How feedback works and why it matters

General Discussion
Post Limit:
Prev 1 16 17 18 32 Next
11/15/2012 02:01 PMPosted by Batah
look at the patch notes, remember what historically caused the most clamor. remember how much feedback we as a community got as to why the change was made, or how the testing was done to figure out why the change needed to be made. we've been kept in the dark so long we don't believe the light when they shine it in on us.


Umm... what?

Historical clamor is a dime a dozen and depending upon where you stood at the time... your clamor and my clamor would be vastly different. I stick mostly to Tanking issues, balances/imbalances, and the like, and within that realm I stick mostly to Guardian issues. Others may be very preoccupied with their Rogue, or more specifically their Combat Rogue, or more specifically their Combat Rogue with X Ability that does Y and they want it to do Z, or...

I'm not really sure what you're gunning for but you sound as if you are saying that we complain about A, they change B without saying a word, and then later when B is finally explained we don't even know it?

Thing is that changes happen for a myriad of reasons and every single change can NOT be documented to the point of full-fledged explanation. Do you really want 50 page patch 'notes' being delivered every time?

You clearly have a grievance from the past about something and feel you got no suitable explanation. Chances are though the explanation could be easily explained or even WAS explained... but chances also are that you only cared about X being changed because you believe firmly it is the reason for your downfall in Y (ie emotion driven).
Why don't you use the GM survey as a basis and make a survey over people's opinions about CRZ. Make it give some little reward like 50-150 valor and get an idea for what ALL of your players think about it. Since everyone seems biased that only the people who hate the feature will come to the forum to rant about it.

I personally don't like it for many reasons, the biggest being this "You get all the negatives of a high population server, like rare spawn and node competition, with all the negatives. None of the nodes you are competing over are going into your economy, it isn't easier to get raids, your auction house has fewer mats than before, and your overall population remains unchanged."

Blizzard takes out group quests in cataclysm, then puts this in with the saying "You can find and group with people while questing" "More people out in the world" still the same amount on my server...

Who's everyone? I went to public school. We had everything considered nonessential aside from gym gutted to 'save money'. : (

Generalizations!


Ever heard this one?

So the computer science, math, and philosophy department heads were all at a budget meeting. The CS head says "We need more money for computers, paper, pencils, and trashcans" The math head says "The CS dept is spoiled. We only need paper, pencils, and trashcans!". Immediately the philosophy dept head blurts out "Well we only need the paper and pencils!"
"Much respect to the blues, but sometimes it seems like you go for the most irrational troll post to make out as a straw man to make a counterpoint. Like the dude with 9 alts who hates dailies."

i would have to agree with this.


Exactly. There have been a plethora of actual constructive posts on this subject (I've probably have been active in most of them). There have even been some good ones that address ways to make the grind matter. To some people, it makes little sense to only have solo content be the only way to get reputation- especially when said rewards at revered are on par ilvl wise as the first raid on normal in the expac.

I don't think I've ever seen a blue make a non-troll comment on these kinds of posts besides "Too bad- this is our design- so sad" (obviously not in those words) or the ever popular argument about how the head enchants were considered "required" and people weren't happy they had to grind the rep on all of their toons to get them. By the way, people were complaining in Cata about having to regrind a zone on every single character in order to get Therazine enchants- which were shoulder chants and were not BoA, unlike the later LK Hodir model.

I've also heard the double dipping argument from both the "I love dailies" crowd and from the devs when it comes to people wanting the options to have a different way to get rep.

I hate to call you guys out on this, but aren't Charms of Good Fortune essentially double dipping? The concept is nice, however, it's still double dipping- it gives you two chances at loot on a boss you can only do once a week.

I could have sworn years back that Bliz said they didn't want to go to a twice a week lock out mechanic because it would give people too many chances at gearing up? So it's okay to double dip on a raid boss now, but not okay to double dip when it comes to rep? Please tell me where the logic is in that?


(Sorry, got sidetracked a little.)

When people make an actual serious post around here, it's because they feel something is wrong with the way things are going- it mean they are dissatisfied with the product. When there are 10 posts on the same page about the same thing, there's a big flaw with that design. If they get an answer, here of lately it seems that all they get is a snarky comment (the internet knows nothing about sarcasm) or the blue is responding to some troll in the post that's caught their eye.

Now, myself- I don't make a post EXPECTING a blue response, however, if I did get an answer, I'd appreciate it being something you guys haven't said 10 times already. When you do that, it feels like you guys didn't even read the post.

