GC, Proactive is better than Reactive:

(Locked)

90 Gnome Warlock
15305
All the quoted information is from Bashiok I just don't know how to get it all blue!
06/20/2011 12:40 PMPosted by Bashiok
The blog seemed to be popular, and even players who disagreed with their being nerfed seemed to appreciate the fact that we tried to give some insight into what we were thinking. GC and the his crew are going to try to keep making similar blogs for every patch. I think it was one of the more positively received blogs in long while.


The blog was GREAT! Thank you and as a member of WoW I full appreciate it!

Offering a lot of justification for changes early on a patch though is challenging for a number of reasons. . . .That means you'll often see a change that was half-implemented or something that a designer was messing around with. There often isn't justification for those type of changes -- it could just be trying to fix a bug or seeing how something feels with a slight redesign.


But you did just justify the reason for a change above, so the fact of the matter is, it isn't that hard!


Second, it takes a lot of time to justify those changes and designers are often really busy implementing the actual changes at that stage in the beta. When the changes are not even necessarily 'real' changes, justifying what might not stick probably isn't a great use of time.


It honestly shouldn't take that much time. I can only guess on how development works, but I assume that there is some written plan and path of things. I am sure the designers are not jut on a whim changing things randomly.

So Yes, it would take an hour or so to look over the game's / patch master plan and list them out ...

IE: Warlocks dots spreading to easy ... DK's need to much skill to play ... Hunters are broken ... what ever it is ... and just quickly share it.

Finally, we greatly appreciate feedback from the community and it can have a big influence on our game design, but at the same time we want to avoid the perception that the players are collaborating on with us on designing the game. It's tricky to manage expectations in that way, but if we lead players to believe they have more influence on design decisions than they actually do, then there's a lot of undue frustrated and dismay when we don't make a change that some may really wants us to make. Being able to take player feedback while making sure they don't expect that feedback to be implemented as-is can be a tough balancing act, but is still a necessary one.


I think your above statement is a Catch 22. Without the communities support and influence, you might not get the game right. You need the collaboration of the community to help lead the game towards what "we" like to do! But with that said, you need to keep us focus and help you where it is most needed.
Edited by Fritzal on 6/22/2011 7:08 AM PDT
85 Orc Hunter
3700
--== Hunters ==--
All Specs: The implementation of focus has significantly impeded hunters in all PvP situations. It is likely you will see a number of iterations to help hunters become a more respected DPS class in PvP. We are considering removing the minimum range. However, damage will scale based on distance from the target. You will see a new feature that looks much like the druid eclipse bar. This will measure your “accuracy” based on distance to the target.

The highest damage point will be at 20 yards, and the lowest damage points will be at 40 and 0 respectively. We have not yet concluded the penalty for being too close or too far from the target.

No, just no being penalized for being too close? With all the gap closers in the game everyone is already up in my face and every other class knows stay up in a hunters face.
85 Human Paladin
7590
No, just no being penalized for being too close? With all the gap closers in the game everyone is already up in my face and every other class knows stay up in a hunters face.

Perhaps had I written it differently you might like it?

"Hunters will have a stacking buff based on distance from the target. The buff peaks at __% when the hunter is at the optimal targetting distance: 20 yrds from the target."

Regardless, the point isn't that I'm making suggestions that should be implemented. Instead, I'm trying to suggest that they tell us what they see are issues and problems that they are trying to work on with the patch before they start.
Edited by Divinara on 6/22/2011 1:18 PM PDT
85 Worgen Death Knight
3705
The blog seemed to be popular, and even players who disagreed with their being nerfed seemed to appreciate the fact that we tried to give some insight into what we were thinking. GC and the his crew are going to try to keep making similar blogs for every patch. I think it was one of the more positively received blogs in long while.

Offering a lot of justification for changes early on a patch though is challenging for a number of reasons. First is that patch builds are often just snapshots of the data at any given time. We wait until everything is near perfect for actual releases (as far as you can ever do with as complex a game as this), but when we are in PTR mode the devs are trying to get builds out quickly. That means you'll often see a change that was half-implemented or something that a designer was messing around with. There often isn't justification for those type of changes -- it could just be trying to fix a bug or seeing how something feels with a slight redesign. Second, it takes a lot of time to justify those changes and designers are often really busy implementing the actual changes at that stage in the beta. When the changes are not even necessarily 'real' changes, justifying what might not stick probably isn't a great use of time. Finally, we greatly appreciate feedback from the community and it can have a big influence on our game design, but at the same time we want to avoid the perception that the players are collaborating on with us on designing the game. It's tricky to manage expectations in that way, but if we lead players to believe they have more influence on design decisions than they actually do, then there's a lot of undue frustrated and dismay when we don't make a change that some may really wants us to make. Being able to take player feedback while making sure they don't expect that feedback to be implemented as-is can be a tough balancing act, but is still a necessary one.


Just want to say the player base has been saying for years that if you just told us the reason for the nerfs/buffs, we'd feel a lot better. So this should not be a surprise.

Also, that I believe hard to justify is a rather weak arguement. You guys impliment nerfs/buffs with reasons in mind. I'm sure the dev's discuss various nerfs/buffs that that they propose before implimentation. How hard is it to type out the reasons for the ones that make it through PTR?

And as for ones that dev's just want to "try out" and "mess around with" even just telling us that would be a heck of a lot better then silence.

I might be alone in this thought, but I'm willing to bank on, that I'm not alone.
90 Blood Elf Paladin
6235
Just want to say the player base has been saying for years that if you just told us the reason for the nerfs/buffs, we'd feel a lot better. So this should not be a surprise.

Was the line they gave about why they nerfed Howling Blast/Obliterate all that surprising? Does it really address the DK playerbase's concerns about having these nerfs implemented in the face of PVE DPS standings?
90 Undead Rogue
13680
06/22/2011 04:20 PMPosted by Prinzesa
Just want to say the player base has been saying for years that if you just told us the reason for the nerfs/buffs, we'd feel a lot better. So this should not be a surprise.

Was the line they gave about why they nerfed Howling Blast/Obliterate all that surprising? Does it really address the DK playerbase's concerns about having these nerfs implemented in the face of PVE DPS standings?

Probably not, but that's people reaching for a mile when an inch is given, as usual.
I found the blog post to be nearly perfect in its execution. There was no fluff or market pandering garbage about the future, player experience, etc. "X change was for Y reason." All the way through. Huzzah - that's all I wanted, and I'd certainly be happy if they kept doing it. I won't push my luck by asking for more.
Edited by Kanoi on 6/22/2011 4:32 PM PDT
85 Undead Warlock
1670
06/20/2011 12:40 PMPosted by Bashiok
The blog seemed to be popular, and even players who disagreed with their being nerfed seemed to appreciate the fact that we tried to give some insight into what we were thinking.
This is more important than anything else. Suedo-open communication between the developers and the community on the general reasoning behind changes and the development path will be key to sustaining good relations with the community.

We don't have to agree BUT the communication is greatly appreciated and respected.
85 Human Paladin
7590

Offering a lot of justification for changes early on a patch though is challenging for a number of reasons.


In light of the new GC Blog....While I know it's challenging and I appreciate the fact that you guys did it.




Please do not necro-bump threads older than one month, just create a new thread to constructively discuss the topic. --Crithto

#187
6/22/2011
Edited by Crithto on 9/28/2011 3:13 PM PDT
90 Dwarf Hunter
7465
Well I for one will not sit her and sing the praises of the "Blog". I want to know why Hunters are considered "Fine" or "to high" even when only ONE HUNTER SPEC is viable for FL content. The other two are not even NEAR the charts and BM has languish in the mire since Wrath was out. But yet were Fine or Even High on damage ????

Even MM is falling behind....its like 8th~9th in the logs...so I guess that considered "fine" or "to high" in Blizz eyes. Its like getting a C- minus and you tell the child "wow billy your smart..really smart !" Never mind that the other two specs...you know BM and SrV are not even considered in this. Hell to do anything you have to be MM. PvP:MM PvE:MM Leveling...hell might as well be MM.

So I want a blog explaining why Hunters are being left in this state. I want some explanation on why class design for Hunters are this way. I want to know what happen to the

"We know BM was sub-par during wrath and we will make sure that does happen for Cata"

That's the blog I want to see. But I know its futile...it will not happen..instead we will get more pet tame challenges which is about as much fun as going up to the biggest kid in school and telling him he stinks. Sure the pet tames are fun for all the OTHER CLASSES to GRIEF THE HUNTER DOING THE TAME...but its not so much fun for us.
1 Gnome Rogue
0
06/17/2011 10:33 AMPosted by Divinara
The nerfs to frost pushed Unholy ahead once again


I hate seeing things like this.

Making something worse then something that's bad doesn't make bad magically good. It just means BOTH specs get sat out because they are now BOTH worse then other options for the raid. It'll be "Oh dk...dps? yeah sorry I think were going to take that rogue since he has better dps even before he gets his legendary in 6 months"
90 Orc Hunter
17545
06/22/2011 01:15 PMPosted by Divinara
No, just no being penalized for being too close? With all the gap closers in the game everyone is already up in my face and every other class knows stay up in a hunters face.

Perhaps had I written it differently you might like it?

"Hunters will have a stacking buff based on distance from the target. The buff peaks at __% when the hunter is at the optimal targetting distance: 20 yrds from the target."

Regardless, the point isn't that I'm making suggestions that should be implemented. Instead, I'm trying to suggest that they tell us what they see are issues and problems that they are trying to work on with the patch before they start.


If they implemented anything even close to your idea I'd hate it more than focus.

It's a horrible idea that should only be considered if the goal is to make hunters switch mains even faster.

It takes all of the frustration of minimum range and puts it on a sliding scale. No thank you absolutely.
90 Dwarf Hunter
4475
Why do people not understand removing the melee zone entirely is what should be happening. No draw backs, no nerfs or removals of other abilities. No half thought out new challenges added to the class, just remove it and see how the class fairs. You can always add it back in or tweak it from there.
90 Dwarf Warlock
13180
06/17/2011 10:33 AMPosted by Divinara
The highest damage point will be at 20 yards, and the lowest damage points will be at 40 and 0 respectively. We have not yet concluded the penalty for being too close or too far from the target.

So now Hunters are going to be a range class....with positional requirements......
85 Human Paladin
7590
No draw backs, no nerfs or removals of other abilities. No half thought out new challenges added to the class, just remove it and see how the class fairs. You can always add it back in or tweak it from there.


I just disagree with this in its entirety. Though I also think that Spells should be afflicted with the same "penalty". 20 yards would effectively be full damage for all range classes. I think of it as the optimal targetting distance for hunters, and the point where spells have "fully developed" but not yet started to dissipate for spell casters.

At any rate, it was my attempt at solving range are better than melee in PvE and prevents players from "stacking in melee range" when playing at range is too punitive.
Edited by Divinara on 9/28/2011 9:39 AM PDT

There's a misconception that perfect mathematical balance means the game will be the most fun it can be.


@Bashiok

Your awesome man! People jump from one FOTM class to another and there are awesome stories created about how powerful they use to be. 100% Balance really means that everyone is exactly the same and that is a bad thing.

After all what fun would the forums be if everyone was content!
Edited by Aqusinna on 9/28/2011 1:05 PM PDT
This topic is locked.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]