My man why you keep adding posts after your original. Makes it so hard to keep up with commenting. :lol:
That is certainly a theory. While it does apply here, the problem I have with it in this context it assumes both that whatever zero point exists and that satisfaction from consumption is the same for each person. You might not receive any satisfaction from any change, but somebody else might experience roughly the same level of satisfaction 10 changes down the road.Nymis wrote: ↑5 years agoIt'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.
I think you misunderstood what I had been saying here. I meant things like choosing to hide helm/cloak, choosing what mount to use, or what companion (if any) to have. In the context of post-creation customization choices how are any of those different from being able to change your appearance? How is changing your appearance any different than deciding to wear a piece of gear for looks over power? Ignoring the "because it wasn't that way" argument because that's not going to lead this conversation anywhere.
It might be suffering because of that, but there's more factors than just features in play here. The decline of the MMO market in general definitely plays into it, and we've seen that trying to appeal to the hardcore doesn't necessarily work.
So why is their character's appearance specifically the one point of uniqueness that they can't change? What makes that so sacred?
Sure, initially it will be the authentic 1.12 experience (ignoring the whole content release plan bit), but we don't have any proof yet that they won't change things later. I think a number of people don't want them to, but we don't actually know which way they'll go. How long can Classic last on just the vanilla content? We honestly can't predict that.
Sure, not all changes would be good, but tossing out all potentials is as much a fallacy as accepting all changes. Each should be determined on individual merit.Nymis wrote: ↑5 years agoJust 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.
If somebody is so unimportant to you that a simple change of hair makes them a different person they how does their decision to do so affect you in any way? You didn't know who they were before, or who they were after. Nothing about their relationship to you has changed. So with that in mind, why does it matter what they do? If anything the fact that it doesn't affect you shows that they should be allowed to do it.Nymis wrote: ↑5 years agoYes, to me they are a different person.
...
However, to us - a man with a mohawk is just a man with a mohawk. The mohawk is probably his defining feature among the masses of people we see every day. You shave that mohawk then he becomes just another man to us. You might be the same person to yourself, but to everyone else who doesn't know/cannot see anything else which is identifiable about you, you are a different person.
But this still comes from the standpoint that it has to be a pre-planned commitment. We have proof that it doesn't need to be. With that in mind, it has to be proven that it should be and so far I've not seen the upside to that.Nymis wrote: ↑5 years agoAnd 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.
Let's say instead of this being real money appearance change tokens they just implemented the in-game barbershop. Would that still have the same issues for you?
Sure, mounts do have practical value, but how do we weigh the difference between two mounts of the same speed? Purely personal preference.Nymis wrote: ↑5 years agoMounts (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").
To be honest I think this drastically undervalues people's desire for self expression and changing decisions about their personality and appearance. If anything I would value this higher because it only ever increases total happiness.Nymis wrote: ↑5 years agoHaircuts 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").
Eh, that assumes that people are both lucky enough to get BiS and care enough to always wear it. A lot of people are going to be choosing to play the game casually, and likely won't care about BiS. There's a reason transmog has been so successful, and that is that people like to be able to choose what they wear. People will absolutely wear subpar gear for looks. (Note: I am not suggesting adding transmog, I know the value of showing off gear in vanilla)
Classic fundamentalist vs progressivism exchange. The fact vanilla is being revived is case in point against any progressive argument.
I think this is the statement that really illustrates where my disagreements come from. I've never seen Classic as "reviving" vanilla. It's not vanilla, nor will it be vanilla. It's essentially a remaster of vanilla. Ignoring all potential changes because some could be bad feels wrong. Some changes could actually be useful, and they should be considered. Especially in an environment where you can say "hey, turns out that didn't go as we expected, we're rolling it back".
I fully acknowledge that myself and fundamentalists will never see fully eye on eye on what classic should be. I think a lot of my disagreement in this thread is the fact that I don't see some parts of your character creation choices as something that needs to be sacred and permanent because there's no objective advantage to it being that way, and it can provably be different.
And you being one of an infinite number of unique opinions should understand that the market demand for the revival was by and large a product of fundamentalist protest. That is why your opinions are not valid.MilleXIV wrote: ↑5 years agoI think this is the statement that really illustrates where my disagreements come from. I've never seen Classic as "reviving" vanilla. It's not vanilla, nor will it be vanilla. It's essentially a remaster of vanilla. Ignoring all potential changes because some could be bad feels wrong. Some changes could actually be useful, and they should be considered. Especially in an environment where you can say "hey, turns out that didn't go as we expected, we're rolling it back".
