So when is 20%? - Edit, we know now. Whew.

Dungeons, Raids and Scenarios
Prev 1 5 6 7 20 Next
04/08/2012 08:46 PMPosted by Terrorific
Also, the 99/9/1 rule doesn't really apply when all 100 are paying the exact same amount of money.


I'm confused. Are we arguing over what is more profitable or what makes for a better game?
What's funny is people act like this type of nerf/buff system is somehow a new development.

ICC anyone?

People get too hung up on the word "nerf" ICC had a "buff" so maybe that's why it wasn't so hated?


What's funny is people (you as well) think this debuff is somehow comparable to the likes of the ICC buff. This debuff hits far harder than the ICC buff ever did, most of ICC was mechanic-type fights, especially the harder ones, while DS is 90-95% output check fights, probably even higher now with how silly this debuff is. This debuff right now is like 40% of the ICC buff, it's pretty ridiculous.

Because we can't dedicate days and days to a video game? Because we play for fun?

I mean, guys, it's just a game.


The same old tired argument I see lol. The only time people dedicate "days" to raiding anymore is top-end tier guilds, and when they're done they raid for ~2 hours and are off the rest of the week, or do an alt raid (like BL) and that's it, while you're still raiding your normal 3 day (no idea how many days you raid, just using the average) schedule.

-

Also, Terrorific, I guarantee I raid less than you do per week, especially if we are missing someone and have to finish Spine/Madness on normal. If we could replace (that might sound mean or whatever you think, but some really aren't helping us that much) 1-3 people we currently have, we'd have been 8/8 a bit ago on our short schedule.


I raid once a week. 3 hours most of the time, though current progression we've been hitting 4. Very, very consistent with this schedule since mid-firelands when the group started. Usually if we finish early we go do an old heroic.

If you consider 3 days a week raiding normal or average, then I don't know what to tell you.

I didn't mean "days" as in actual days. I meant it in the fact you have to alot multiple slots throughout your week to play. That's a lot to ask people who aren't dedicated to the game. Again, it's fine that someone wants to spend a lot of time on WoW. I'm not one to judge. But neither are you when someone says they don't.

04/09/2012 11:46 AMPosted by Miz
Also, the 99/9/1 rule doesn't really apply when all 100 are paying the exact same amount of money.


I'm confused. Are we arguing over what is more profitable or what makes for a better game?


Reality check. Blizzard is a business. Money is not the sole driving force for their game design, but to act like it's not important is ludicrous. This game would not exist if the people who are responsible for making/maintaining it aren't paid. I'm not going to pretend I know the overhead per account per month, but when the vast majority of players aren't raiding then the business has to cater to them as well. They're customers.

Look, I get why people are upset. Everyone wants blizzard to make their game. The game that they want. And that's why they're paying the company a monthly fee. But when there's a massive spectrum of players out there who's definition of "their game" vary just as greatly then you have to realize that they're never, ever going to please everyone when dealing with limited resources. All they can do it take the data they know (ie a consensus from different players with different goals) and do their best to implement as much of that as possible with the limited resources they have (time, money, staff, etc).

Every customer wants to feel special, but when those wants conflict with other customers it puts the developer in a bind. You won't always get everything you want. And if it's enough to make you want to quit, then just quit. Talk with your money. Insulting bliz, putting words in their mouth, making completely unsubstantiated claims and accuations, insulting other players… that's not sending the right message.
By the logic above, nerfs don't even make sense. Let people who want to raid, have at raiding.

There's so few people that raid, rather than spending time nerfing content, they should be spending time making things for all the majority of non-raiders to do.
I don't like it when people make the comparison to ICC.

ICC was designed from the ground up with the nerf in mind. H LK was still a very difficult encounter even at 30%, and it wasn't even killed by anyone until 5%. H Sindragosa and H Putricide became a lot easier but still proved quite challenging because of mechanics.

DS, on the other hand, feels like it was designed to be cleared without any nerfs, and the debuff was added only to quell complaints from the playerbase.

The key difference is that in ICC a lot of the fights had mechanics that did not depend on damage or healing, so the nerfs made them easier but not faceroll. In DS, every fight becomes exponentially easier as the nerf progresses because of the way they were designed.

