanilla changed. Rogues wanted a place to grind lockpicking, so they added them. Players wanted to be rewarded for PvP, ways to grind rep, queue for PvP in town, apply more debuffs, have better BG rewards, linked auction houses, have quests be useful at 60, have cheaper respecs, and potentially stand a chance in pvp on heavily one-sided realms. Vanilla changed constantly, and every change was "the death of WoW". Yet here we are, wanting that final, very changed, version.
I never argued that people did not want changes during Vanilla.

My point is that Classic is a Vanilla recreation and should not have all the options we have today, put into it, just because people feel "it will effect nobody."

Classic gives what Vanilla gave, and it's you who needs to adjust to it, not the other way around.

Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
That's not even a slippery slope. That's just life changing. Of course kids don't care about Tamagotchi or Super Mario, those things are in the past. To make a similar analogy, how much do you care about 1970's pop culture films? And I don't just mean the award winners, I mean the high grossing but artistically mediocre ones.
If they were significant or in any way remarkable for their time, I do care. Artistic value has nothing to do with this, you're completely missing the point. This is about being allowed to indulge in something that you want which will reduce your satisfaction and enjoyment of that thing, which in turn reduces the value of that thing to you. It's basic economic theory. That's why you don't let your kids near the cookie jar - it's not just about them being unhealthy, it's also the fact that once you do let them there, they're not going to think cookies are that great anymore because you've completely spoiled any sort of sense of uniqueness or exclusivity vis-a-vis getting cookies.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
Which is funny because that's the exact opposite of people's complaints with retail. They can't get exactly what they want because of how RNG everything is.
No, to put it into context, people complain that nothing is worth obtaining in retail because of RNG (among other things). The reason that happened was because at some point, they decided to cater towards the more casual player base that wanted more gear for less effort and appealed to RNG in order to keep content "relevant" for the more non-casual players. They're stated and reiterated this very fact so many times now.

Turns out, you don't get to keep the game alive appealing to that sort of player base, who would've thought.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
You said it yourself, what you think alters gameplay is irrelevant to anybody else. With that in mind I'm going to, quite naturally, go for the side that allows for more freedom and choices with no actual gameplay changes.
But as I've explained to you with the race change and cosmetics change, they will significantly impact game play if they are allowed to exist. That freedom of choice comes at the expense of the sense of uniqueness and permanence, as I've explained.

You are naturally going to side on whatever your personal desire is, but to the core and objective purpose of this project existing in the first place, your personal views have no relevance. Zero. The only objective metric and standard that we have to throw personal opinions on is whether or not whatever is being added into the game follows the design philosophy faithfully, and if not what we can do to correct it, and if we can't correct it how significant will the impact be.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
I mean, this is just provably untrue. Players wanted to hide cloak and helms (*gasp* post-creation customization), so vanilla changed. Rogues wanted a place to grind lockpicking, so they added them. Players wanted to be rewarded for PvP, ways to grind rep, queue for PvP in town, apply more debuffs, have better BG rewards, linked auction houses, have quests be useful at 60, have cheaper respecs, and potentially stand a chance in pvp on heavily one-sided realms. Vanilla changed constantly, and every change was "the death of WoW". Yet here we are, wanting that final, very changed, version.
You do realize you are speaking about changes added to the game 15 years ago, right?
Classic WoW is no longer a game that's going to suffer any changes, patches, or anything of the sorts. I don't think you really understand how silly this argument is, but I think I can sum it up this way:

If you want WoW to apply channges you think would benefit it, you're free to complain on the official retail forums.
If you want WoW to be recreated the way it was back in the day, you're free to experience Classic WoW.
If you want WoW with some changes (cosmetic or otherwise), you're free to play on private servers.

You coming to beg/argue for changes (cosmetic or otherwise) on Classic WoW is out of place because Classic WoW is not about implementing changes (cosmetic or otherwise) which were not part of the original game, it's the exact opposite of that.

