MMO-Champion - Coffee With the Devs - Rate of Change
Coffee With the Devs—Rate of Change
Originally Posted by Blizzard (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
How the Developers Decide What Needs to Be Changed and When

My previous two blogs spelled out some upcoming changes. This isn’t going to be one of those blogs. If you care mostly about WoW news, and less about the design process behind the game, then you might want to skip this one.

A lot of game design is striking a balance, and I use that term not only to mean making sure that all the various classes are reasonably fair, but also to mean that it’s easy to go to one extreme or the other. You even have to strike a balance in how many changes you make. On the one extreme, if you don’t change anything, then the game feels stale and players understandably get frustrated that long-standing bugs or game problems aren’t addressed. On the other extreme, too much change can produce what we often call the "roller coaster effect" where the game design feels unstable and players, particularly those who play the game more sporadically, can’t keep up. I wanted to discuss today some of our philosophy on change, how much is too much, and when we think a change is necessary.

First, Some Technical Background

World of Warcraft is a client-server game. The servers (which are the machines on our end) handle important, rules-y things like combat calculations and loot rolls. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, it makes it much easier to share information across groups. When a rogue stabs your priest, it’s helpful for both your computer and the rogue’s computer to agree about when and where a hit occurred and how much damage was caused (and what procs went off as a result, etc.). Second, we can trust the server in ways that we can’t trust home or public computers.

Over time, as our programming team has grown more experienced and picked up additional talented engineers, we have been able to make larger and in some cases bolder server updates without also having to update your client. Updating the client (the game on your computer) requires a patch. This can be a large patch, such as 4.2, which introduced the Molten Front questing area and the Firelands raids, or it can be a small patch, like 4.2.2, which fixed some bugs. Client patches are fairly involved. They take a lot of time to create and test, and they carry some amount of risk, because if we botch anything, we have to issue another client patch to fix it.

Changing the game code on the server has become much easier for us. There is still risk involved, but it’s also much easier for us to fix any mistakes. We call these server changes hotfixes, because often times we are able to deploy them even while you are playing. If we hotfixed Mortal Strike’s damage, you might suddenly do more or less damage in the middle of a fight. Players sometimes call changes like these stealth nerfs or buffs if we haven’t announced the hotfix yet (or in rare cases, if we don’t intend to announce them at all). We generally can’t hotfix, at least not yet, things like art, sound or text, so we won’t for example add a new boss or swap a weapon’s art around without a client patch (though we could enable a boss that had been previously added via a client patch).

I mention all of that just to explain that one reason you see so many hotfixes these days is because we have the technical ability to do so. That doesn’t mean that the game has more bugs, more boneheaded design decisions, or more class balance problems than previously. It just means we can actually fix those problems today while in the past, we (and you) might have to wait for months until the next big patch day. Overall, we don’t think it’s fair to our players to make you all wait for things that are quick for us to fix. Whether or not players are excited about the change depends a lot on the nature of the change. If we fixed a bugged class ability, that is often greeted with gratitude by players playing that class… unless the fix lowers their damage, or requires them to swap out gems and enchants to benefit from the newly repaired ability.

With Great Power Comes…

That’s the challenge in all of this. If your hunter is topping meters by a small fraction, you might ask: what’s the rush? And many players do. But you have to consider that other players are miffed that their raid leader might sit a warlock in the interest of bringing a third hunter (since their damage is so awesome) or might be really frustrated that they are so likely to lose to your hunter in PvP. “Necessary change” is absolutely in the eye of the beholder.

We try to gather a lot of voluntary information from players, when they are cancelling their subscription for example, about why they feel the way they do. Over time, we have seen concerns about class balance decrease and concerns about frequent game changes increase. Clearly there is a risk that we can change things too much and drive players away. The rollercoaster effect of too many changes can be wearying to the community, even if each individual change is made with a noble goal. We have to balance the goal of providing fixes when we think they are warranted with the whiplash or fatigue that can come from players feeling like they constantly have to relearn how the game works. We debate constantly whether a change needs to be made immediately or whether we can sit on a problem for an extended period of time.

There are no hard and fast rules that help us resolve these conflicts, so I thought it might be easier to just give you a few examples of the kinds of things we might be tempted to change in a hotfix, patch or expansion, and the kinds of things we would not.