I'll use H Yorsahj as an example:
Let's say your guild couldn't beat this fight because your dps and healing was mediocre. Suddenly, everything has 15% less HP and deals 15% less damage. Now that the boss has less HP, you have a better chance at beating the enrage timer and healing through his damage, but it doesn't stop there. All the adds have less HP now as well, so you get even more time to DPS the boss. Since the boss is dealing less damage, maybe now you can swap a healer for a DPS (or 2 in 25man) and gain even more DPS that way. Suddenly everything starts dying much faster than it used to, and even less damage does out.

DS, on the other hand, feels like it was designed to be cleared without any nerfs, and the debuff was added only to quell complaints from the playerbase.


Honestly, ever since I started heroic raiding I don't believe I've seen threads asking for nerfs. I'm not sure why Blizzard does it(Heroic is the same content as LFR and Normal just more difficult). I honestly think they do it so normal raiders have more to do and instead of creating a lot of content every patch they can get away with 7 boss tiers if normal raiders kill all 7 on normal than 7 on nerfed heroics. I was 5/8 before the nerfs, the nerfs basically broke up the guild I was raiding it due to the defecation of spirit.
By the logic above, nerfs don't even make sense. Let people who want to raid, have at raiding.

There's so few people that raid, rather than spending time nerfing content, they should be spending time making things for all the majority of non-raiders to do.


They do. But they're also hoping to get more people into raiding. Question that all you want, but it's a pretty clear goal of theirs.

I think that people don't give blizzard enough credit for one thing: they have all the data in the world. They can notice player patterns, and what motivates them. So when people say they don't know what they're doing, that's only half the story. Perhaps they've noticed a patterns that regardless of skill level people who raid stay with the game longer, or are less likely to unsubscribe. So it would make sense to get as many people in raiding as possible. Not saying that's the case, just throwing out an example.

The idea that Bliz is taking its goals in its game design out of the ether is funny. They have more feedback than you could ever imagine - from current players to former. And they're basing a lot of their game design on said feedback. So pretending that you (or even I) have a finger on the pulse on "what people want" moreso than bliz is delusional. We don't. It's not to say that bliz isn't prone to misinterpreting their data, or flat out making mistakes, but it doesn't change the fact that we're all playing the conjecture game.
04/09/2012 02:55 PMPosted by Terrorific
Money is not the sole driving force for their game design


If you acknowledge this, then you have to at least acknowledge there should be some compromise between catering to what is profitable and what is good. Not everything needs to be designed with intent of maximizing profits.

Furthermore, as a paying customer, don't you want the best possible product from Blizzard? Now we can all argue about what that may be (and I'm sure we'll all come up with different answers), but the idea that "Blizzard should do this because it's profitable for them" isn't a compelling reason to justify game design from a consumer point of view.

04/09/2012 02:55 PMPosted by Terrorific
when the vast majority of players aren't raiding then the business has to cater to them as well


Agreed. However, if the vast majority of players aren't raiding, then why are we designing raid content with them in mind?
Money is not the sole driving force for their game design


If you acknowledge this, then you have to at least acknowledge there should be some compromise between catering to what is profitable and what is good. Not everything needs to be designed with intent of maximizing profits.

Furthermore, as a paying customer, don't you want the best possible product from Blizzard? Now we can all argue about what that may be (and I'm sure we'll all come up with different answers), but the idea that "Blizzard should do this because it's profitable for them" isn't a compelling reason to justify game design from a consumer point of view.

when the vast majority of players aren't raiding then the business has to cater to them as well


Agreed. However, if the vast majority of players aren't raiding, then why are we designing raid content with them in mind?


See, you're twisting my words to make it sound like I'm implying "good" and "profitable" are mutually exclusive. The fact is that if the company is profitable, they're making something that is good. Because people are paying for it. That is enough justification to design a game a certain way from a business point of view. The customer point of view is whether they choose to pay for it or not. And it's clear that even amongst hardmode raiders, Blizzard is still working for them in spite of the time to customer base ratio it might yield. The compromise is there, it's just not visible to you because you think you're special. From a business standpoint, you're not. From a game design standpoint, you are. At least enough to justify hardmodes.