I have explained to you why any change can have dramatic consequences on the gameplay experience of each individual. You're free to disagree with that because you personally feel like it wouldn't, and that's fine. Other people are free to agree with me because they personally feel the same way I do, and that's alright too. It's hardly relevant whether you understand our position or not.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago

If you care so much about the hairstyle of somebody else's character then I really don't know what more to say here. You have yet to explain how what other people do with their character's appearance affects you. Or even why that doesn't apply to gear. Or the ability to toggle your cloak and helm. Or what mount they use, or mini pet they have with them. There's already a ton of ways to change your character appearance in game, why is this where you draw the line?
The ability to toggle your helm/cloak is significant for PvP because other players could see whether you had certain Engineering items equipped or not.

I care about the hairstyle of other people because it's a social game and the identity of my avatar is a significant part of my roleplaying experience. Ergo, it is very important to me that all attributes pertaining to the sum of that which renders my character identifiable in the game be as rigid as possible in order to minimize the chances of potentially encountering other players of similar appearance as me, to try and retain some distinguishable characteristic on the server in a visual manner.

By allowing one (or several) of these traits to be easily commutable, they lose their property of identifying individuals, thus affecting my RPG experience.

Think about real life for a moment - if you see a punk with a big mohawk, no matter how you feel about it, it's still something he has to wear every day, something which distinguishes him among his peers at every point in his life. However, if we all had the ability to toggle mohawks at concerts, neat hairstyles at work, bohemian looks at the opera and so forth - then our hairstyles would lose all identifying significance.

Mounts can show whether or not someone has done some PvP or not. The more mounts you allow into the game, the less exclusive those rewards feel.

I can go on and on about this.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
X does Y which will lead to Z when Y and Z don't have any actual correlation is the definition of a slippery slope. Cosmetic changes do not correlate to LFR, or flying mounts, or welfare epics.
No, I am lecturing you on the history of the game which you evidently know very little about (race changes, racials in PvE/PvP, which features were allowed have led to what impressions of the game, how indulging in things lowers satisfaction, the importance of uniqueness in an RPG, importance of displaying helms in PvP, the premise and history of Classic WoW's development etc.).

There is a well defined, well explained causality between those events and argument. You are also implying things I've never said (welfare epics, LFR, flying mounts etc.) so just try to reply in point to any of my elaborate arguments instead of trying to invoke some logical fallacies you clearly don't seem to understand very well.

   Linguine Scheyp
Ashenvale
User avatar
Posts: 202
Likes: 124
202 posts
Alliance
Shaman
Alliance Shaman 202 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago

If you care so much about the hairstyle of somebody else's character then I really don't know what more to say here. You have yet to explain how what other people do with their character's appearance affects you. Or even why that doesn't apply to gear. Or the ability to toggle your cloak and helm. Or what mount they use, or mini pet they have with them. There's already a ton of ways to change your character appearance in game, why is this where you draw the line?
The ability to toggle your helm/cloak is significant for PvP because other players could see whether you had certain Engineering items equipped or not.

I care about the hairstyle of other people because it's a social game and the identity of my avatar is a significant part of my roleplaying experience. Ergo, it is very important to me that all attributes pertaining to the sum of that which renders my character identifiable in the game be as rigid as possible in order to minimize the chances of potentially encountering other players of similar appearance as me, to try and retain some distinguishable characteristic on the server in a visual manner.

By allowing one (or several) of these traits to be easily commutable, they lose their property of identifying individuals, thus affecting my RPG experience.

Think about real life for a moment - if you see a punk with a big mohawk, no matter how you feel about it, it's still something he has to wear every day, something which distinguishes him among his peers at every point in his life. However, if we all had the ability to toggle mohawks at concerts, neat hairstyles at work, bohemian looks at the opera and so forth - then our hairstyles would lose all identifying significance.

Mounts can show whether or not someone has done some PvP or not. The more mounts you allow into the game, the less exclusive those rewards feel.

I can go on and on about this.

Thank you for your elegant arguments, Nymis. I couldn't have said it better.

