A Plea for the Heart of WoW: Preserving the WotLK Servers

Dear Blizzard Entertainment and WoW Community,

I’m Doktor Gold, a WoW enthusiast for over a decade. Today, I address you all with a concern close to my heart—the future of WotLK servers amidst the Cataclysm transition.

While I understand the need for game evolution, Cataclysm’s departure from WoW’s core has been jarring. WotLK captured a spirit, an essence, that many of us fear will be lost. This isn’t about resisting change; it’s about preserving the soul of the game we love.

I propose a compromise: maintain at least one WotLK server. This server could serve as a testament to WoW’s golden era, likely outliving Cataclysm’s popularity. Let’s discuss the possibility of a new expansion that builds on WotLK’s legacy, with its talent systems and a Classic+ style choice mechanism.

Our shared passion for WoW unites us. Let’s come together to ensure that the flame of WotLK, which has warmed our gamer’s hearts for so long, doesn’t go out.

Looking forward to a dialogue that honors our commitment to this world.

Warm regards,
Doktor Gold

23 Likes

It’s cute that you like WoTLK, but this is false.

WoTLK was the start of the ‘gogogo’ game, the start of randomised groups and the start of ‘everything below the last tier of raid is worthless’. It isn’t the ‘heart and soul’ of the old game, it’s the stepping stones for the new.

We already have servers dedicated to the golden era of WoW, it’s called ‘classic era’.

No. I’ve no objection to a standalone WoTLK realm; even if it’s only for 300-400 players. But to create ‘new’ wrath content? That’s literally what Cataclysm is.

3 Likes

Yeah I want wotlk era servers too u.u
However claiming for a SoD to WotLK is too much right now… let’s wait some years as classic did…

1 Like

1.I appreciate your viewpoint, but I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, Cataclysm was not an evolution but rather a setback for the game. The overhaul of talents, game mechanics, and lore didn’t enhance the experience but rather detracted from what made the game compelling to many players. It’s important to acknowledge that what some may view as progress can be perceived by others as a loss of the core elements that originally defined the game’s success.

2.Certainly, I understand the perspective that ‘classic era’ servers are a nod to the golden era of WoW. However, I believe that the true measure of a golden era could arguably be the number of active players, and historically, Wrath of the Lich King boasted the highest player count. This peak in the game’s population is indicative of the wide appeal and fondness for that particular expansion, setting it apart for many as the true golden age of World of Warcraft. Each player’s golden era is personal, and the immense popularity of WotLK is a testament to its enduring legacy and impact on the community.

3.I respect that you might see Cataclysm as an extension of what Wrath of the Lich King set up, but I’d like to offer a different perspective that may resonate with you. Consider how the talent system in WotLK provided a rich tapestry of options allowing for nuanced customization - this was not simply altered in Cataclysm, it was significantly simplified. This wasn’t a mere evolution; it was a drastic overhaul that many felt stripped away the complexity that they had come to appreciate.

Furthermore, the narrative transition from WotLK to Cataclysm felt jarring to some. The lore in WotLK was the culmination of story arcs that had been building for years, deeply interwoven with the fabric of the Warcraft universe. Cataclysm, while ambitious, seemed to pivot away from these established stories to something that didn’t resonate as harmoniously with the preceding narrative.

The measure of an expansion’s success can often be gauged by the community’s reception, and the fervent discussions around these changes suggest that perhaps something essential was lost in the transition. It’s this sense of loss that leads many to feel that Cataclysm didn’t quite live up to the legacy of its predecessor. The hope is not to diminish your experience but to share a perspective that reflects a broader sentiment felt by a segment of the community.

After the WotLK expansion, every subsequent addition to World of Warcraft felt like a complete 180-degree turn. There wasn’t just a lack of continuity in lore, but also in game mechanics and skills. Instead of evolving and adding new elements—like in Classic+ where you can choose from several skills while preserving the past—each expansion almost seemed to reinvent the game from scratch.

3 Likes

…You’re joking, right?

The lore was a follow on from WC3, a game people loved with a great story. The story arc of WoTLK itself, without TFT, sucked. Sit back and look at it objectively, the story was dull.

