Adjusting content release schedule.

[Ickus 40]

On 9/6/2017 at 4:48 PM, Watari said:

Because it basically shortens the lifespan of the server, ain't that hard to figure that out is it?

Is it hard to figure out every server tend to die around AQ because farming content from day 1 for 4 months is boring? The lifespan of servers is too long as it is and with Elysium players seeming to want tbc then maybe they should compromise or just stay vanilla forever. I genuinely don't care what they do as long as both servers go to tbc at the same time or Elysium simply doesn't get tbc since the MC heroes on the forums are voicing their concerns about  not having enough time to farm raids.

 

Also next time add something of substance. There's too many useless post of someone saying useless stuff.

[Zarix 0]

Honestly completely disregardiing the benefits of anathema-elysium catchup sooner for TBC:

The original blizzard timeline does feel too slow for private servers. Like the OP says, blizzard had gating mechanics(bugged impossible final boss) that lengthened the content in a sense. Even though on Anathema we are getting Naxx at an appropriate time compared to AQ on the blizzard timeline, we have killed cthun almost 3x the amount of any guild in the original timeline and have almost 3x the amount of cthun loot in our raid team going in to Naxx. Same thing happens with Nefarian, and Ragnaros. When you consider that these final bosses have significantly better loot then anything else in the raid tier, it has a huge effect. We have way more full bis people going in to the next raid tier. In retail vanilla, guilds didn't have CLOSE to the amount of gear. Everyone didn't get FULL BIS from a raid before the next raid hit. That's just not how it worked. A couple of your casters had staffs of shadowflame and tears, not every single damn one. This is a PART of why the game seems easier then people remember (on top of 1.12 yada yada)

More important then the gear/easier next raid tier angle, the wait for new content is TREMENDOUS compared to retail vanilla because we don't have that impossible final boss for a few months keeping us on the hook. Cthun was patched and made possible ~3 months into AQ suddenly guilds start killing cthun each week, and then bam 2 months later Naxx hits. The flow of new content was better paced with less full farm time.

For the reasons of:

• no gated content like retail had
• 12 year old game, players are on average better, all boss mechanics easily googled
• 1.12 classes from the start

I think the original 2 year+ timeline for vanilla is a mistake. You can easily fit vanilla more comfortably into 1-1.5 years. Additionally I think the best way to preserve this game for the years to come is a seasonal system. Have a fresh vanilla server at the same time each year, while the current vanilla season moves on to TBC. People can play every season - or every couple of seasons hop back in. I can't think of a better end-game in regards to preservation of vanilla wow.

 

 

[quasexort 4]

We’ll since they are apparently going to speed up Elysium’s timeline I think this suggestion should be implemented.  One of the biggest flaws with the current timeline is nearly every guild has the content on farm status for months before new content comes out which doesn’t give a blizzlike experience at all.  Instead of having this huge gap of the time between new content, new content should be released based on the server first final boss kills like described in the OP. 

This will make the realm feel more blizzlike because back in 2006 you didn’t have nearly every guild clearing all the content equally, you had a spread of guilds with varying progression.  I think that’s one of the things that made vanilla wow fun was trying to reach that status of being one of the few guilds that could clear all content.  Unfortunately, on Elysium (and old Nost) the timeline is too slow and instead you have all the guilds basically on equal footing when new content is released which I’m sure some people like but it isn’t blizzlike to have most of the guilds killing nef/cthun for months before AQ/Naxx come out.  If the goal is to make the realm feel like how a 2006 realm felt then you should release content faster otherwise you just have these long gaps of every guild farming the current content.  I guarantee you an AQ40 server first would mean so much more if guilds didn’t have 9 months of basically getting full BIS from BWL (which didn’t exist on retail vanilla because guilds didn’t have time to farm nef that long before AQ came out). 

Some people think making the timeline faster is going to kill the server.  Maybe it does but maybe it doesn’t, we honestly have no proof either way since a server this massive has never gotten to Naxx.  I personally think playing on the Naxx patch is the most fun patch to play on in vanilla WoW.  I don’t really see a lot of people quitting until something like TBC comes out.  An important thing to consider is people generally play vanilla wow because it is a very social game, you make friends with other players and I think most players will keep playing for that social experience that doesn’t exist in retail wow anymore.  If people cared so much about “new” content then they’d probably be playing retail since that content is actually new.  Either way Elysium may eventually die but even if that happens they can create a fresh vanilla realm and do it all over again.  I don’t think these legacy servers are only worth playing one time and never again.  People enjoy the journey and I’d say making a faster timeline only enhancing that journey.  I think everyone can agree content droughts are more likely to burn people out than keep them engaged.

[Vartonis 0]

I think it's best to refer to the official announcements and keep an eye on upcoming information. I want to say that I appreciate the positive discussion, and lack of degradation in this thread. Sadly, it seems many other threads lately are being plagued by negativity. 

 

This is a large project, full of volunteers. I thank you all for recognizing that, and making appropriate discussion.