   Selexin
Winterspring
User avatar
Posts: 24
Likes: 19
Alliance Paladin 24 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
If they were significant or in any way remarkable for their time, I do care. Artistic value has nothing to do with this, you're completely missing the point. This is about being allowed to indulge in something that you want which will reduce your satisfaction and enjoyment of that thing, which in turn reduces the value of that thing to you. It's basic economic theory. That's why you don't let your kids near the cookie jar - it's not just about them being unhealthy, it's also the fact that once you do let them there, they're not going to think cookies are that great anymore because you've completely spoiled any sort of sense of uniqueness or exclusivity vis-a-vis getting cookies.
I've gotten the point. You think that people being able to make character customization choices will reduce their satisfaction. I disagree with this point as I've seen zero proof of it. You can claim it's "basic economic theory", but seeing as how I can find any proof that indulging leads to lesser satisfaction. 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.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
Turns out, you don't get to keep the game alive appealing to that sort of player base, who would've thought.
I mean, it's still the largest MMO out there and is still quite profitable so...definitely haven't killed it.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
But as I've explained to you with the race change and cosmetics change, they will significantly impact game play if they are allowed to exist. That freedom of choice comes at the expense of the sense of uniqueness and permanence, as I've explained.
Race change I conceded in my initial post having gameplay changes. Of course freedom of choice affects permanence, that's what choices do. How it affects uniqueness though you've actually failed to explain. If uniqueness were really an issue, why should we allow any two characters to have the same hair style and color combo? Why should multiple players be allowed the same race and class combo? This all affects the "uniqueness" of a character, since somebody else could look just like them. If two characters have the exact same appearance options and gear equipped, how are they unique from each other? Is it just name? The player behind it?
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
You are naturally going to side on whatever your personal desire is, but to the core and objective purpose of this project existing in the first place, your personal views have no relevance. Zero. The only objective metric and standard that we have to throw personal opinions on is whether or not whatever is being added into the game follows the design philosophy faithfully, and if not what we can do to correct it, and if we can't correct it how significant will the impact be.
I've going to side with whichever gives people more freedom, even if that goes against what I would prefer.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
You do realize you are speaking about changes added to the game 15 years ago, right?
Classic WoW is no longer a game that's going to suffer any changes, patches, or anything of the sorts. I don't think you really understand how silly this argument is, but I think I can sum it up this way:
Do you have any proof that they won't add anything or make changes? So far I've seen a lot of people hoping for post-Naxx content to be added.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
You coming to beg/argue for changes (cosmetic or otherwise) on Classic WoW is out of place because Classic WoW is not about implementing changes (cosmetic or otherwise) which were not part of the original game, it's the exact opposite of that.
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).
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
The ability to toggle your helm/cloak is significant for PvP because other players could see whether you had certain Engineering items equipped or not.
Sure. I'll acknowledge that there's a bit of gameplay significance there. But this is you acknowledging post-creation customization is a thing that exists in the game.
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
I care about the hairstyle of other people because it's a social game and the identity of my avatar is a significant part of my roleplaying experience. Ergo, it is very important to me that all attributes pertaining to the sum of that which renders my character identifiable in the game be as rigid as possible in order to minimize the chances of potentially encountering other players of similar appearance as me, to try and retain some distinguishable characteristic on the server in a visual manner.

By allowing one (or several) of these traits to be easily commutable, they lose their property of identifying individuals, thus affecting my RPG experience.
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?
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
Think about real life for a moment - if you see a punk with a big mohawk, no matter how you feel about it, it's still something he has to wear every day, something which distinguishes him among his peers at every point in his life.
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?
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
However, if we all had the ability to toggle mohawks at concerts, neat hairstyles at work, bohemian looks at the opera and so forth - then our hairstyles would lose all identifying significance.
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?
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
Mounts can show whether or not someone has done some PvP or not. The more mounts you allow into the game, the less exclusive those rewards feel.
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?
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
the importance of uniqueness in an RPG
I agree that uniqueness is important in an RPG. Deciding that somehow hair style, hair color, and skin color combinations (which are severely limited) are sacred bastions of uniqueness is the issue I have. 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?
Nymis wrote:
4 months ago
There is a well defined, well explained causality between those events and argument. You are also implying things I've never said (welfare epics, LFR, flying mounts etc.) so just try to reply in point to any of my elaborate arguments instead of trying to invoke some logical fallacies you clearly don't seem to understand very well.
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.