1 Like

Are you suggesting that the talent system introduced in Cataclysm was richer than the one we experienced in Wrath of the Lich King? I must respectfully disagree with that notion. In WotLK, players had the freedom to choose each talent in their build, allowing for a diverse range of character customization. Cataclysm, on the other hand, significantly narrowed this freedom by limiting players to choose one of three abilities every few levels, reducing the depth and flexibility that WotLK’s talent system offered.

If you find the storyline in WotLK to be unengaging, that’s a perfectly valid personal perspective. However, please allow others, including myself, to hold a different view. In my opinion, the narrative in Cataclysm was not only dull but also nonsensical, culminating in what I perceived as a farcical climax with Thrall defeating Deathwing with a laser. This conclusion felt like a parody, riddled with paradoxes that undermined the build-up of what could have been an epic tale.

The direction taken by World of Warcraft post-Wrath of the Lich King has led to a curious dichotomy within the game’s expansive world. On the one hand, Azeroth remains a vast, sprawling universe filled with rich lore and diverse landscapes. On the other, there’s an undeniable sense of emptiness that pervades its older zones—a direct consequence of the game’s relentless focus on the newest expansion at the expense of previous content.

When a new expansion arrives, it often becomes the singular nexus of player activity. The previous regions, once teeming with adventurers engaging in epic quests and intricate storylines, gradually fade into the background, their once-critical narratives and characters left gathering dust in the shadow of new developments. This not only diminishes the sense of a living, continuous world but also sidelines the histories that players have invested in deeply.

Imagine, instead, an alternative approach exemplified by hypothetical expansions like “Echoes of Icecrown” or “Chronicles of the Frozen Throne.” Such expansions would seek to evolve the game without uprooting it—building upon the rich tapestry of WotLK’s Northrend, delving deeper into its unresolved mysteries, and expanding its lore. They would respect the time and memories players have poured into these realms, ensuring that past adventures and achievements maintain their significance.

Cataclysm, for all its transformative ambition, inadvertently set a precedent for making each new expansion feel like a hard reset. It didn’t feel like a natural evolution from WotLK but rather a drastic rewrite that, in many ways, nullified the continuity players cherished. In doing so, it didn’t just change the landscape; it disrupted the narrative flow, making previous expansions feel like closed chapters rather than integral parts of a continuing saga.

There’s a compelling argument to be made for a game that honors its legacy by building upon it, rather than replacing it. This approach fosters a more immersive and cohesive world, where every chapter feels like part of a grander journey, and every region remains a vital, living part of the game’s ecosystem. A game that understands the value of its history is one that respects its players and their journey through its world.

The Legion expansion, with its return to Outland, indeed sparked hope for a restored continuity. However, this hope was short-lived, as the subsequent expansions once again veered away, leaving behind the threads of narrative continuity we had hoped would be further woven into the fabric of WoW.

True evolution in a game of this magnitude should mean enriching the world that’s already been crafted, not reinventing the wheel with each release and abandoning the old zones that many of us still hold dear. The richness of WoW is not just in its size but in the depth of its content, and each part of Azeroth deserves to live and breathe with the ongoing narrative.

Regarding Blizzard’s recent shift towards ‘sagas.’ While this could potentially create a more cohesive storyline moving forward, it does seem like an overdue solution. The graveyard of forgotten expansions is a testament to the episodic nature that has led us from one disconnected adventure to the next, leaving a trail of underappreciated content in its wake.

In my opinion, the spirit of World of Warcraft could indeed be rejuvenated through a direct sequel to the WotLK expansion—not just a minor update like SoD, but a significant expansion that builds on the rich narrative and beloved mechanics established in WotLK. This approach would honor the legacy of what many consider WoW’s golden age and provide a much-needed sense of continuity and depth to the world of Azeroth.

2 Likes

No if you compare expansions that way TBC is golden era, because this is when subscribers numbers constantly grew. Wrath has small period when it had momentum of hype and then it hit plateau despite all attempts to create content separated by difficulties for broad auditory.