I fully acknowledge that myself and fundamentalists will never see fully eye on eye on what classic should be. I think a lot of my disagreement in this thread is the fact that I don't see some parts of your character creation choices as something that needs to be sacred and permanent because there's no objective advantage to it being that way, and it can provably be different.
That is not to be rude, only in frankness. Your thread of opinions can be argued from a million differing perspectives but that’s not who the game was revived for and you should accept and respect that.
By https://classic.wowhead.com/zone=293/thoradins-wall, I say ! It's getting outwalled by Nymbus who makes one https://classic.wowhead.com/object=243463/wall of https://classic.wowhead.com/object=211754/curious-text after another !! This https://classic.wowhead.com/npc=16057/rotting-maggot will turn out to be an https://classic.wowhead.com/npc=3468/ancient-of-lore in https://classic.wowhead.com/spell=5170/disguise !!!
If you want to believe my opinions aren't valid then go ahead. You're not going to stop me from giving them though. You are free to ignore them.Scheyp wrote: ↑5 years agoAnd you being one of an infinite number of unique opinions should understand that the market demand for the revival was by and large a product of fundamentalist protest. That is why your opinions are not valid.
That is not to be rude, only in frankness. Your thread of opinions can be argued from a million differing perspectives but that’s not who the game was revived for and you should accept and respect that.
The game was revived for anybody who wants to play it, regardless of who they are or what their opinions are. Trying to declare one group the "one true audience" and ignoring all opinions to the contrary is just going to drive away potential players.
Except it’s not my opinion, it’s the stated opinions of the devs and the majority of the player base.MilleXIV wrote: ↑5 years agoIf you want to believe my opinions aren't valid then go ahead. You're not going to stop me from giving them though. You are free to ignore them.Scheyp wrote: ↑5 years agoAnd you being one of an infinite number of unique opinions should understand that the market demand for the revival was by and large a product of fundamentalist protest. That is why your opinions are not valid.
That is not to be rude, only in frankness. Your thread of opinions can be argued from a million differing perspectives but that’s not who the game was revived for and you should accept and respect that.
The game was revived for anybody who wants to play it, regardless of who they are or what their opinions are. Trying to declare one group the "one true audience" and ignoring all opinions to the contrary is just going to drive away potential players.
I’m attempting to do you a courtesy since you are talking to a wall and appear to not realize it. It’s not gonna happen.
Way easier to reply in point to every idea. Though I think I'll stop replying after this, I've been at it for far too long.
The point is about repeated satisfaction - doesn't matter what person or reward we're talking about, if you are craving a snickers bar and I give you one snickers bar, then you are going to receive a certain amount of satisfaction. However, with each extra snickers bar right after that you will not receive as much satisfaction as you did with the previous one and at some point you will grow to hate it and stop considering snickers bars to be a treat as a whole.MilleXIV wrote: ↑5 years agoThat is certainly a theory. While it does apply here, the problem I have with it in this context it assumes both that whatever zero point exists and that satisfaction from consumption is the same for each person. You might not receive any satisfaction from any change, but somebody else might experience roughly the same level of satisfaction 10 changes down the road.
And the only way for someone to experience the same level of satisfaction 10 changes down the road is to not allow this person to have 10 changes in a row, just like you would not allow children to have 10 cookies in a row but only give them a cookie every time they do something right. Or dog treats for dogs if it's a better analogy. You give 10 dog treats in a row, they stop being treated as "dog treats" and become regular food for the dog. Dog treats lose significance. Same thing with cosmetics - it becomes a pointless thing.
Well, we can't just ignore it because if we do go down the "it could be this way" argument it's definitely not going to be relevant to anyone.MilleXIV wrote: ↑5 years agoI think you misunderstood what I had been saying here. I meant things like choosing to hide helm/cloak, choosing what mount to use, or what companion (if any) to have. In the context of post-creation customization choices how are any of those different from being able to change your appearance? How is changing your appearance any different than deciding to wear a piece of gear for looks over power? Ignoring the "because it wasn't that way" argument because that's not going to lead this conversation anywhere.
Gear is something you acquire, appearance is something you are "born" with, just like your race. The fact that you chose one race/appearance over the other was your permanent personal preference - your armor is a temporary acquired personal preference.
