Nov 15 C2C interview with Theloras aka ME Hey everyone, Earlier today I spent some time with the Man, the Myth, the Legend who is Countdown to Classic and we spent some time discussing what I and many other Paladins are most looking forward to in the upcoming WoW Classic demo that will be available during Blizzcon: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/325334774 Since it looks like just Elwynn Forest for the Alliance and Durotar for the Horde will be available to play/test during the upcoming demo/beta, only early level gameplay will be possible to test at any length. But even with that limitation, a major core mechanic for Paladins will be able to be tested and theory crafted. I am of course referring to JUDGEMENT STACKING which I outlined in the thread below along with several other mechanics/talents/items that are still lingering and unanswered questions: Proc Items + Spell Dmg + JotC stacking? https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20760205815#post-1 TLDR - I found actual Vanilla era evidence (posted in the thread above) which stated that all ranks of each individual Judgement stacked with one another - Judgement of Light (JoL), Judgement of Wisdom (JoW) and most critically in this case, Judgement of the Crusader (JotC): With pvp gloves, libram and 3/3 imp JotC = +829 holy damage JotC R1 +79 Holy Damage JotC R2 +90 Holy Damage JotC R3 +113 Holy Damage JotC R4 +148 Holy Damage JotC R5 +182 Holy Damage JotC R6 +217 Holy Damage Since rank 1 Seal/Judgement of the Crusader is learned at level 6 and rank 2 is learned at level 12, if Elwynn Forest ends up being the only zone open for testing, then reaching level 12 is definitely doable from quest turnins and XP from mob kills. Which will allow 2 Paladins to join as a group and coordinate each of them putting up rank 1 and rank 2 of Judgement of the Crusader accordingly. If this proves to be correct, then it would forever change the LOLRET Meta with the simple fact that the more Retribution Paladins you have in a group/raid, the more powerful each of them then become and would also allow other class/specs come to the forefront as well namely Discipline Priests spamming Smite. At any rate, the twitch interview link is above - we had some audio technical issues at the start so if you fast forward to the 5:00 mark - you can hear the full interview. PS as a bonus, later on in the interview the Crazy OOMkin named Keftenk makes a special guest appearance :) https://twitter.com/count2classicTheloras111 Nov 15
Some quests in my guide are marked as "SKIP" and colored in red. These quests are simply either too hard to solo or not worth the XP/time and are skipped. My guide will only list SKIPPED quests if the quest is a direct follow up after completing a quest, not one that you have to click the NPC again to get it. If you hover over the skipped quests, it will give info on why it is skipped in the guide (unless that info is already listed directly in the guide text).
Nov 15 Classic is too easy for 2019 playerbase I'm not big on gameplay changes, really I'm not but... The game is just too easy for today's standards. I really think some of these raids and instances need a serious increase in difficulty. MC is a joke, most of the tier sets are unbalanced, and a lot of seasoned players agree but fear the toxic Classic community to speak up on this issue.Hopera237 Nov 15
So we asked ourselves, would it still be possible to deliver an authentic classic experience if we took our modern code, with all its back-end improvements and changes, and used it to process the Patch 1.12 game data? While that might seem counterintuitive, this would inherently include classic systems like skill ranks, old quests and terrain, talents, and so on, while later features like Transmog and Achievements would effectively not exist because they were entirely absent from the data. After weeks of R&D, experimentation, and prototyping, we were confident we could deliver the classic WoW content and gameplay without sacrificing the literally millions of hours put in to back-end development over the past 13 years.
":" - Any time a step ends in a ":" instead of a "." means that the next step is part of the current step you are on. This generally means the next step should be done while working on the current step. This means every "start working on" or "continue working on" will end in a ":". But this is used with other occasions as well, so keep this in mind.