1 Like

I must voice my disagreement with the idea that a constant growth in subscriber numbers is the defining factor of an expansion’s success. While TBC indeed saw a steady increase, WotLK reached the highest subscriber count in WoW’s history, which is a significant milestone. Additionally, it’s crucial to recognize that it was during Cataclysm, not WotLK, when we witnessed a notable departure of players. The shift in game direction that came with Cataclysm, rather than the natural plateau of WotLK, was a turning point that led many subscribers to leave.

3 Likes

No, they’re basically the same. I’m suggesting you’refull of crap when you talk about the WoTLK talent tree.

…That was MoP.

You’re welcome to be wrong.

Meanwhile WoTLK’s storyline is that Arthas stands on his throne, watches us run rampart about his empire and then says “lol me get you next time!” whenever we see him.

Then we come to fight him, where he gets his backside handed to him by Tirion. Ner’zhul was a farseer that could see the downfall of the Orcs and the burning Legion, but couldn’t predict that the world’s strongest paladin wielding a weapon made from a Naaru crystal would break his icy prison? Yeah, okay.

Much like the downfall of Illidan, Kil’jaeden, Kael’Thas, C’thun and… Literally every other boss we killed.

During Wrath. Wrath pathed the way for everything you guys complain about, remember that.

Just like in WotLK, you mean?

The opposite happened with Cataclysm, Blizzard remade Azeroth and people visitted her again.

Good news! Did you watch the war within panel?

You mean… Like WoTLK did?

People wanted Azeroth to be interesting and worthwhile again, you’ve even just whined about that yourself. Never happy are you?

What?

Legion took us to the broken isles and to Argus, we didn’t return to Outland.

No. That was be awful.

You use a lot of words and offer little substance. Sit back and look at WoTLK objectively. Then sit back and look at how WoTLKC has played out and look at that objectively too.

This isn’t ‘the golden era’.

4 Likes

“No, they’re basically the same. I’m suggesting you’refull of crap when you talk about the WoTLK talent tree.”

I respect that we each have our own views on this topic, and I appreciate your input. However, my stance is that the talent trees in Cataclysm were trimmed rather than expanded upon. I see this as a simplification of the system we had in WoTLK, which in my opinion, offered a richer and more intricate approach to character development. Let’s agree to respect our differing opinions on the matter.

“…That was MoP.”
Yes, you are right, my mistake

“You’re welcome to be wrong.”
Lol are u toxic?

"Meanwhile WoTLK’s storyline is that Arthas stands on his throne, watches us run rampart about his empire and then says “lol me get you next time!” whenever we see him.

Then we come to fight him, where he gets his backside handed to him by Tirion. Ner’zhul was a farseer that could see the downfall of the Orcs and the burning Legion, but couldn’t predict that the world’s strongest paladin wielding a weapon made from a Naaru crystal would break his icy prison? Yeah, okay."

It’s disappointing you see the WotLK story that way. Many of us feel the saga of Arthas was immersive, with his presence throughout the expansion adding a sense of impending doom. The final battle is a topic of debate, but to me and others, it felt like a fitting end to a long and dark chapter. Ner’zhul’s oversight regarding Tirion’s potential doesn’t diminish the story’s impact for us. I respect your viewpoint, though, and it’s clear WoW’s narrative can be interpreted in many ways.

“Much like the downfall of Illidan, Kil’jaeden, Kael’Thas, C’thun and… Literally every other boss we killed.”

I disagree with that statement; it’s not a fair assessment. The downfall of iconic characters like Illidan, Kil’jaeden, and Kael’thas was crafted with attention to Warcraft lore, and each had a storyline leading to their demise. To dismiss their ends as pulled out of thin air overlooks the detailed storytelling that built up to those moments. Each boss’s defeat was part of a larger narrative arc that many players followed with great interest.

“During Wrath. Wrath pathed the way for everything you guys complain about, remember that.”

I categorically disagree with the notion that Wrath of the Lich King paved the way for all the issues that players later complained about. On the contrary, many view Wrath as a high point in WoW’s history, with subsequent expansions deviating from the elements that made it so memorable and beloved.

"Just like in WotLK, you mean?

The opposite happened with Cataclysm, Blizzard remade Azeroth and people visitted her again."

