Welcome to Crestfall Gaming

Register now to Crestfall Gaming. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Aadore

Unavailable content made available

30 posts in this topic

Hello Crestfall. I know what's the team's stance on this, apparently some TBC stuff is already in the latest vanilla client but it won't be made available because it's not blizzlike and that stuff wasn't officially available until TBC.

That's not what I'm talking about though. My question and suggestion is about things like unused gear and profession patterns in vanilla files with no loot source.

Let's say as an example there is a one handed axe called Ragtagg's Gnome Castrator...

Required level 53

Epic

+20 Spirit

-10 Strength

 

It's in the files but wasn't made available to players.

Have you considered adding such items? Of course this would exclude all GM items, only reasonable items would be included, like my aforementioned example or Onyxia Scale Breastplate etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming blizzard left those items out for some sort of reason other than forgetting that they were in the code, but maybe not. I'd assume that's what the dev's stance on this is, but maybe not, could be interesting.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dev's (and the main public attracted towards a server like CF) are the kind of people who wouldn't meddle in such. People who look for blizzlike server generally don't want the hassle and risks of modifying stuff and actually design a game.

 

If these items are in the files but not in the game, putting them on the game would be an expression on balance (or whatever other design decision that made it stay out of the game) and in my personal opinion it opens the flood gates to lots of other discussions, like buffing Druid's tanking or w/e.


So I don't know their stance, I'd bet they are against it (only changes they said they'll be making is correcting bugs/exploits), I'd bet the majority of the community would be against and while I don't care, I think it would be better not to touch this kind of stuff.

 

 

 

But if someone suggested having portals or some kind of access to the places Blizzard never used (like the emerald dream) just as a tourist attraction... That I'd be supportive of.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said harmless items, not ones that are clearly not meant for players like GM items or ones that were obviously purposely left out for being overpowered.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aadore said:

Ragtagg's Gnome Castrator

 

+20 Spirit

-10 Strength

These stats don't make any sense for this weapon. Maybe that's why it's not in game?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ilovecats said:

These stats don't make any sense for this weapon. Maybe that's why it's not in game?

Now if that was a mace.. it would be a great priest weapon :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was obviously a made up example and a joke just in case some didn't get it. Ragtagg is a YouTuber who played horde, hates the alliance, especially gnomes and is obsessed with testicles.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not in blizz vanilla, it won't be in CF. THe goal is to be as blizzlike as possible, not a funserver. In my understanding... 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not worth the funserver label.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should just remove gnomes altogether and replace them with crabs. Everyone likes those, right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really being a fun server, it's simply using content that Blizzard intended to use but possibly forgot, oversights happen.

It's being less fun server than fixing bugs, glitches and exploits that Blizzard didn't have fixed at the time imo.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Xaverius said:

We should just remove gnomes altogether and replace them with crabs. Everyone likes those, right.

Gnomes are cool. And crab tastes bad.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lilaina said:

crab tastes bad

U wot m8. I'll let you know I have  over 300 confirmed crab meals cooked!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Xaverius said:

U wot m8. I'll let you know I have  over 300 confirmed crab meals cooked!

I've eaten over 10000 plates of oatmeal in my life but that doesn't mean it tastes good. :P 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lilaina said:

I've eaten over 10000 plates of oatmeal in my life but that doesn't mean it tastes good. :P 

Clearly you have encountered a great misfortune regarding oatmeal preparation!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows why blizzard never included those items in the game? Maybe they forgot, maybe there was a bigger reason?

So I don't think those items should be added if the goal here is to create blizzlike server

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, every single private server is 'fun' objectively, in that sense of the word, 'blizzlike' is nothing but a label, since the code and values will never ever truly be blizzlike no matter what.

Hell even if Blizzard decided to relaunch vanilla, it would never be 100% the same.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Xaverius said:

We should just remove gnomes altogether and replace them with crabs. Everyone likes those, right.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aadore said:

 'blizzlike' is nothing but a label

Sorry to disagree. Surely "blizzlike" is a label, but you're looking at such label in the wrong way.

Maybe at the dawn of pserver scene the word had a different meaning, but after all these years such word has now, imho, a precise meaning.

 

'blizzlike' as in Blizzard-Like...aka, "like it was back then on retail Blizzard realms".

That's why pservers advertise themselves with phrases like "100% blizzlike".

That would indicate a perfect replica of the blizzard's realms during that specific patch.

Sadly, most pserver falsely advertise themselves as "100%"...and this has NEVER been true.

 

4 hours ago, Aadore said:

the code and values will never ever truly be blizzlike no matter what.

On This point, I may agree with you...and yet even a pserver with non-truly "code and values" may well be "100% blizzlike" (in the sense of a perfect replica).

In fact, one thing is a mob with 5 more_or_less HPs and/or 5 more_or_less fire_resistance, another is a wrong (for example) stealth implementation.

While in the first case, the server would still be pretty_much "100% blizzlike" (the small difference in HP/resist is pretty much insignificant), in the second case the tag would be plainly a lie (cause that would mean a REALLY WRONG non-blizzlike implementation).

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in my day, blizzlike meant "1x rates on xp and gold" and "no custom NPCs and content". Of course, in reality, there was usually a custom NPC to turn BG marks into honor/gold. Because the servers needed some way to keep pvpers on there.

(And before anyone uses this as a case for pve servers, fug off, back then there were no pve servers, I'm talking about people whose endgame is solely doing pvp.)

Edited by Xaverius
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is, one thing are intent and effort, another is the result. No matter the intent and effort, the servers will never have values and scripting '100%' blizzlike, so yes, in that sense it's just a label. The devs can of course attempt to get as close as possible, so I'm not invalidating them.

Just saying it is hypocritical to say that making few items in the files available would make it a fun server while the intent is to fix things that were present on the official vanilla back in the day, yet Blizzard fixed only later on.

In fact Blizzard seems to be doing a similar thing to my suggestion in Legion, reintroducing previously available patterns that were removed over the years and adding patterns that were already in the files, just forgotten.

Hell they do same thing with mounts... You think that MOP timewalking mount is new? No, it's been in the game files since MOP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic, I'd love to see level 60 40 man Karazhan. That place was BEAUTIFULLY designed. It's a pity it never made it into the available world. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is there a list of those "normal" items anyway? I only recall seeing GM toys like the instakill stick and Ashbringer.

Custom changes can be a good thing if they add something to the game or fix some old issues, the goal here is to implement them in such a way that people won't feel like it's something out of place, it has to be well-integrated and functional. It can also be flavor stuff that doesn't alter anything, but if that's worth the development time is another question.

The "blizzlike" label makes sense to a certain degree, if TBC release wasn't so rushed, we would see more patches after 1.12, fixing bugs, balancing stuff, adding new content, etc. If anything, Blizzard is known for changing stuff all the time, often for no good reason, breaking more than they fix and pissing off the community, stagnation isn't "blizzlike" at all.

Edited by Terpsichore
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking that Karazhan should have been a raid in vanilla myself, but my suggestion isn't implementing anything drastic like that. Only things that are part of vanilla client and are complete, just not implemented.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now