Also, the person I quoted mentioned hunters. Right now their are certain classes needing buffs (rogues, for example) in certain areas of the game (hunters in PVE (also elemental/enhance shammies) ) and it seems their forums are largely ignored. I don't remember when I last saw a blue answer anything concerning those classes forums .
11/15/2012 01:46 PMPosted by Batah
When you don't tell the whole truth, you should keep in mind that people will eventually question and attempt to fill in the blanks themselves.


Blizzard for the most part tells the truth. There have been occasions they have skirted a fine line but it's not common.

When Blizzard does sit down and explain reasoning to people the response by the people who don't like whatever new or old feature being discussed is that Blizzard is either lying, is wrong because the person upset said so, or misinterpreted 50 different ways, or Blizzard isn't actually giving feedback because it's not the right feed back.

Also there is a claim of lack of transparency. I'm not sure how transparent we players really need things to be. I really don't believe the forum community could handle actually seeing how the developers come to decisions on what to and what not to implement.
Im gonna go about this in a different way lets try this.

Question 1
What would be the disaster if CRZ was removed from the game?

Question 2
Why did you lock Gear to buy with Valor points behind reputation?

Question 3
Do you as a game designer have any regrets on the way you implemented something into the game?

Question 4
Have you seen any posts by players in the forums that actually make you want to change something about the game?

Ill leave it at that. I just want to see if we can offer feedback through our own questions.
Also there is a claim of lack of transparency. I'm not sure how transparent we players really need things to be. I really don't believe the forum community could handle actually seeing how the developers come to decisions on what to and what not to implement.


Bathroom schedules! Frequency, duration, contents!

/humour
I think "Please fix the CRZ bugs!" is the type of feedback that garners the most angst when it goes ignored...
Im gonna go about this in a different way lets try this.

Question 1
What would be the disaster if CRZ was removed from the game?

Question 2
Why did you lock Gear to buy with Valor points behind reputation?

Question 3
Do you as a game designer have any regrets on the way you implemented something into the game?

Question 4
Have you seen any posts by players in the forums that actually make you want to change something about the game?

Ill leave it at that. I just want to see if we can offer feedback through our own questions.


Some good points, here.
You're just not correct, and you have no basis for comparison to even begin to understand any financial motivations behind the implementation of CRZ.

That's my biggest problem with a lot of the negative feedback I see on hot issues like CRZ: Not that it's negative, but that people usually need to explain the unknown by formulating what I'd define as straight-up conspiracy theories. And they spread like wildfire. We are probably in part to blame for it, but sometimes all the insights and behind-the-scenes facts just can't be shared in a meaningful way with the public. There's just not a lot to be accomplished by engaging with people who say such changes are financially driven (i.e. cost efficiency > gameplay or customer concerns), or that they provide the path of least resistance for us in terms of our production pipeline.

We come off looking very defensive purely by nature of responding to a fallacious, hyperbolic, or incredibly presumptive argument. And, yet, that somehow tends to validate a conspiracy on the forums. This is an extreme example, but I'll use it since it was posted in this very thread:

well from what I've read on the forums there's been no explanation of why CRZ was implemented, or the reasoning behind it compared to alternative solutions like merging servers, which a lot of people want. I think if you told everyone, or the information was available in a blog by another community manager, then people would at least know why, and might satisfy them.
You're just not correct, and you have no basis for comparison to even begin to understand any financial motivations behind the implementation of CRZ.

That's my biggest problem with a lot of the negative feedback I see on hot issues like CRZ: Not that it's negative, but that people usually need to explain the unknown by formulating what I'd define as straight-up conspiracy theories. And they spread like wildfire. We are probably in part to blame for it, but sometimes all the insights and behind-the-scenes facts just can't be shared in a meaningful way with the public. There's just not a lot to be accomplished by engaging with people who say such changes are financially driven (i.e. cost efficiency > gameplay or customer concerns), or that they provide the path of least resistance for us in terms of our production pipeline.

We come off looking very defensive purely by nature of responding to a fallacious, hyperbolic, or incredibly presumptive argument. And, yet, that somehow tends to validate a conspiracy on the forums. This is an extreme example, but I'll use it since it was posted in this very thread:


You come off looking very defensive, because all of Blues posts are defensive and generally ignorant of the game they are posting about. Take CRZs for example:
In this latest Blue post:
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/5847727841?page=1#7
Cross realm zones bring the number of players per zone up to the intended number, the number we had in mind when designing the zone. The competition over mining nodes you're experiencing now should be on a par with those who are on realms with a high population. Your profession levelling speed should be roughly the same speed as everyone else.

While I can understand that you enjoyed being able to level up gathering professions quickly before, it wasn't ever meant to be that easy.