Cataclysm did indeed transform the world, but many, including myself, feel it wasn’t for the better. It altered many beloved zones in ways that didn’t resonate with a significant portion of the player base. An expansion post-WotLK could have enriched existing locations, filling them with new life, rather than abandoning or overhauling them. This kind of hard reset in Cataclysm changed the very landscapes we had grown attached to, and not just mechanically—it was a transformation that, for some, felt irreversible and unwelcome.

“Good news! Did you watch the war within panel?”

Yes, I’ve seen the panel. But I have to ask, did you fully digest the points made in my previous messages? Introducing a saga at this stage seems a bit tardy given the disjointed pile of expansions we’ve been left with. This method doesn’t necessarily promise the continuity we crave, as it may very well conclude with yet another break in the storyline.

“You mean… Like WoTLK did?”

Up until WotLK, there was a sense of continuity where WoW felt like it was growing and evolving naturally. However, starting with Cataclysm, it feels as though each new expansion gives us a nearly new game that completely discards the previous additions. WotLK didn’t create this trend; it expanded the world while maintaining a connection to what came before.

“People wanted Azeroth to be interesting and worthwhile again, you’ve even just whined about that yourself. Never happy are you?”

For my own satisfaction, having even a single WotLK server preserved forever would be enough. It seems you’re the one who’s consistently dissatisfied, given the changes in WoW. My wishes are quite simple in comparison… Cataclysm replaced old zones, which isn’t the same as building upon them. This approach felt more like replacement than an organic development of the game’s world. There’s no illusion on my part that the changes I discussed are likely to happen. That’s why I shifted away from retail long ago. But if Classic’s direction is not to your liking, perhaps returning to retail would be more enjoyable for you? Let’s both find happiness in the versions of WoW we prefer.

"What?

Legion took us to the broken isles and to Argus, we didn’t return to Outland."

I meant that Legion, while taking us to new worlds, can be seen as an extension of the themes and settings introduced in Outland. But it seems you’re focused on specifics out of context, which might be why you’re missing the broader point. The narrative potential, such as class-specific storylines and world invasions, could have been extended to other zones to enrich the entire game world. Unfortunately, the continuity of such developments was disrupted, as subsequent expansions didn’t build on these mechanics. And yes, for accuracy, Legion did take us to the Broken Isles and Argus, not back to Outland.

"No. That was be awful.

You use a lot of words and offer little substance. Sit back and look at WoTLK objectively. Then sit back and look at how WoTLKC has played out and look at that objectively too.

This isn’t ‘the golden era’."

I’m sorry to see that you’re finding so little substance in what I’m saying.Your take on WotLK and what followed in WoW is clear, but it seems we’re not on the same page. If understanding my viewpoint isn’t possible, perhaps your gaming experience would be more fulfilling on retail. For me, WotLK remains a peak era of WoW, and I’m not alone in that sentiment. If we can’t expand on it, then maintaining it as is would suffice for many players who cherish it as the golden era of the game.

1 Like

The word “classic” doesn’t mean nothing in nowadays.

Classic (vanilla) version is basically the first version of the game, but we have ERA servers forever so it’s okay.

But what comes to these progression servers…

When Cataclysm is released again, then old world is gone.

It is not a classic version of the WoW at all.

Again, you’re welcome to be wrong. But you’ve mistaken the Wrath tree for the TBC one. TBC meant you could build hybrid specs, WoTLK still essentially locked you into one spec as the 51 point abilities are too strong.

I’d rather be ‘toxic’ than wrong.

‘Doom’? No, not at all. WoTLK offered us a super easy levelling experience compared to TBC and Vanilla. It offered us easy dungeons too. There was no sense of impeding doom or danger. Every class could pull multiple mobs and many classes could solo the elite quests. And what do you do once you’re lvl80? You get the joy of sitting in Dalaran.

There was no ‘storytelling’, those bosses were added as a sauce of entertainment. Boss fights that we kill for rewards. Illidan’s story was even retconned in Legion.

WoW’s story has always been bad. W3 offered a much better story-telling narrative than an MMORPG ever could.

Each and every one of those people are wrong.

WoTLK brought us ‘raid or die’ as a design philosophy, WoTLK brought us easy dungeons. WoTLK brought us homogeneralisation and WoTLK brought us ‘all previous content is worthless’. WoTLK even brought us the old Celestial Steed; (AKA: TRH) the first cash shop mount.