As for your second question - that's a question for blizzard, not me. But they obviously have a reason.

PS: You're pretty much passively implying that your version of this game is the "best possible version". When we're talking about a ton of users, your opinion of best is just a drop in the bucket compared to others'. It's completely subjective.
04/09/2012 03:28 PMPosted by Exzavier
The key difference is that in ICC a lot of the fights had mechanics that did not depend on damage or healing,


Marrowgar was always a joke
Deathwhisper was completely broken around 10% when you could let ghosts blow up and survive
Gunship was always a joke
Saurfang WAS a DPS/Healing check, so at 5%, it was irrelevant.
Festergut was a DPS check, that's all heroic added
Rotface was coordination check, but you could heal through a bunch of random slimes and such at 5+%
Putricide was a strong check on everything, p3 being irrelevant from nerfs (the only hard part in heroic)
Blood Princes was a coordinated check, that was definitely not trivialized
Blood Queen... esp heroic, being nothing but a DPS check was irreelvant at 5%
Dreamwalker being a pure healing check was irrelevant 5%
Sindragosa was designed great and %ages didn't remove the difficulty.
and Then HLK was of course great, because it wasn't made irrelevant til 85.

(all of these on 25 man, since 10 man was tuned for durps)

You can see though, that more than 8 bosses from ICC were made irrelevant before or after nerfs, while DS only having 8 total bosses probably just suffers from them putting too much time and effort into making add fights with number checks, but less bosses because of "interesting mechanics"
04/09/2012 04:44 PMPosted by Terrorific
See, you're twisting my words to make it sound like I'm implying "good" and "profitable" are mutually exclusive.


When did I say that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I said a compromise between the two (implying that they are NOT mutually exclusive) is ideal.

04/09/2012 04:44 PMPosted by Terrorific
The fact is that if the company is profitable, they're making something that is good. Because people are paying for it.


That's a very restrictive definition of good, seeing as there are many people on these forums (including yourself) who have, on more than one occasion, complained about one aspect of the game while still paying for a subscription. Just because we find the game worthwhile doesn't mean we have to like every aspect or agree with every game design decision.

04/09/2012 04:44 PMPosted by Terrorific
The compromise is there, it's just not visible to you because you think you're special. From a business standpoint, you're not.


I never said Blizzard wasn't trying to compromise. I was only refuting your suggestion that Blizzard should do what is profitable, rather than what makes for a good game (this was before I understood that you believe "profitable" and "good" are one and the same.

04/09/2012 04:44 PMPosted by Terrorific
As for your second question - that's a question for blizzard, not me. But they obviously have a reason.


That's not a question for Blizzard, it's questioning the reasoning behind your conclusion. If indeed, the vast majority of players aren't raiding, as you claim, and keeping in line a utilitarian design philosophy, for which you seem to advocate, then why would Blizzard waste resources designing raid content at all? It doesn't make sense for Blizzard to implement content that holds no appeal with the majority of its playerbase.

And furthermore, to get back to the original topic, if the majority of these players aren't raiding, then why should they care if DS gets nerfed or not? It's not like they're doing it anyway.
The vast majority of players aren't all doing anything besides what's forced on them.

Raiding was probably the biggest niche of players doing something on their own, and the buffs aren't helping people who don't want to raid.
04/09/2012 04:44 PMPosted by Terrorific
PS: You're pretty much passively implying that your version of this game is the "best possible version". When we're talking about a ton of users, your opinion of best is just a drop in the bucket compared to others'. It's completely subjective.


04/09/2012 04:02 PMPosted by Miz
Furthermore, as a paying customer, don't you want the best possible product from Blizzard? Now we can all argue about what that may be (and I'm sure we'll all come up with different answers), but the idea that "Blizzard should do this because it's profitable for them" isn't a compelling reason to justify game design from a consumer point of view.


Huh?
You're suggesting that "good game design" and "profitability" are at odds with each other by implying they need to compromise it. I'm saying that from a completely pragmatic point of view, that's not the case because profit is a result of goodness, not at odds with it. And further, that PS quote of mine is more in reference to your first paragraph: "Between what is profitable and what is good". Your definition of good, there, with no folow-up clarification.