The post-creation customization choices trade value in permanence (because they can be changed) for value in effort (because they take more effort to acquire). Allowing for changes to appearance diminishes the value of permanence that a character has (think race/class/quest choices you will make in terms of items and what not) - if anyone could change their class/race at any point then it really wouldn't matter what sort of class/race you were playing, it would only matter what level your character was, then it would also affect how attached you felt to your race/class, and so forth.
Yeah, definitely a remarkable idea to launch with a subscription, terrible servers, dreadful design and balancing and so forth. This guy explains exactly why BfA and modern WoW is garbage.
Not saying they can't change, just that the change would affect character uniqueness. You barely have a few things that you can permanently choose about your character.
This sounds hilarious. I tell you that the point of Classic WoW is to recreate 1.12 authentically. You ask for proof. I give you their statements. Now you're like "yeah, but their statements don't mean they won't change anything, so if they change something then they can change other things, and if they can change other things this thing could be changed, and it's all valid because we can't 100% predict otherwise".MilleXIV wrote: ↑5 years ago
Sure, initially it will be the authentic 1.12 experience (ignoring the whole content release plan bit), but we don't have any proof yet that they won't change things later. I think a number of people don't want them to, but we don't actually know which way they'll go. How long can Classic last on just the vanilla content? We honestly can't predict that.
Yeah, no comment.
No? It's what people want. It's what people have asked for when they shut down Nostalrius. It's what they said they were going to deliver. You are mistaken if you think this is an argument up for open debate whether this change or the other is the best thing in order to "improve" Classic WoW's recreation of patch 1.12. Like I said, you are barking at the wrong tree here.
Because it allows them to "shapeshift" into whatever they want or is convenient to them for whatever reason. Because I can no longer identify members of that society on those traits alone. Because others will not be able to identify me on those traits alone. Because it removes any sort of significance to that trait since anyone can have anything at any point. It's no longer something specific to my character. I've explained this so many times.MilleXIV wrote: ↑5 years agoIf somebody is so unimportant to you that a simple change of hair makes them a different person they how does their decision to do so affect you in any way? You didn't know who they were before, or who they were after. Nothing about their relationship to you has changed. So with that in mind, why does it matter what they do? If anything the fact that it doesn't affect you shows that they should be allowed to do it.
You needed a wikipedia proof for a basic concept that letting your kids overindulge in cookies will make them not like cookies so much anymore. I am not about to "prove" to you that the symbolic significance of a cosmetic appearance is proportional with the amount of effort (pre-planned commitment) it requires to obtain it because effort is directly linked with exclusivity and exclusivity is what makes a symbol significant among others, and why all of this is a good thing because otherwise it will lead into a crisis of identity and less effective means of communication.
Yes, definitely, albeit if you gave those tokens every 1-2 years I would probably not mind it as much since in a long time span there would be plenty of time to establish a new identity. I would still oppose it on the principle of it not being part of Classic and everything, but it would still be an improvement over the current system on retail.
Maybe on the surface it might, but this is why I said that players are like children and should be treated as such. They'll keep eating cookies because they don't really see the bigger picture. A lot of people liked (and still do) the idea of transmogs and Blizzard implemented this to maximize individual happiness. What was lost was a sense of uniqueness derived from having a certain set or being able to distinguish other players based on what armor they were wearing. I think the parallel is rather similar. We've gained freedom of expression at the expense of individuality.
The funny part is that even with all those options, the thing that people crave the most are the transmogs that not everyone can have because there's very little value in something that any person can have.
Warlock BiS is, for the most, a level 40 something craftable Tailoring set that's really easy to farm. Everybody and their mother is going to be wearing a Shadoweave set, with the main variation being a Robe of the Void for the more hardcore farmers.MilleXIV wrote: ↑5 years agoEh, that assumes that people are both lucky enough to get BiS and care enough to always wear it. A lot of people are going to be choosing to play the game casually, and likely won't care about BiS. There's a reason transmog has been so successful, and that is that people like to be able to choose what they wear. People will absolutely wear subpar gear for looks. (Note: I am not suggesting adding transmog, I know the value of showing off gear in vanilla)
donator
Posts: 8
Likes: 1
Likes: 1
I know this response is completely unrelated to where this thread has gone but:
I would hope that if a lot of players leave after the first month, there would be realm merging instead of free/paid transfers.
@MilleXIV Also don't tell teeb but I'm mostly answering in lots of messages so I can farm some exp and outlevel Faendor.
The "like" farming is working.