You didn’t even digest your own message. You deny WoTLK pathed the way for the modern game, yet continue to speak.

And no, I didn’t actually watch much of the retail panel. I listened to Christ Metzen for a while, but I’ve no interest in wasting my money on any of the new expansions.

Legion retconned TBC, rather than expand upon it.

<.<

1 Like

Care to elaborate on the ‘lore’ part? Deathwing is an intergral part of Wrafcraft and he has a history that wow builds upon.

purely subjective. To a lot of players the golden era of wow was vanilla, to me it was TBC, to you it’s wrath. Why? Just because it had the most subs? That’s just using sub numbers to pad your argument. I do agree wow was at it’s peak popularity around wow, but that doesn’t say anything about the quality of the expansion that came before?

What complexity? 99% of players used the same build anyway, that was the reason blizz changed it. All the stuff you would take anyway to get to an impactful talent is still there, it’s just gained passively during leveling. Sure the RP aspect of clicking on a talent is gone but arguing over that goes a bit far imo.

True about wrath, but also true about cata. The old gods were around before vanilla. You seem to know little of cata’s lore and why Neltharion is the way he is.

Factually false. I can agree cata changed things up quite a bit after wrath, but starting in WoD, Legion, BfA, SL all share the same systems and path forward.

Again not true.

This man speaks the truth, and these forums were filled with posts that realized that wrath was never the sprawling open ended peak-mmo that everyone remembered it as. Wrath is a very decent raidlog expansion with loads of QoL improvements after TBC. Just look at attuenements, something I personally enjoyed.

Naxx as a first raid made sense in original wrath but it was so undertuned the raid fell over the same day as release iirc, by people in green questing gear.

1 Like

It’s simple really. Vanilla/TBC/WotLK are MMORPGs. Cataclysm is a shallow arcade looter shooter with all RPG elements removed featuring ultra-streamlined, ultra-convenient instant gratification-style gameplay.

People on these forums are in favour of it simply because they view this game as little more than a lobby system where they log in, raid, and log out and Cata simply means more raids. They have no interest in the RPG part of the game and care only about cold game mechanics, stats, numbers and parse logs.

Personally I’m past caring, in fact I’m kind of glad that my WoW addiction has been cured again, allowing me to focus on other things. In some ways perhaps it would have been better if Classic had never happened. Sure I’ve enjoyed my time in Classic, but if I’d had know that I was effectively playing on borrowed time and only had around five years to enjoy a temporary game I’d probably never have re-subbed.

3 Likes

Wotlk then?

Ellenae congrats on your cure.

1 Like

“Again, you’re welcome to be wrong. But you’ve mistaken the Wrath tree for the TBC one. TBC meant you could build hybrid specs, WoTLK still essentially locked you into one spec as the 51 point abilities are too strong.”

I disagree with your assessment. WotLK did not lock you strictly into one spec; rather, it refined the specialization of each tree. Take the hybrid Warlock Demonology/Destruction build as an example. While the 51-point talents were indeed powerful, they didn’t negate the viability of hybrid builds. Players still had the flexibility to mix and match talents from different trees to suit their playstyle, particularly for PvP or specific PvE scenarios. The depth of customization was still present; it was just more focused and refined.

“I’d rather be ‘toxic’ than wrong.”

You’re mistaken in your approach, which is quite toxic. Time will tell who’s right when Cataclysm launches and we see if it truly marks the end of the Classic era as many of us suspect.

“‘Doom’? No, not at all. WoTLK offered us a super easy levelling experience compared to TBC and Vanilla. It offered us easy dungeons too. There was no sense of impeding doom or danger. Every class could pull multiple mobs and many classes could solo the elite quests. And what do you do once you’re lvl80? You get the joy of sitting in Dalaran.”

Reaching level 80 opens a world of activities in WoW—arenas, battlegrounds, and high-level dungeons and raids are just the beginning. I find immense joy in this endgame content, and alongside that, leveling alts and delving into the rich lore of the game.That you don’t find the same joy in these aspects doesn’t mean they’re lacking—perhaps they’re just not for you. There’s no wrong way to enjoy WoW as long as you’re having fun. Isn’t that what gaming is all about?

