One statement I’ve seen over and over on these forums and elsewhere are proposals for “easy” fixes and overarching assumptions about how long implementation for a variety of changes “should” take.
The reality is, game development is a hugely iterative and time-consuming process, with many people involved along the way. Design takes time, Coding takes time, art takes time, QA takes time: you name it. There are also multiple steps in the pipeline for each and every proposed change and bug fix, no matter how minor, and what issues are being worked on in what order and by who can and do change as new matters arise. Sometimes extra testing is also needed for bugs that come back broken and need to be retested, because we didn't want them to go live with a bad fix.
While there may indeed be a list of known issues and bugs that run alongside some patches, for every one you are aware of, there can be dozens or hundreds being worked on behind-the-scenes that you likely never be aware of. We do things just as quickly as we can, but even then, it’s a process that takes time.
i disagree with some statements above
i am hobbyist game-developer and modder myself for many years, and a real life a participant in several multi-million dollar projects - not in gaming industry, but well-executed projects are far more similar in nature than one would expect:
- programming, graphical design and design do indeed take substantial testing
- some fixes don't need nearly as much time and testing as presented, and often those are ones that bother players the most
example is balancing - pure number changing - and pre-patch 1.07
after game is over 8 months on market, there are number of ~300% skill runes buff. any serious analysis would discover them far faster - fact is they would never leave closed-beta. 20% buff/nerf is considered a substantial, and 100% nearly unacceptable in late game phase (granted, there are some rule-breaking exceptions)
that apart, mentioned 300% buffs may be indeed needed, and, since they are so big changes, need extensive testing, there is still one question - why it wasn't done partially, in 20-50% increments, over last 4-5 balance patches?
for a game in current state of balance, a monthly plan of balance-patches is appropriate (excluding coding, art and such, which follows "upon finishing testing" application).
by looking at publicly available data:
[without doubt, Blizzard has far more accurate and valuable ones]
one concludes that over 1/3 runes are basically unused (on monk example, since monk balancing is major part of 1.07, so far at least)
this is far from acceptable, both to players who expected more diversity, and to company who invested money in developing unusable resources (and engaged whole pipeline and hundred of people behind the scene mentioned above)
for the record, i did apply (few days ago) for a dev team member, chiefly for a reason to be taken more seriously - the thing impossible using forums
i also offered to make (free of charge) detailed analysis and propose simple and easy solutions for most pressing matters
yes, everyone and their brothers thinks they can do that, but i have a work resume proving i know what i'm talking about
[i am a guy with more than 10 years of experience in multi-million dollars projects (mentioned already), with dozens-or-even-hundreds subordinates and working for a large international company with thousands of employees. my job is to find bottlenecks and weak points of processes/system and propose best and most efficient solutions. i charge substantial money for it, or get it as a bonus.
however, for me not everything is in money, diablo-series is my, so to speak, friend - so, i'm offering to do my well-paid job for you for free, out of enthusiasm. gaming is my hobby, and i don't mind spending my free time making it better. i think i deserve a chance - and some kind of reasonable guarantee that my professional report will be at least read, and not thrown into 'remove AH' recycle bin.
all the information given in resume are checkable.
my general professional advice is to take 3rd party opinion (regardless of who is in question) on current game status and future - game currently functions well enough, but has no 10-year life-cycle capability. of course, life cycle could be less, if next installment is planned earlier, but in current roadmap it is not the case]