I wish they would have a set of servers (and not tell us they did this, imo doesn't affect gameplay) where the names were shared. Like say maybe 3 or 4. If two of them have low pop you just quietly merge the two and the third with high pop is fine. If that ever drops off, you merge again.
Having "<your name>-Aggamagan" as your name after those terrible server merges was so horrible. Anything but that.
donator
Posts: 8
Likes: 1
Likes: 1
I dunno, how would I coordinate with friends on launch day to join the same server? And yeah that sounds terrible, didn't know they did that.Linguine wrote: ↑5 years agoI wish they would have a set of servers (and not tell us they did this, imo doesn't affect gameplay) where the names were shared. Like say maybe 3 or 4. If two of them have low pop you just quietly merge the two and the third with high pop is fine. If that ever drops off, you merge again.
Having "<your name>-Aggamagan" as your name after those terrible server merges was so horrible. Anything but that.
Sorry, I suppose that wasn't very clear.Calvin wrote: ↑5 years agoI dunno, how would I coordinate with friends on launch day to join the same server? And yeah that sounds terrible, didn't know they did that.Linguine wrote: ↑5 years agoI wish they would have a set of servers (and not tell us they did this, imo doesn't affect gameplay) where the names were shared. Like say maybe 3 or 4. If two of them have low pop you just quietly merge the two and the third with high pop is fine. If that ever drops off, you merge again.
Having "<your name>-Aggamagan" as your name after those terrible server merges was so horrible. Anything but that.
Here's an example:
There are four servers: Sylvanas, Thrall, Jaina, and Bolvar.
Sylvanas, Jaina, and Thrall are linked. Bolvar is not.
If someone names themselves "Linguine" on Sylvanas, no one on Jaina and Thrall can name themselves "Linguine" but a "Linguine" can be made on Bolvar.
On launch, all the friends would roll on Sylvanas. No one would see anyone from Jaina or Thrall or possibly even know the names were linked unless at a future date the servers were merged to fix population problems, but if they were merged, there would be no problems with character name overlap because their name pool is shared and you will therefore not lose your name's uniqueness in any way.
donator
Posts: 8
Likes: 1
Likes: 1
Except, you know, finding a name for yourself and your guild would suddenly be 3 times harder.Linguine wrote: ↑5 years ago
On launch, all the friends would roll on Sylvanas. No one would see anyone from Jaina or Thrall or possibly even know the names were linked unless at a future date the servers were merged to fix population problems, but if they were merged, there would be no problems with character name overlap because their name pool is shared and you will therefore not lose your name's uniqueness in any way.
This thread's a bit much for me to read in its entirety atm, but I would say that I highly doubt paid transfers will be implemented because of the impact it would have on server races. I would fully expect server merges and volunteer transfers to exist as servers die.
I would not be surprised by wow tokens being put in at the 1 year mark if not earlier, but I find it somewhat unlikely. I could also see same faction race/gender paid changes happening from the beginning, but I don't expect much of any paid services to actually happen.
I think the token system is actually the most likely of the paid services to happen, but even that I see as unlikely.
Guildlead: Epoch of Thought | Vanilla Thunderfury Warrior | Maintank/Father/Husband/Disabled Vet
Twitter:The_Lne Twitch: The_Lne Bnet: Lne#1326
Guild site: https://www.epochofthought.com/ | Guild Discord:https://discord.gg/UqAVjJT
Twitter:The_Lne Twitch: The_Lne Bnet: Lne#1326
Guild site: https://www.epochofthought.com/ | Guild Discord:https://discord.gg/UqAVjJT
Yeah, that's the biggest downside. K1 and K2's merge philosophy wasn't so bad, though some people did lose names. (The person with the most /played kept the name, so a parked name was useless. I think guilds were done by earliest creation though and that wrecked some.)Nymis wrote: ↑5 years agoExcept, you know, finding a name for yourself and your guild would suddenly be 3 times harder.Linguine wrote: ↑5 years ago
On launch, all the friends would roll on Sylvanas. No one would see anyone from Jaina or Thrall or possibly even know the names were linked unless at a future date the servers were merged to fix population problems, but if they were merged, there would be no problems with character name overlap because their name pool is shared and you will therefore not lose your name's uniqueness in any way.
After mb half year after release, there will be Paid Services for sure
Think of a number between 1 and 10 
. Multiply it by 9 and subtract 1 
. Now close your eyes 
. It's dark isn't it? 
