• Dear Guest,

    You're browsing our forum as a Guest meaning you can only see a portion of the forum in read-only mode.
    To view all forum nodes and be able to create threads/posts please register or log-in with your existing account.

    TwinStar team

Other Raid buffing or altering of origional content

Do you want raids to be made harder or kept blizzlike?


  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Likes
0
#2
Could do, duo to 1.12.1, buffed gear and it being 2015 and not 2004 anymore. But it'd have to be something more creative then making the health poll bigger ofc. My peronal idea which would be to Nerf some of the Dungeon gear that is BiS 'till AQ40 (almost). I'm ofc talkin' 'bout surten Blue's which make t1 look like shit. Duo to those Blue's being buffed after AQ40 on retail.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#3
I just noticed this poll. All results should be discredited as the poll asks a loaded question.

What does the word 'blizzlike' mean? How should i answer the question if i want the raids to be harder AND conform to my own definition of the word 'blizzlike'?
 

Azalus

New Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Likes
8
#5
If the choice to buff the raids means them having to re-script anything, then no.

I know they've already put in a lot of time scripting things the way they are, and I personally would rather have easier raids then to have to wait longer for buffing that may or may not work as intended.
 

Fact

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Likes
4
#6
What does the word 'blizzlike' mean? How should i answer the question if i want the raids to be harder AND conform to my own definition of the word 'blizzlike'?
There's no reason to have own definitions. It's a rather easy definition. Scripting the game so it technically works like it did in retail vanilla.

Now, difficulty for players being inexperienced noobs and their behaviour and things like that are impossible to simulate. We can't control peoples minds. So it's unreasonable to consider the human aspect part of the 'Blizzlike' term.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#7
There's no reason to have own definitions. It's a rather easy definition. Scripting the game so it technically works like it did in retail vanilla.
This is contradicting. You define 'blizzlike' to mean "scripting the game so it technically works like it did in retail vanilla." That is your own definition (which you claim there is no reason to have).

If you rely on the term 'blizzlike' in making your argument, then your argument is worthless.

Now, difficulty for players being inexperienced noobs and their behaviour and things like that are impossible to simulate. We can't control peoples minds. So it's unreasonable to consider the human aspect part of the 'Blizzlike' term.
Ragnaros was not killed until late April of 2005, over five months after he was 'released'. While it is true that the average player's skill has significantly increased, the average player does not make world firsts, under any circumstance. The elite player, whose skill is arguably the same since early 2005, makes those world firsts.

Let's perform a simple gedankenexperiment. Let's say we could replicate the physical server of vanilla WoW. That is, everyone starts from level 1 in patch 1.1. But, this is 2015, so we all have ten years of experience in WoW. Would Ragnaros have fallen at a significantly earlier date?

The answer is clearly 'no'. The elite players figured out his abilities rather early on, while making attempts on him. He was killed so late because of the following reasons. He only showed up for two hours per week. He required high fire resist gear, which was harder to obtain so early on in WoW. He had an enormous amount of health, in early WoW standards. Losing a few dps early on would result in a wipe. High coordination for sons phase was required due to their mana burn.

By patch 1.12, all of this challenge was wiped out. Even casuals were commenting on how easy Ragnaros was. Patch 1.12 (and many prior patches) is the real culprit in trivializing Molten Core, not our ten years of playing experience.
 

Fact

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Likes
4
#8
I didn't use Blizzlike to define Blizzlike if that's what you meant.

The other interpretation I've seen has been that Blizzlike is the feeling of vanilla WoW (which also gives twisted justification to difficulty buffing, queue and respec changes to spice up PvP and such), to which I provided counterargument because it's not rational.

Start at 1.1? That's the new more precise definition of that? I would love that. I hope the vanilla community and developers evolve to the point we seriously take the patch progression for the vanilla experience. Currently it's about as unreasonable as mind controlling people.

All I can see the definition I gave of Blizzlike still stands. It doesn't matter which patch we are on. I have no agenda to preach the message of Blizzlike, because I would welcome some changes outside of how it used to be. It's not my definition. It's the only logical definition if you look at it from outside for a second. If there is a movement to reinvent the word to mean earlier patches, sign me up. As of now this is 1.12 server and Blizzlike here in this case means easier raids you or me were accustomed to.

I doubt you believe yourself that elite players were born elite and wouldn't clear the place faster now.
 

