/ga/ - Games

WoW has never been good.

>>6967
>WoW has never been good.
True, but it used to be betterer

It me up on Kromcrush server. I'm the local commie there

WoW Classic is pretty dogshit to be honest. It was a nice hit of fresh air with its deterministic loot mechanics and a rougher, more exploratory experiance while leveling, but other than that its bad, especially now that Shadowlands tool a U-turn for TBC-esque endgame design.
Difficulty is bad. Its good in questing where you do feel evenly matched versus mobs, but awful in group content - its too easy and too punishing at the same time. Dungeons are a joke 99% of the time, but then DPS pulls some weird pack and you all die, loosing like 15 minutes of your life. Worse so in raids where runtime is even worse and trash respawns. Also fuck the redditor retards who decided piss and shit themselves so Blizzard would brick premade compatability.
Also why the fuck do all classic niggas use D*scord? If I can down AotC N'zoth or Azshara with zero voicecoms in a pug, how the fuck are you incapable of killing Ony or ZG without them? Not want to seem like an ass, but are classic players just on average that much worse?
The worst part of all are the fucking raidbuffs and consumables. Funny thing is that they are all optional because the content is easy, but everyone is pigeonheld into using them because of some retarded zoomer maximalism. Like look at this shit:
>Get sunflower from Felwood
>Get DM buffs
>Snipe server cooldowns through the day to catch Hakkar and WC's Blessing
>Buy hundred gold worth of consumables from AH, more if you are a caster or god forbid tank
>Sit logged off until the raid starts
>All so you could cut like an hour of time to cleat MC
The only thing that kept me in, asside from BfA content drought, was the gear system. Ironically I quit right after getting my Titanic Leggings, because I realised that nothing other than mindless AQ farm at midnight awaited me. Well, at least I got to see an amazingly retarded neckbeard drama over War Effort shit.
Good thing TBC is coming in due time.
>>6967
Counterpoint: WoW live is best its ever been

>>7089
You are doing your wbs all wrong
>get ad staminia boasters in sw, use one, delete 2, get 3 again
>go to Isle to get zg potions, take the speed one, get zg buff, get on fp to bb
>fly to dmt, get buffs, have mage port you to darn
>fly to sf, get it, port / hearth sw
>get ony buff
that's not factoring in dmf

Wow Classic helps me communicate with people of my age group since I never leave my house anymore due to covid.

I can't wait for TBC, I played retail on and off since launch but skipped TBC because of school and stuff, I've been a warlock on and off too, now I can finally get to live the SL/SL dream. I'm even undead for that extra OP juice.

>>7172
Agreed, really excited for TBC. Probably going to go for a Prot Paladin. I just really hope they either reset the economy or create at least a few fresh servers, because I feel I'll be quite behind the curve since I can't be asked to grind out gold on Classic for preperation. Also it will suck less to level a belf if everyone else also has to start from lvl 1. Also the server I'm currently on has a really toxic ally tryhard guild that will no doubt fuck shit up for everyone on Horde, so I'd rather run away to some chill PvE, maybe RP, realm

>>7111
There were only 30+yo people in my guild, we were like 3 zoomers in total. And the only ones that didn't suck ass too.

>>7235
Playing WoW meant that you did suck ass by default, though. You might still have sucked ass better than your adult comrades, of course. :^)

Any EU Fresh TBC players from Dragonfang in the board?

>>7089
Imagine being proud of being a retail paypig.

>Counterpoint: WoW live is best its ever been
If you're a dipshit who only cares about the fucking numbers going up.

>>7089
>Not want to seem like an ass, but are classic players just on average that much worse?
because most classic players are casuals who are playing for nostalgia purposes, doesn't hurt that most are older than the average gamers and in their late 20s or 30s at minimum so have slowed down.

Most players in classic were really really bad, the introduction of shit like Arena in TBC forced alot of players to up their skill level a TON. 90% of players used to keyboard turn and click their moves.

High end raiders were only like 1% of the population

>>8637
Vanilla was hard back in the days because people had much worse internet connections back then, so anything you were doing, you were doing through a layer of lag, and this got worse the more people you had in a group for, say, a raid.

Also, keyboard turning and ability clicking were presented as the default way to play the game, and it took players times to realize that this was far from optimal.