"There was no ‘storytelling’, those bosses were added as a sauce of entertainment. Boss fights that we kill for rewards. Illidan’s story was even retconned in Legion.

WoW’s story has always been bad. W3 offered a much better story-telling narrative than an MMORPG ever could"

I have to disagree with your view. While World of Warcraft’s storytelling differs from that of Warcraft III, many players find the narrative in WotLK engaging and well-constructed, especially in how it’s woven into the gameplay. If the storytelling in WoW doesn’t meet your expectations and leaves you consistently dissatisfied, may I ask why you continue to play? What keeps you engaged with the game despite your view that the story has always been lacking?

"Each and every one of those people are wrong.

WoTLK brought us ‘raid or die’ as a design philosophy, WoTLK brought us easy dungeons. WoTLK brought us homogeneralisation and WoTLK brought us ‘all previous content is worthless’. WoTLK even brought us the old Celestial Steed; (AKA: TRH) the first cash shop mount."

Claiming that every dissenting opinion is wrong isn’t a constructive approach. It’s important to acknowledge that the majority view often holds weight. In the case of WotLK, many players would argue that it was an era that significantly contributed to the richness of WoW’s universe. Single voices that claim otherwise are in the minority. While not every aspect of WotLK was perfect, suggesting improvements is more productive than dismissing the entire expansion’s contributions to the game.

"You didn’t even digest your own message. You deny WoTLK pathed the way for the modern game, yet continue to speak.

And no, I didn’t actually watch much of the retail panel. I listened to Christ Metzen for a while, but I’ve no interest in wasting my money on any of the new expansions."

You’ve misunderstood. My question about whether you’d fully considered my previous messages was in relation to the WoW saga discussion, not about WotLK’s influence on the current game. I’ve carefully considered both your words and mine, and I maintain that the experience WotLK offered differs significantly from what’s found in retail WoW today. There are alternative paths the game could have taken, which you seem to overlook.

“Legion retconned TBC, rather than expand upon it.”

You’re right; Legion retconned elements from TBC rather than expanding directly on them. Returning to our main topic, it’s key to recognize how WoW’s expansions, including WotLK,Legion have shaped the game’s trajectory in various ways.

“<.<”

Perhaps it’s time to move past the complaints and let others enjoy the game as they wish. I’m simply advocating for one permanent WotLK server, whereas your expectations still seem unclear, as you remain dissatisfied. What exactly are you seeking from WoW?

“Care to elaborate on the ‘lore’ part? Deathwing is an intergral part of Wrafcraft and he has a history that wow builds upon.”

Of course, you’re correct that Deathwing is a significant part of WoW’s history, though his story in Cataclysm didn’t resonate with me and many others.

“purely subjective. To a lot of players the golden era of wow was vanilla, to me it was TBC, to you it’s wrath. Why? Just because it had the most subs? That’s just using sub numbers to pad your argument. I do agree wow was at it’s peak popularity around wow, but that doesn’t say anything about the quality of the expansion that came before?”

While personally, and alongside the majority, I still regard WotLK as the pinnacle expansion, my arguments are plentiful. Yet, the most illustrative is the historical peak in subscriber numbers during that era, a metric grounded in solid data. I also cherished TBC and lamented the removal of its servers, which is why I’m advocating for the preservation of WotLK servers. Classic WoW didn’t captivate me in the same way, as it felt lacking in content compared to its successors.

“What complexity? 99% of players used the same build anyway, that was the reason blizz changed it. All the stuff you would take anyway to get to an impactful talent is still there, it’s just gained passively during leveling. Sure the RP aspect of clicking on a talent is gone but arguing over that goes a bit far imo.”

Actually, that step of streamlining talents was pivotal in shaping WoW into what it is today. Previously, we had a sense of progression with every level, choosing how to allocate talent points. It felt like we were actively shaping our characters. The simplification began there, arguably diminishing a layer of personal touch from character development.

“True about wrath, but also true about cata. The old gods were around before vanilla. You seem to know little of cata’s lore and why Neltharion is the way he is.”