Lharts

Authorized
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Likes
417
#9
Patch 1.5.0 (2005-06-07):
  • The eruptions from the lava in Ragnaros's Lair will now always happen while Ragnaros is in combat. However, these lava eruptions occur less frequently, do less damage, and the damage they inflict is now resistible.
  • The maximum range of the Wrath of Ragnaros spell has been increased.
Patch 1.4.0 (2005-05-05): Ragnaros now stays up 2 hours rather than 1 after being summoned.
There was only 1 real nerf to the encounter till 1.12.1. Lavasplash frequency, damage and beeing resistable.
Just check the first kill of ragnaros. Players were so bad. The rogue in the PoV clip does not even move a single time while dpsing. Come on.
If you want to name reasons on why the content is easier at least stick to facts and don't make up stuff just cause it fits your argument.
The reason why Ragnaros was so easy in 1.12 is just cause almost all players had proper gear by that time and the requirement for fire for the raid was way lower since you received less damage.

I could live with a pre-nerf Lavasplash. Changing anything else is unnecessary and also stupid.

Harder = takes more skill to do, not more gear. Increasing HP and damage just requires more gear, the mechanic still has the same difficulty.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#10
At least you are consistent with the drivel that you spew out, Lharts.

You want me to name why the content is easier? Though it already has been done on numerous occasions, i will gladly supply you with the same information.

First, we can talk about the class overhauls. Over the course of the vanilla patches, each class received huge buffs, while most classes received complete overhauls to talents. Every member of your raid in patch 1.12 is stronger than their patch 1.1 (release of Molten Core) counterpart.

Second, we should not forget the release of Dire Maul and the buff to items in general. Better gear results in an easier encounter. Every member of your raid in patch 1.12 is stronger than their patch 1.1 counterpart!

Third, the greater presence of add-ons helped ease some of the difficulty of the encounter. This is glaringly obvious in BWL, where a threat meter alone can trivialize much of the Vaelastrasz encounter.

Now, i believe these three things i brought up are indeed facts. All of the vanilla patch notes support this claim. If you want to dispute the validity of these three being facts, you have the right to do so. But please bring in evidence supporting a counter-claim.

You also bring up the idea that the players who completed the world first Ragnaros kill were bad. In order to support this claim, you bring up the rogue who does not move at all while dpsing. My question to you, "Is he supposed to move?" Considering that he resisted the majority of lava splashes and all the melee knockbacks, i would answer 'no'. While hindsight is always 20/20, it is clear to me that he optimized his spot in the raid.

Finally, you bring up the claim that increasing health and damage does not increase the difficulty of the encounter. Although i have already nullified claim (see: http://forum.twinstar.cz/showthread...-MC-Raidtuning?p=707717&highlight=#post707717), i will gladly counter this claim as well. The purpose of health and damage is to ensure certain mechanics be unavoidable. If Shazzrah's AoE would do too little damage, players would just ignore it. If Ragnaros had too little health, players would just skip his sons phase, where much of the difficulty of the encounter lies.

It is also curious that you mention this claim, as i have not suggested solely buffing health and damage. I am a proponent for buffing boss encounters in more creative means.

Lharts, the ball is on you for countering my claims.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#11
The other interpretation I've seen has been that Blizzlike is the feeling of vanilla WoW (which also gives twisted justification to difficulty buffing, queue and respec changes to spice up PvP and such), to which I provided counterargument because it's not rational.
Why is it not rational?

All I can see the definition I gave of Blizzlike still stands. [...] It's not my definition.
You may try to spin it any way you want, but at the end of the day, it is YOUR definition of 'blizzlike'. There is no dictionary definition of this word. There is no agreement from the majority of the private server community upon the definition of that word.

I doubt you believe yourself that elite players were born elite and wouldn't clear the place faster now.
I doubt you believe that playing EverQuest is the same as being born.
 

Lharts

Authorized
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Likes
417
#12
As you may have missed I was referring to a single boss. Good work at ignoring anything I wrote and compose another wall of text. tl;dr
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#13
You said you didn't read my post, but you can comment so ignorantly on my post?

This is why i have a problem with you Lharts. After Aieris, you are the thickest person on these forums!
 

Lharts

Authorized
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Likes
417
#14
You ignore other posts and blame me for ignoring yours in return?
It may suprise you, but I am not looking for your appreciation.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#15
No, i do not blame you for ignoring my posts. I do not think you are ignoring my posts. I do, however, blame you for moving the goalposts on this discussion. Your argument is logically unsound, and you make no effort to reverse it.

And no, it doesn't surprise me that you don't want my appreciation. Nor does it surprise me that you misspelt 'surprise'.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#17
Never been on tumblr. So, assuming you have been on tumblr before, only one of us can even 'go back' there.
 

Visuv

Authorized
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Likes
20
Location
Germany
#19
I'm not really experienced in raiding (was in one of the first guilds to beat lucifron back in the days - enclave on frostwolf server and zul gurub much later after having a big break) but i'd like them unaltered mostly.

I guess some could use a little buff, but that's considering wow raiding in general, since most of the time there is little to do.

What could be changed to add a little lore friendly twist? (instead of simply increasing health pools/dps)
 

Fact

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Likes
4
#20
Why is it not rational?
Because you can't script feels. You can't argue about feels. Well you can, but it's same as arguing with an fundamentalist.