The obvious problem here is, CRZs bring the population up to the "intended number", a number never seen in the games history on the majority of servers and spreads the wealth across a multitude of servers rather than your own (like a normal high pop realm).

So yes, people are going to be making the type of arguments like the poster you responded too simply because they are the only choice left if Blizzard's only responses are like the one above (a response completely out of touch with the game).

So if everything you see posted is really as "fallacious" as you say, why don't you post the real reasons behind CRZs and Daily quest grind? Why? because anyone with a brain knows for a fact that it is not to make a "better leveling experience" or because "dungeons are already too rewarding" (I haven't run a 5man since I got all the gear I needed from them over a month ago). We know that the reasons you have given us are false and have come up with the only logical ones available to us.

TLDR; stop treating us like idiot children and give us the real reason for these things, otherwise I really can't help but agree with the poster you responded too because at this point, those are the only logical reasons for things like CRZ and dailys.
Unless of course it's Rogue feedback from beta. Then it doesn't matter.
11/15/2012 12:49 PMPosted by Zarhym
i.e. cost efficiency > gameplay or customer concerns


You know people might not jump to such conclusions if you hadn't straight up told us in the past that quite a few of your decisions are motivated by saving money.

Not really on topic, but that tid bit reminded me of the Draenei/Blood Elf incident. Every other starter zone was redone for Cata, when the Draenei and Blood Elf players asked why there's weren't they were told "It wasn't enough bang for out buck" and given an excuse about how the zones aren't as visited as the others and are newer then the rest.

So yeah, you can't have it both ways and you can't fault people for jumping to conclusions about you being motivated by finances when you've used the excuse in the past.
Here are 3 points that I've observed purely anecdotally:

1) I've yet to have PVP result from CRZ period.

2) I've yet to interact with a person via CRZ except by having a node stolen by a person who appeared on my screen after I clicked on the node and got the tagged message.

3) The two person mount issue is the first time I've seen Blizzard aknowledge something was broken and state they didn't intend to fix it. So if you don't read the forums, be prepared to die if your riding a 2 person flying mount into a CRZ area and don't expect anyone to care. Personally I think that's ridiculous and reason to roll back the change on its own.


While I appreciate that you're not a fan of CRZ (I'm not always, or even usually, a fan of it myself right now) that's missing the point of my post. Yes, it undoubtedly has issues (I also don't recall them flat out saying that they will never fix 2 person flying, and find it even more ridiculous to say that it's bad enough by itself to remove it from the game), but those issues have nothing to do with Blizzard's motivation. The "they're just doing it to save money" accusation TYPICALLY seems to come after a long list of grievances. Which to me, colors the idea that people are just coming up with that with no bias whatsoever and because it's the most reasonable explanation.

I actually think you provided a prime example of why it isn't a lack of transparency that makes people attribute motives to Blizzard. Are you telling me that the problem with dismounting is so game breaking by itself, that if it was the ONLY problem with CRZ, it would be enough for the whole thing to be disabled? Or are you being hyperbolic to express your displeasure and make it seem like it's so game breaking that it should be removed.

Giving CRZ a negative reason for it's creation makes it a more reasonable request to have it removed then saying "it's designed for the good of the game, it can be tweaked, but I still don't like it, and want it gone". I'm not saying that it's WRONG to say the latter, but I'm saying it adds another compelling reason for it to be gone if it's reason for being developed is to save Blizz money, not to make the world more enjoyable.
Posted by Torvald
It was a feature developed to save money on server costs, but spun to the playerbase as being a positive feature to make the world feel "alive" again

You're just not correct, and you have no basis for comparison to even begin to understand any financial motivations behind the implementation of CRZ.

That's my biggest problem with a lot of the negative feedback I see on hot issues like CRZ: Not that it's negative, but that people usually need to explain the unknown by formulating what I'd define as straight-up conspiracy theories. And they spread like wildfire. We are probably in part to blame for it, but sometimes all the insights and behind-the-scenes facts just can't be shared in a meaningful way with the public. There's just not a lot to be accomplished by engaging with people who say such changes are financially driven (i.e. cost efficiency > gameplay or customer concerns), or that they provide the path of least resistance for us in terms of our production pipeline.


Then please, enlighten us. From so much on the forum it appears the majority of people dislike the CRZ feature, yet it is here to stay w/no relief in site. Are we to assume our only choices are learn to live with it, or move on? Same w/the daily situation.
11/15/2012 02:26 PMPosted by Poena
You come off looking very defensive, because all of Blues posts are defensive and generally ignorant of the game they are posting about.