I've said my piece. You all believe what you want, but so far I've seen no reason why appearance changes shouldn't be added. Only fear that any change will instantly transform the game into retail, demanding that other players stay the same because their names apparently aren't enough to identify them, and some claims of "my uniqueness" over something that will be replicated by hundreds of others.

Hillsbrad Foothills
User avatar
Posts: 96
Likes: 83
Human Paladin 96 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

I'm strongly against allowing cosmetic changes, whether it's transmogs or changing the character's underlying model.

I'm against realm transfers unless it's to address a dead or dying server, at which point I believe they should be free transfers not paid.

I'm against name changes except in cases of realm transfer, and then a name change should only be allowed if the name is already in use on the destination realm.

These are my personal opinions. I don't believe the aforementioned features would destroy the game, but I'm still against them nevertheless. I like the idea of consistent characters with a consistent look that are part of a consistent community, whose look is tied to their gear for better or worse.

   Selexin
Image
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
You can claim it's "basic economic theory", but seeing as how I can find any proof that indulging leads to lesser satisfaction.
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.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
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:

You do realize you are speaking about changes added to the game 15 years ago, right?
Classic WoW is no longer a game that's going to suffer any changes, patches, or anything of the sorts.
You coming to beg/argue for changes (cosmetic or otherwise) on Classic WoW is out of place because Classic WoW is not about implementing changes (cosmetic or otherwise) which were not part of the original game, it's the exact opposite of that.


This is an argument. I don't understand what you don't understand about this argument.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
I mean, it's still the largest MMO out there and is still quite profitable so...definitely haven't killed it.
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.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
How it affects uniqueness though you've actually failed to explain.
I did not fail to explain, you failed to understand. The other people who have read and liked my comment probably understood what I was saying.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
If uniqueness were really an issue, why should we allow any two characters to have the same hair style and color combo?
Technical limitations.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
Why should multiple players be allowed the same race and class combo?
Technical limitations.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
If two characters have the exact same appearance options and gear equipped, how are they unique from each other? Is it just name? The player behind it?
Among other things such as mounts, guild names, in-game titles, activities - yes.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
Do you have any proof that they won't add anything or make changes? So far I've seen a lot of people hoping for post-Naxx content to be added.
Sure, you can either look at the original Blizzcon announcement or their original announcement in which they repeatedly stated the following idea:
 Blizzard Entertainment
All the work we’re doing will ultimately allow us to recreate an authentic classic experience on a platform that is much more optimized and stable, helping us avoid latency and stability issues.
Keyword: authentic.

Before you try interpreting that statement, allow me to remind you the definition of authentic, which is:

authentic adjective
Definition of authentic
1a : worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact
paints an authentic picture of our society
b : conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features
an authentic reproduction of a colonial farmhouse
c : made or done the same way as an original
authentic Mexican fare

   Linguine Selexin
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
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.

   Linguine
User avatar
Posts: 42
Likes: 20
42 posts
Alliance
Warlock
Alliance Warlock 42 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
Scheyp wrote:
4 months ago
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.

   Selexin
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
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.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
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.
MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
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.

   Linguine
Warlock Destruction
User avatar
Guild:

Kor Kron Vanguard


Bnet:

Nym#21750


Posts: 254
Likes: 284
254 posts
Undead
Warlock
Undead Warlock 254 posts
4 months ago (Pre-release)
4 months ago (Pre-release)
 •  Unread

MilleXIV wrote:
4 months ago
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.

   Linguine Selexin
Similar topics
to 'Blizzard Paid Services'
Posts ViewsLast post