Ask the Devs - Answers #2 "PvP"

General Discussion
Post Limit:
Prev 1 11 12 13 26 Next
I'd love to see the stats on skirmish vs. wargame usage
It is a sad day for me, in reading your responses to the questions I am resigned to the fact that the broken aspects won't be fixed any time soon. You either are unable on unwilling to accept what is broken, and the adjustments and fixes you have made are just more half measures, token gestures and lips service lawyer speak reminiscent of "...working as intended."

I'm off to complete my shopping lists.
Perhaps making Wyvern Sting baseline for Hunters would address the PvP CC issue. Freezing Trap is clunky at times with Trap Launcher in a PvE scenario, which Wyvern Sting baseline would facilitate both PvP and PvE crowd control.

However, this would warrant Freezing Trap's removal in order to balance Hunter control.

Survival would have to be compensated for the talent loss, perhaps place Black Arrow in it's place and a new 31 pt talent, new shot perhaps.

03/22/2011 12:39 PMPosted by Maario
I'd love to see the stats on skirmish vs. wargame usage


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Where have they said that outside of your little post? Your generalization is biased to end game.


My generalization isn't biased; people are just hard to please no matter what you do. If you want me to support that claim, check out the damage dealing forum as well as this entire thread. As I said, no matter what was answered and what the answers were, everyone here would be whining incessantly about anything they can think of.

As for them making those claims, I can't really go back and grab the posts as they're on the forum. Going by your method of response, I'm expecting something along the lines of "lolololoconvenientexcuse" or something silly. Anyway, it just shows to me that you're not terribly informed when it comes to what all the blues have said and that you're just one of the many disgruntled players because what you wanted to be addressed wasn't. Protip: next time, get a ton of people to thumbs up the question(s) you want answered.

Feel free to respond how you like, but I've got the proof I need to determine how half-witted you are. Perhaps you should try learning how to better construct your arguments.
Posted by Spinnerdh

We don’t even have a way to make them always hit, because then they would always hit.

Isn't that the idea?




Only when you quote sentences out of context.


No... the answer was plainly BAD. A stealth rogue should get hit by traps just the same as an unstealthed one. I see nothing on the tooltips for either traps or stealth that says "makes immune to traps" or "makes highly resistant to traps" or even "slightly increases resistance to traps". What a Rogue DOES have is Disarm Trap, which allows them to DISARM a trap (IF THEY SEE IT!!!) not be resistant to it in stealth. That's why the dev answer was bad. There's no understanding of mechanics from a player point of view, other than the snide comment "which we’re sure is a solution hunters would be perfectly happy with".

Casters can use Spell Penetration to "always hit". Physical classes can use hit/expertise to "always hit". Why is it such a bad idea that traps have the ability to "always hit"?

The dev stated flatly that it was because it would "always hit Rogues in stealth". It's a complete garbage non-answer as Rogues have absolutely zero extra resistance to traps while stealthed.

Make traps Hunter lv +4. Then the resists go away... if they are objects created by the player.
Also, this isn't a NEW ISSUE. This has been PLAGUING Hunters since original vanilla. ORIGINAL. VANILLA.
What did devs do? They put in a talent that you're saying "does nothing" because Hunter traps are objects and not an extension of the Hunter! Utter 100% nonsense!

Honestly, if you can't design traps to scale properly with Hunter gear, then re-do the entire trap design. Make them fired shots instead. It's bad enough that Hunter cc is on a 30 second innate cooldown, but it's also passive and requires your target to actually trigger the mechanism. No other cc in the game exists with such poor mechanics.
03/22/2011 11:02 AMPosted by Bashiok
We didn’t cut Skirmishes because they were flawed. We just thought we’d get more bang for the buck out of Wargames. While some players enjoyed Skirmishes, we can tell you that overall they were used very rarely. We would have kept them if it had been relatively easy to do so, and we may add them back someday, but it’s just not a huge priority based on their previous popularity.


Thats pure baloney, my friend used skirmishes almost everyday because of how much of a PvP junkie he was, he didn't like to raid and already had plenty of alt toons to PvP with. In his spare time he would do skirmishes just for the giggles, but ever since Catacylsm hit, he has cancelled his subscription because he has nothing to do in his down time for arenas. Blizzard essentially took something out of the game that didn't needed to be taken out, because even if it was rarely used (which it wasn't) there was still players who enjoyed using it, and therefore your just taking away from the game as a whole.

And for the record, I would have thought Blizzard would have been smarter and expanded on skirmishes, maybe develop something like Sc2 has with the random matchmaking. (In other words rated skirmishes)

Now, regarding the hunters in PvP. I understand that some specs in arena and in general PvP are not viable, such as Elemental shamans and boomkins, but it is just plane ridiculous when all 3 of your specs are non-viable (at lower skill levels) in arenas. We heard straight from a dev's text a couple weeks ago that hunters are suppose to be good in Rated Battlegrounds, but not good in arena. If this is what Blizzard wants, I understand, but at least put it on the class description page on the website or the character creation notes while in game, stating something like "Hunters excel at activities such as Rated Battlegrounds, but are crippled in Arena".

Oh, and for the record,

This is another terrible attempt at pulling the wool over the sheep eyes. The worst questions were picked and even worse answers were given. Skirmishes were rarely used? What a joke this game has become


+1
Balance Druids: "OH hai, we'd prefer you to stay the target that when you pop into moonkin form, the other team goes 'Quick, burn the noobkin, lol what was he thinking rolling boomkin for arenas.' But hey, you seem to do decently well in rated BG's because you can tab through multi targets and dot them, so we're going to give you a 5% overall damage reduction by nerfing your 15s CD nuke, because a broken spell is a broken spell."