It’s indeed true that Cataclysm’s lore, including Neltharion’s transformation into Deathwing, draws from long-established Warcraft history. However, when compared to WotLK, Cataclysm’s storytelling often feels lacking. WotLK had a narrative depth that engaged players deeply, with story arcs that had been developing for years. Cataclysm, despite its efforts, didn’t seem to capture the same level of narrative intricacy and emotional investment for many.

Neltharion was one of the five Dragon Aspects created by the titans to oversee Azeroth and its elements. As the Earth-Warder, he was empowered to protect the land and its deep places. Over time, the Old Gods’ influence corrupted him, culminating in his betrayal during the War of the Ancients where he used the Dragon Soul, later known as the Demon Soul, against both the Burning Legion and his fellow dragons.

After being driven into hiding, suffering from the schism within his mind and the betrayal of his noble purpose, Neltharion emerged as Deathwing. He became a symbol of cataclysm, reshaping Azeroth’s landscapes and threatening the very existence of life on the planet. His story is a tragic fall from a guardian to a bringer of apocalypse, showing how even the mighty can be corrupted and turned against those they once swore to protect. Neltharion’s tale serves as a grim reminder of the constant vigilance needed against the forces that seek to corrupt and destroy.

“Factually false. I can agree cata changed things up quite a bit after wrath, but starting in WoD, Legion, BfA, SL all share the same systems and path forward.”

The perception of discontinuity, particularly with skills and abilities in WoW, is shared by many. Each expansion, starting from Cataclysm, has indeed significantly reworked classes and systems, which can feel like a reset rather than a continuation of what was previously established in WotLK. This has created a sense of loss for players who enjoyed the depth and customization of earlier game versions.

“Again not true.”

Talent Overhauls: Post-WotLK, talents were simplified, notably in Cataclysm, with further streamlining in subsequent expansions. This often left players relearning classes each time.

Class Mechanics: New expansions frequently redefined class roles and abilities, sometimes removing iconic skills or altering class identities.

Leveling Experience: Level squishes and overhauls altered the leveling experience, making it feel disconnected from previous expansions.

Endgame Content: The focus on endgame often invalidated the old content, leading to a cycle of ‘out with the old, in with the new’ with each release.

These points illustrate a pattern of reinvention over expansion, creating a sense that each new release is a fresh start rather than a continuation.

1 Like

Sounds like Wrath to me, which is closer to Cataclysm than TBC, anyways.

You summed up the Wotlk community perfectly!

The majority of the player base flies through the old world content (that they claim they can’t get enough of) as fast as humanely possible to sit at max level and RDF and/or raid log.

I am personally looking forward to classic Cata as it was the first time (pre nerf) the game had mechanics that required more than 2 brain cells.

People already ignore mechanics in favor of parsing. Our guild managed to land 11/12 25ICC week 2, despite having some of those people in the roster. In Cata, you can’t do that.

Healing in particular had a higher skillcap, opposed to Wrath where healing is spammy because you don’t need to consider mana and just faceroll healbot. (Looking at you, hpalas and disc priests)

I have no objections to Cataclysm—as long as there’s an option to keep at least one WotLK server active. It’s about preserving choices for players with different preferences.

2 Likes

TL:DR after so long.

Clarification on my opinion:

  • Golden Era = Classic (where it all began)
  • Lore Continuity = TBC, WoTLK
  • Trying to expand on the world/lore = Cata (and onwards)

I can only surmise that you might have started when WotLK was released rather than back in 2004 with “World of Warcraft”, so to you that is the “golden era” - in which case I can understand the perception.

As for servers: I can personally agree that maybe they could consider leaving one server for each “classic” time line.

However, for that to work - that would mean that there would be:

  • NO transfers!
  • NO updates (other than expected maintenance)!
  • NO switches!
  • NO nothing!

For those wanting to go classic>tbc>wotlk>cata>… won’t happen - it can’t!

If you are on Classic, or BC or WotLK servers - then you’re there/stuck you will never move to another classic-server unless you make a new character on that server specifically.

Otherwise all you are doing is the WOW timeline again from the start, just adding CLASSIC on the end of it until we get “Dragonflight - Classic” in the next few years or something obscure… in which case we don’t need separate servers for them, just keep it as is.

Really?

Because that sounds like WoTLK to me.

Just like WoTLK then.