2. the only gear that was easily attainable sort of was the old level 60 pvp sets. if the classic servers stay locked in progression of any expansions then grinding the PvP gear for both pvp and raiding would be the top choice in casual play. "IF" they implement the LFG and LFR tools for the 16-40 man raids, heh it would be very interesting, otherwise get use to Trade chat being filled with PuG raid groups looking for people, because that was the norm back in the day.
But how do you proportionally resize the swing? Even if you did, it wouldn’t give you the same type of joy as when you were a kid, because you have grown up and changed. Even if that wasn’t the case for you, you have to consider that the swing has become a place that is sacred for many other adults. When they visit, they aren’t visiting to try out the new adult-swing. They want to try the old swing. The one that brings back the joyful memories of distant past. They know that the experience isn’t the same, but if they close their eyes ... even for a brief moment ... they just might get that nostalgic thrill that brings them back to a time where things seemed so much simpler.
Within the context of Classic, the method most frequently proposed is to re-tune bosses to make them harder. Rather than copying the numbers, re-create the relative difficulty. Kind of like, when you first start working out, you use small weights. When you get stronger, you lift bigger weights. The WoW community is more knowledgeable, more experienced, has better hardware, etc. We're "stronger." So give us tougher bosses. There are a lot of forms that could take. Bosses were constantly re-tuned during vanilla anyway, so if Ragnaros does 10% more damage or something, is that really a problem? I don't think it is. What about resistance gear? back in the day, collecting resist gear was a thing people did. But the numbers and strategies are so well known today that only the tank really needs it anymore. Bosses could be re-tuned with more resistible elemental damage so that's important for entire raids to gear appropriately. That would be entirely keeping with the spirit of vanilla even if the actually numbers sitting in a database somewhere were different than they were ~13 years ago. If you want to go a little farther, a few people have proposed adding new abilities to old bosses, adjusting their timing, etc.
So committed, in fact, that modern WoW players are trying the beta and reporting what seem like bugs today but what were actually intended functionality 13 years ago. This became such a common occurrence that Blizzard publicly posted a list of known non-issues called the "WoW Classic 'Not a Bug' List." For example, hitboxes for the Tauren player race are much larger than those of other races. In a modern game, this would be seen as a serious balance issue (see: Apex Legends). But it's what vanilla WoW was like, so it has been faithfully reproduced.
“To fill our pool of beta and stress test participants, we’ll be choosing dedicated players who meet select criteria from both the WoW Classic beta opt-in and the standard Warcraft beta opt-in. Participants will also need to have an active subscription or active game time on their Battle.net Account. While opting-in to the beta is the primary way to make sure you’re in the running to join the test it doesn’t guarantee an invitation to the closed beta test. We may also consider additional factors such as how long a player has been subscribed to the game so that we have the right mix of players to ensure great feedback toward making WoW Classic the very best experience for the community.”
I consider myself a purist in that I would prefer classic to be released as close as possible to the original. Where that is on the spectrum of patch content will be up to blizz. I'm also not vane enough to believe that any single state of the game is the "Ideal" location we should be aiming for. There is common ground that we can agree on, and I would welcome more than a few changes as long as they are made in the spirit of keeping classic on the vanilla rails.
Through out the game, the quest log will be capped to 20 many times.  The guide makes use of maximizing the total amount of quests you can accept at once.  Because of this it is important to follow the guide exactly and only accept quests if the guide tells you to so you won't run into issues not being able to accept a quest.  If you do accept a quest that is not listed in the guide, write it down because you may need to abandon it in order to keep following the guide if your quest log is full. 

Some players have been surprised by these apparent flaws—even players who have been eagerly awaiting WoW Classic's release based on fond memories of vanilla WoW. In truth, it has been so long since WoW first released, players' memories may not always be accurate. Some details might be fresh, but others might be lost in time, and it's those lost details that could surprise players revisiting the original experience in WoW Classic.
Through out the game, the quest log will be capped to 20 many times.  The guide makes use of maximizing the total amount of quests you can accept at once.  Because of this it is important to follow the guide exactly and only accept quests if the guide tells you to so you won't run into issues not being able to accept a quest.  If you do accept a quest that is not listed in the guide, write it down because you may need to abandon it in order to keep following the guide if your quest log is full.
The argument for this is simple: what makes classic WoW great to one player might be different from what makes it great for another. And who are Blizzard's designers to say which old features were just good or bad design for each player? It's an approach that shows Blizzard believes (at least to some degree) that WoW doesn't just belong to its creators but to its fans. That struggle between authorial intent or game design orthodoxy and "the player is always right" is at the heart of many of gaming's big contemporary controversies. But so far, Blizzard seems committed to its plan with regard to WoW Classic.
×