So wait, PvE nerfs to nerf the menial damage of an already poor performing spec in PvP? Hey, thanks. We appreciate it greatly. (I'm looking forward to the discussions on TMR)

Oh and thanks for somewhat reverting your choices of nerfing feral druid's ability to break CC. So we can still be kited endlessly, but if we're lucky we might actually be able to get a couple zerked mangles off on a frost mage before he blinks and freezes us again.

I'm not trying to get myself in trouble here, but come on. What are you seeing that near EVERY pvper isn't seeing?
You say Frost mages are fine, but the whole community says they are way too overpowered in each aspect of PVP, top to bottom. You say Ferals are too overpowered if we can break through CC, yet we get crushed if we can't and even when we could, we could still be feared by locks and hunters and warriors and priests, along with being chain cc'd/slowed by rogues, mages, and the rest. You say Balance druids do extremely well in Rated BG's, so much that they need a nerf that will affect PvE with no current way to supplement that dps loss there.

Does this really make sense overall? Am I really just blinded by being biased toward my class that i'm missing the big picture where this is really for the best to keep my class balanced in the game and able to stand toe to toe with the rest? Because i'm not seeing that at all, and from what I read on the forums when I come here, no one else is either. Except the devs.
Just to add a summary response (not related to my question specifically):

==========

I feel like in the first Q&A I was able to gain some insight into how Blizzard's designers think about certain problems they face. That was cool, even when I didn't agree with the answer.

But in this Q&A, what I'm overwhelmed with is the sense that PvP design decisions are mostly emotional. You more or less conceded that point, stating that it is highly subjective. Starsurge was nerfed because it was "super annoying". You balance around 3v3 because it "feels right". And you feel there is a "burden" on your customers to prove when something is broken with your product. In fact, not only a burden, but a "higher" burden.

So that was my first take away. That these decisions are mostly going to be emotional, not data-driven, and therefore I shouldn't expect to understand (or even see) the rationale behind them, because there may not be one.

==========

The second thing I got from this is that you recognize that interrupts and dispels have grown out of proportion. Instead of promoting skill-based game play, they are now interfering with it. THAT, I can see as a legitimately difficult design problem to tackle. So I can just say I am glad to know that you see the problem, and I look forward to seeing your solutions.

==========

The third thing I got from this is that you have no coherent plan / approach to self-healing. I would say, moreso than anything else, this response disheartened me the most. I don't know what else to say, except that I believe you genuinely misunderstand the concern that is raised by that question and others like it.

Let's say we can measure self-healing on a few scales:
- how much output?
- at what cost?

There is a vast, and I mean truly vast, discrepancy in this area right now. I would go so far to say it is the single most "broken" aspect of PvP balance at the moment. I fully support your decision to arm all melee classes and pure DPS with degrees of self sufficiency. And I can understand why certain classes (mage) might substitute self-healing with incredibly potent defensive cooldowns. But, even after these points are acknowledged, the current distribution of self healing is not sensible.

It really isn't, and you had said so yourself in one of your earliest post-cataclysm blogs GC. I don't know why you changed your mind, and decided not to review self healing. But you had the right idea originally, and it does need to be reviewed.
03/22/2011 11:02 AMPosted by Bashiok
This is our first stab at offering very powerful gear through Battlegrounds and it is going to take some tweaking to get right.

Technically, it's your second. ;)
03/22/2011 12:36 PMPosted by Níer
We know some players scratch their heads when we nerf Balance and Feral in PvP because they historically haven’t been as highly represented as some other specs. However, it’s not cool for a spec to be super annoying or frustrating to play against just because they aren’t common. But to answer your question for the record, yes we want them to be viable.



what do you call frost mages then?
Bliazzard, I'm telling you, there's an elephant in the room.
03/22/2011 11:02 AMPosted by Bashiok
With the exception of a few (kind of silly) dual Blood comps in the 2v2 bracket, we see most of the Blood DK complaints when they are Battleground flag carriers. Tanks are hard to kill – that’s their thing. When tanks do obnoxious amounts of damage in PvP in addition to high survivability, as happened in some of the Lich King seasons, that feels broken. In Cataclysm, their damage is a lot lower in PvP, but their survivability is high, which feels more appropriate. We did nerf the Glyph of Dark Succor to keep it from being abusive. We’d rather the role of tanks in PvP be as flag carriers and defenders rather than the dude chasing you around trying to kill you.[/ul]


So you're content with the level of difficulty to kill a blood tank vs a druid or warrior tank? Frankly, there's a huge difference in "killability" of the three tanks in pvp, where it won't show as much in pve.
03/22/2011 11:02 AMPosted by Bashiok
the more arbitrary the rewards will feel


#*#! the rewards, i just want to be able to smash peoples faces in with a bunch of other people next to me helping me.

If people want rewards then they can go to the regular bgs still.

If you make a TDM style bg, make it seperate from the regular bgs/random bg system.

I don't have to.

Note the biased to end game. Its on the very thing you quoted. Reference to low level and high level pvp which you conveniently left out of your post.

So again be your very statement you support my point. Please go ahead and try to deviate as you did in this response.

Its so transparent its actually amusing

-_-


You missed the entire point. Stop and think for a moment.

Also, you're right when you suggest I don't care for PvP balance below the level cap, but that's not to say that claiming people are going to be upset no matter what isn't accurate or unbiased.

Join the Conversation