That said, the difficulty of MMOs shouldn't come from twitchy nonsense and if you're juggling 10 abilities that all do the same basic thing in the most optimal way, but from planning, team coordination and resource management.

There's something a bit odd about claiming that Vanilla bosses, which were already meta-gamed to hell a decade ago were too easy, and then bragging about downing bosses in retail without a need for discord when in retail mana is a mostly vestigial mechanic and all classes are basically the same, and so the whole experience has been altered to a twitchy, but dumb hack-n-slash.

That said, TBC had much better difficulty, to bad they walked away from what they did in TBC and turned all dungeon content into mindless spamfests.

>>8644
>the difficulty of MMOs shouldn't come from twitchy nonsense
Says you and WoW's disgusting legacy. Some of us on the other hand believe that real-time action games should have direct controls and player skill incorporated into their action. There's no reason anyone can't make an MMORPG with action depth like PSO, the thing holding the genre back is treadmill greed and aping WoW.

>>8646
Eastern MMOs are all trash. Fantasy Star was far from the first MMO, Western MMOs had even slower combat than WoW and difficulties were such that it was dangerous to face even a single enemy outside of town without a party.

MMOs are inherently social experiences. The social aspect, and interacting with a large, persistent game world shared by all players, is what defines the MMORPG genre, not its combat. In fact, you could theoretically have an MMO with no combat at all. MMO combat should be contextualized within the social experience and thus emphasize teamwork and synergy between a party. It should also be contextualized in the player being just another part of a greater world, with a level of power to be expected of being just another dude, not power fantasy bullshit where you're juggling 50 enemies at once like most modern Eastern MMO "action combat" garbage.

>>8650
>Fantasy Star was far from the first MMO
Correct, since it's not an MMO at all.

>>8651
The same could be said of most MMOs these days, including modern WoW.

>>8652
PSO doesn't allow more than 4 players in a game. It's not "massively multiplayer" in any sense of the phrase. Online action RPG is descriptive enough.

>>8655
For some reason, when people were playing it a couple of decades ago, they called it an MMO.

>>8656
In fact we did not.

>>8657
I was there. They did. I don't know why or am claiming it was a correct position.

>>8658
I was there. We did not. You occasionally had Blue Burst players towards the tail end of official severs to now calling it one, after the influence of WoW has warped their understanding of genres, but they are usually quickly corrected and cease their stupidity.

>>8659
The poster here >>8646 was directly implying it was an MMO.

>>8663
No I wasn't, I was saying there's nothing stopping actual MMOs from adopting ideas from competent action RPGs like PSO.

>>8675
The main problem is that MMOs are inherently social experiences to a greater extent than a typical multiplayer game. If you want to play a multiplayer action RPG, play a multiplayer action RPG. It doesn't fit with MMOs and usually only works by stripping out the "MMO" part.

>>8710
So you're saying only shitty gameplay can produce good social experiences? Dubious.

>>8724
Slower, more deliberate gameplay isn't "shitty gameplay". The gameplay you're talking about is more suited for the singleplayer experience or the multiplayer "set match" experience. Twitchy, fast paced combat isn't suitable for the MMORPG experience, where this type of gameplay conflicts with the social experience which should always be put front an center. As the other poster pointed out, they were able to take down endgame bosses in the current iteration of WoW without need for communication which is a *problem* for any game calling itself "MMO".

If what you want is an adrenaline pumping, super-fast, twitchy experience, I'd never recommend Chess to you because that's not the experience you're going to get from Chess and, at the same time, even the most fast-paced MMO "action combat" system is going to be wholly inferior to singleplayer and set match multiplayer games. And you're not there for the MMO experience anyway, so why bother? Play the better game, the one that suits your tastes.

>>8740
Speed chess is actually pretty dang adrenaline pumping.

>>8741
Speed Chess isn't proper Chess. It's one of the many Chess variants.

>>8741
>>8742
Also, I don't think even Speed Chess is going to measure up very well in comparison to most physical sports when it comes to being "adrenaline pumping". So, instead of recommending Speed Chess to someone, I'd just recommend they play a sport. Speed Chess would very likely be inferior to someone looking for that kind of experience to something like soccer, football, rugby, tennis, etc.

Is the landlord bullying Leninist from /wowcg/ on /vg/ here by any chance?