You may try to spin it any way you want, but at the end of the day, it is YOUR definition of 'blizzlike'. There is no dictionary definition of this word. There is no agreement from the majority of the private server community upon the definition of that word.
Well of course it's "my" definition. If I say Blizzlike means shaved dogs, then it's also my definition by same rule. We can but probably shouldn't get all philosophical about this. However not every opinion is equal.

It is short of "Blizzard like" as in "Like it was in Blizzard's vanilla servers". Its literal interpretation doesn't leave much for imagination. If you use it to specifically mean other thing than 1.12 while still technically Blizzlike (as in "my" definition), then you are not communicating at the same level as others because the term is as common language in private WoW circles as it gets. You know it, and your post was to challenge it.

I doubt you believe that playing EverQuest is the same as being born.
For a smart, decent guy, this is just utter retardese garbage.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#21
I honestly don't get it why you're so angry at Lharts, Qiyn.
Whether i am angry at him or not is besides the point. You are not critiquing my argument. And if you want to know why i dislike Lharts, you may look on page one.

Well of course it's "my" definition. If I say Blizzlike means shaved dogs, then it's also my definition by same rule. We can but probably shouldn't get all philosophical about this.
Thank you for admitting this. Now, i think we can continue this discussion now that you have agreed with me on this.

We don't need to get philosophical about it for me to explain why this is important. If i were to dispute your definition of 'blizzlike', could we go to an English dictionary and settle this dispute? No. Could i get the WoW private server gaming community to agree upon a definition? You say the community already has agreed to a definition, so i would like to see evidence. Otherwise, it might as well mean shaved dogs.

The word 'blizzlike' has no place in constructing a logical argument.

I doubt you believe yourself that elite players were born elite and wouldn't clear the place faster now.
For a smart, decent guy, this is just utter retardese garbage.
 

Fact

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Likes
4
#22
Get a load of this guy. So you are going to ignore experience and practice and repeat, the whole notion how our brains work and applied to every funtion in our lives to make an wide assumption on raid clearing rate which you won't provide with any supporting measurable facts you are so hard to press from others.

I don't understand why can't we use the term when it itself is the subject of the topic. For fucks sake you are using it in an argument.

I didn't say anyone has agreed on anything. Nor I see the point of it. I've never heard this form of democracy. This is not how language works. Everyone understands the meaning in a given context, Blizzlike meaning easy raids in this thread for example. The only dispute I've seen being the workarounds in the name of spirit. One does not have to agree to understand, this is getting you all mixed up.

You can go on your crusade for changing the term to mean something else, maybe you can make a change. Language evolves after all.
 

Qiyn

New Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Likes
3
#23
I don't understand why can't we use the term when it itself is the subject of the topic. For fucks sake you are using it in an argument.
I said 'blizzlike' has no place in constructing a logical argument.

This is not how language works.
This is indeed how language works. We cannot have a discussion unless we have a tacit agreement on the meanings of the words we use.

Everyone understands the meaning in a given context, Blizzlike meaning easy raids in this thread for example.
You make the argument that all WoW private server community players acknowledge the definition you provide.

I didn't say anyone has agreed on anything.
Then you undermine your own argument. You are your own worst enemy in the realm of logical thinking!

Before you continue to insult me, i ask you to please defend the fluidity of your argument.
 

Fact

New Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Likes
4
#24
I said 'blizzlike' has no place in constructing a logical argument.
So you just borrowed your argument then? You are getting so pedantic with everything I don't know what what way to interpret your posts anymore. I'm sure there is some other message hidden there.

You are throwing an empty phrase from your "logical fallacies 101 guide". Blizzlike shouldn't be allowed IF it would be used to define the word itself. Having it in a sentence is perfectly fine.

This is indeed how language works. We cannot have a discussion unless we have a tacit agreement on the meanings of the words we use.
You have learned to use words since you were toddler you or your parents have never agreed on. You use words no one knows why they are spelled that way or their etymology. Now a well defined word is getting you all troubled. I can't believe I'm still continuing with this.

You make the argument that all WoW private server community players acknowledge the definition you provide.
Yes.

Of course you carefully chose the word "acknowledge" in that sentence as your opt-out. As long as you have personal deniability, no matter how dishonest to your cause, you just keep continuing.
 

Kanariya

Authorized
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Likes
31
Location
New Hampshire
#25
I do not support buffing bosses beyond their blizzlike values. Might have made sense on a certain realm where consumable stacking was a bit broken (int elixirs & scrolls stacking with arcane int etc.), but really not necessary imo. If the argument is for MC/Ony to be more difficult, this is a 1.12 Blizzlike realm, and they weren't that hard on retail at that point in time. Artificially increasing the difficulty is not going to provide a blizzlike experience.
 
Top Bottom