That's not a question for Blizzard, it's questioning the reasoning behind your conclusion. If indeed, the vast majority of players aren't raiding, as you claim, and keeping in line a utilitarian design philosophy, for which you seem to advocate, then why would Blizzard waste resources designing raid content at all? It doesn't make sense for Blizzard to implement content that holds no appeal with the majority of its playerbase.

And furthermore, to get back to the original topic, if the majority of these players aren't raiding, then why should they care if DS gets nerfed or not? It's not like they're doing it anyway.


Ever heard of devil's advocate? I'm not directly advocating their design. I'm explaining it from a neutral standpoint. I'm saying that game design does not exist in a vaccuum, and that we all need to look outside our own point of view to realize that some things are not always made just for us. The fact is I can't explain why Bliz wants to make normal/hm raiding more accessible. But it would seem as though they have a pretty good reason for it - otherwise they would not do it. Contrary to popular belief, I don't believe they're a stupid company. Just on that has the tough job of pleasing a very diverse playerbase. Rock and a hard place, etc.

From a purely personal standpoint, I'm a fan of the nerfs because DS is actually kinda bland from a mechanics standpoint and all that's left are the number checks for my group (well, warmaster needs some work mechanically, but that fight seems to have a steep learning curve from my exp). Considering I'm in a group where half the raid is carrying the other half, easing up on the numbers is beneficial for me to gear up because it makes it so I don't have to ditch my friends just to kill the bosses I'm capable of killing. If you look at my parses, I'm not a derp player. I often get top 10% on fights that I've done a couple times, and on occasion I rank top 200 on WoL. The fact is I value the social aspect of the game (playing with friends) more than the competitive aspect of this game, and as such the nerfs cater to me perfectly. I'm not saying that being competitive and playing with friends is mutually exclusive, mind you. Just giving my own person pov.
By the logic above, nerfs don't even make sense. Let people who want to raid, have at raiding.

There's so few people that raid, rather than spending time nerfing content, they should be spending time making things for all the majority of non-raiders to do.


They do. But they're also hoping to get more people into raiding. Question that all you want, but it's a pretty clear goal of theirs.


this is false. the only difficulty NOT nerfed is...LFR.

why would they do that?

if you were right they'd nerf LFR not heroic. Since so few do heroics anyway, heroic nerfs have a minimal impact on the majority of the playerbase.
04/07/2012 11:34 PMPosted by Healbøt
didn't you already make this thread, friendo.


Can't find the original.
04/09/2012 05:04 PMPosted by Lostaroll
Sindragosa was designed great and %ages didn't remove the difficulty.


Ugh, no. That fight was so annoying. Nothing more fun then being able to do nothing most of the fight because of chain debuffs on the same person....

"Sindragosa" and "designed great" don't belong in the same sentence.... watching people fail at iceblocks could be amusing, though.
As a tank I liked Sindragosa and Halion. managing something so deadly at both ends can be fun. I asked this in the past but...8 years and 400 or so bosses, do you really need to chain-cast the whole fight? I'm sure there are times on Valithria when you didnt dps because nothing was up, yet that fight was well received.
04/09/2012 09:33 PMPosted by Elliora
Sindragosa was designed great and %ages didn't remove the difficulty.


Ugh, no. That fight was so annoying. Nothing more fun then being able to do nothing most of the fight because of chain debuffs on the same person....

"Sindragosa" and "designed great" don't belong in the same sentence.... watching people fail at iceblocks could be amusing, though.


Then your healers didn't communicate well. That's all this fight was - communication check. I left my guild at the time and raided with another guild. They had an amazing strategy; everyone shut the freak up and let the healers talk. They took 7 healers, and each one had to speak up if they got the debuff, or had to drop stacks. Someone would typically call out if they were covering tank heals, just so we knew we were safe.

Worked like a charm.
04/08/2012 07:30 PMPosted by Libretto
posting in another ghatok thread


My posts are always so well thought-out and thought-provoking. Just look at the conversation this thread started.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum