Blizzard won't offer Vanilla, here's an alternative petition

We are always open to new ideas. Come here if you have a suggestion, we will discuss it together.

Blizzard won't offer Vanilla, here's an alternative petition

by Wryshu » Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:00 pm

I happily signed the petition, but I don't think it will do anything more than heighten animosity on both sides. You cannot force Blizzard to do something they don't want to do. However, if we lead with the carrot and not with the stick, we might find a resolution that makes everyone happy.

Consider this petition...

"Blizzard, please provide gateway authentication services for any and all private servers, so that subscribed players have a choice of what type of WoW they want to play."

If Blizzard allows any and all private servers, but only if these private servers allow blizzard to authenticate subscribed players, it does a few things:

1) Blizzard is not pressured to provide a Vanilla server, which they have adamantly refused to do thus far.

2) It offers the players more safety, since all authentication is through Blizzard, it's more difficult for hackers to use farmed login info, <insert common phishing/hax here>, etc.

3) Blizzard makes more money through increased subscriptions.

4) Blizzard gains reputation. Want the future of MMORPGs? It's right here, private servers.

Please post thought on this approach.

Thanks everyone who made, played, and supported Nostalrius!

Regards,
Wryshu
User avatar
Wryshu
Grunt
Grunt
 

Re: Blizzard won't offer Vanilla, here's an alternative peti

by MaciejB » Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:25 pm

It's a nice option for Blizzard, since it will give them all the benefits and no responsibilities. Considering the fact, that this monthly payment is made to "support the server maintanance", I don't think they really deserve to get it. After all, I bought the game in a box. How many times do I have to pay for it to Blizzard, if I got literally nothing from them for all the money I'm giving and not a single dime of stuff I'm paying would get to the volunteers maintaining and working their asses on the servers?

I don't think our devs and GMs would like to see someone else getting all the profits from them doing all the job.

Fuck Blizzard. We don't need them. We can play the hide n' seek game with them for a long time - we can hide the servers in Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Belarus or anywhere else Blizzard can reach it and deal with each other without them leeching our money with server devs seeing nothing of it.

Either our devs see some money from it or Blizzard maintains vanilla server themselves, or I am not paying for it.
User avatar
MaciejB
Private
Private
 

Re: Blizzard won't offer Vanilla, here's an alternative peti

by wampuskitty » Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:32 pm

It puts Blizzard in an odd position if they have destroyed their own vanilla code. I suspect:

- they'd be unlikely to recreate their own vanilla code, due to cost, time and expertise., and probably insufficiently certain payoff [bigger companies, more cautious]

- they'd be unlikely to use nostalrius code, no so much because of the climbdown as integration with their products, organisation and standards - though this would be a great option and show a fundamental change in Blizzard's approach. I can't see that happening now, it would require a real revolution like at IBM, basically they'd have to start doing really badly to force this kind of change through [a real life Blizzard Cataclysm]. And their shareprice is high, so that ain't happening.

So, what would be the most practical solution for Blizzard, if they wanted some kind of vanilla experience but without old code or using private server code?

A - they could force everything into the current wow [in my opinion they should have done this anyway]: create pre-cata versions of territory, using post-Cata models and textures, and phase player progression through the expansions so you end up in the post-cata world. Would be a helluva lot of work, plus they would have to change monk levelling to fit [maybe start at a high level like DKs], and maybe revamp starter quest texts generally [references changed as to why you need to do a quest - some now mention DW rather than LK for example].

B - otherwise, do the same but without the phasing... which becomes a mess without separate servers, in turn increasing overheads [servers, GM support etc] and what do you do about transfers.

And that I think possibly sums up why nothing will get done.: [A] is the best option, it will cost too much and there is an uncertain gain, plus it might alienate more people [those happy with how things are in retail >.<].
wampuskitty
Grunt
Grunt
 


Return to Suggestions