It's statements like this that make me wonder if the person typing actually understands that most if not all the devs and cm's play wow, and i'm pretty sure they raid and pvp as well as quest and level and do professions and all the other things available in game.
11/15/2012 02:07 PMPosted by Fasc
look at the patch notes, remember what historically caused the most clamor. remember how much feedback we as a community got as to why the change was made, or how the testing was done to figure out why the change needed to be made. we've been kept in the dark so long we don't believe the light when they shine it in on us.


Umm... what?

Historical clamor is a dime a dozen and depending upon where you stood at the time... your clamor and my clamor would be vastly different. I stick mostly to Tanking issues, balances/imbalances, and the like, and within that realm I stick mostly to Guardian issues. Others may be very preoccupied with their Rogue, or more specifically their Combat Rogue, or more specifically their Combat Rogue with X Ability that does Y and they want it to do Z, or...

I'm not really sure what you're gunning for but you sound as if you are saying that we complain about A, they change B without saying a word, and then later when B is finally explained we don't even know it?

Thing is that changes happen for a myriad of reasons and every single change can NOT be documented to the point of full-fledged explanation. Do you really want 50 page patch 'notes' being delivered every time?

You clearly have a grievance from the past about something and feel you got no suitable explanation. Chances are though the explanation could be easily explained or even WAS explained... but chances also are that you only cared about X being changed because you believe firmly it is the reason for your downfall in Y (ie emotion driven).


At a time when i first joined and was stupid i was outraged by the regular warrior nerfs, they upset me and it felt like an affront to me personally like the class i played was just the personal whipping boy for blizzard. As i gained insight and started stepping back and looking at the larger picture i realize now that the incremental nerfs to warriors over time are to curtail warriors scaling out of control. These nerfs still have a significant detrimental impact on warriors still gearing up and as such i feel it needs to be reworked as a system i just don't know how to rework it.

The issues that I'm having is with changes that feel like they come out of left field such as nerfing sustained damage abilities and buffing execute when execute is crushing my dps due to needing to be packed as tightly as possible (every gcd possible during execute phase) and latency crushing me due to not being able to pack them in as tightly as i could. or the change to shaman totems on the current ptr, they don't make sense from any position i can look at it from.

This is a problem for me because i don't necessarily want to complain. Just as i don't necessarily want to take out the trash or heal. But what needs to be done needs to be done. And when i cant take a look at it from an angle where it makes sense i ask to be shown an angle where it makes sense from and when you refuse to show me an angle it makes sense from it feels like your telling me there isn't an angle where it makes sense from.

"Because i said so." is not a valid argument just "because i said so."

No it doesn't all make sense to me, yes I'm constructing an argument from a partly emotional position, and i have no desire to do so. I'd like to have more information so i don't have to 'fill in the blanks' to prop up my argument.

Question 1
What would be the disaster if CRZ was removed from the game?

Question 2
Why did you lock Gear to buy with Valor points behind reputation?

Question 3
Do you as a game designer have any regrets on the way you implemented something into the game?

Question 4
Have you seen any posts by players in the forums that actually make you want to change something about the game?


I have actually been wanting to respond to these things for awhile, so I think I'm going to take a shot at it since I like the format (:

1: "disaster" is a poor choice of a word and emphasizes the change in a bad light. So it's kinda putting anyone who answers this in a defensive position right away.
What would happen though, is that many places in the game (even on full pop realms) would be very empty, like they were before CRZ. Really, this game is an MMO and is meant and designed to be played with a certain amount of people around in the world at all times. "Low Pop" servers are an unfortunate reality and everything can't just be merged together. For example, if you merged, who gets to keep their name when two people have the same name? That's just one issue that would arise. What about guilds with the same names, etc.
CRZ Keeps the "massive" in the mmo. You might disagree that is a good thing, but that is how it is. So, there would be no "disaster" we would just return to the non-massive mmo environment that we had before CRZ, which was never how the game was meant to be played. And that's really the bottom line there.

2: Valor gear in this expansion has moved away from how it was in wrath and cata. There is no raid in the game that is tuned for you to need the gear off the valor vendors (as showed by various guild clearing it with ilvl 463 sets and the developers stating this multiple times). Yes valor gear gives you a boost to make progression easier, but it is not a requirement to kill any raid boss in the game currently. The new stance on valor is that it is a small boost to the player and a nice reward for putting in some extra time and effort. And actually, with LFR now and gear upgrades next patch, they will probably never release any more valor gear for the rest of the expansion, making all valor gear now obsolete for any progression oriented player (even a casual one) after this tier.
So why did they "lock" it? Because it is no longer necessary for progression and is instead just meant to supplement your character's advancement in a small way instead of a primary way.

3 & 4: (skipping for obvious reasons)

Join the Conversation