Example One: Spec Parity

After looking at many raid parses, we conclude that Arcane mage damage now routinely beats Fire mage damage. (There are a lot of elements to this discussion that I’m ignoring right now in the interest of keeping the scope of the decision to something I can reasonably discuss.) For example, if Fire is better than Arcane on AE fights, that has to factor into the decision. If Fire is harder to play or if Fire is more inherently random, then that also has to factor into our decision. Even if you ignore all of those confounding issues, this is still a really tricky call. Ideally, we want players who like Fire to be able to play Fire without feeling like they are holding back their friends.

The extent to which Fire can fall behind Arcane and still be “viable” is very dependent. For some players, having the two specs within 10% damage of each other is close enough. Others will swap specs for a theoretical (i.e. not even proven empirically) 1% gain. If we could make a number tweaks to Fire and be very confident that they bring Fire up to Arcane’s level, then we feel like we owe it to players to do so.

There are a number of risks with this decision though. If our buffs to Fire made them more dangerous in PvP, then we’d have to be very careful about the change. If more mages going Fire meant that some utility or raid buff brought by the Arcane mages was now harder to get, then we’d have to be careful about the change. But the worst outcome, from our perspective, is if we overshoot our goals. If that happens players who like Arcane might feel like they have to swap to Fire, which might involve regemming, reforging and re-enchanting and might make them mad that they had rolled on that item that dropped last week. It just puts players in a bad position.

When players talk about being on a design roller coaster, this is often what they mean. Last week Arcane was the spec to play. Before that maybe it was Frost. Next week, who knows what it will be. We’ve absolutely screwed this up before, where we thought we were creating more parity between say hunter or warrior or DK specs, but the actual result was that it made players feel like they needed to respec. Given enough time, we can get pretty close on our balance tuning, but hotfixes and often even patch changes can’t always benefit from sufficient testing.

Remember, it’s not about how much damage the Fire and Arcane mage do against target dummies. What matters to players (and us) is how they do on individual encounters given a wide range of player skill, raid comp and constantly shifting allocations of gear, PvP comps, etc. We will often take larger risks when there is a major difference in play style. It’s harder to ask an Enhancement shaman to swap to Elemental than it is to ask a Demo lock to go Destro. That may not seem fair to the player who really likes Demo, but we have to weigh the risk to the game and to the player base as a whole with even small changes that appear totally safe at first.

Example Two: Creative Use of Game Mechanics

A lot of smart people work on World of Warcraft, but there is still no way that we can compete intellectually or creatively with the combined efforts of the millions of you. Despite our best efforts, players are frighteningly brilliant at coming up with creative solutions that never occurred to us. There are a wide variety of examples here: A player finds a very old trinket, set bonus or proc-based weapon that works really well on new content; a raid comes up with a strategy that makes a boss much easier than we intended; an Arena team finds a way to layer their crowd control or burst damage that is virtually impossible to counter.

A lot of the fun of World of Warcraft is problem solving. Our general philosophy is not to punish players for being creative. We try to give groups the benefit of the doubt as much as we can. If a boss ends up being slightly easier because players group up when we expected them to spread out, or they crowd control adds much better than we thought they were able to do, then we just silently congratulate the players for being clever. If a boss ends up being much easier than intended, then we might very well take action. (Overall though, we hotfix and patch in far more nerfs to encounters than buffs.)

Where we are more likely to take action is if it forces players into odd behavior, especially behavior that they won’t enjoy. If raids feel like they have to go farm really old content for a particular trinket, or if the raid feels like it has to sit six players in order to bring one particular spec who has an ability that trivializes a fight, then we’re more likely to do something. These kind of changes are really subjective and involve a lot of internal discussion. Just remember that our litmus test is usually “Are players having fun?” and not “Are they doing something we didn’t expect?”

Example Three: Encounter Difficulty

With encounters, the decision almost always comes down to whether to make a hotfix or not. Waiting until patch 4.3 to make significant changes to 4.2 encounters once the focus for a lot of players moves on to 4.3 isn’t necessarily development time well spent. When new dungeons or raids launch, our initial philosophy is just to get all of the nails in the board at the same height, which means prying some up to be taller and banging a lot down to be shorter. After a week or so, we hardly ever buff encounters to make them more difficult. We tend to bundle several of these changes together, often when a new week starts, so that they tend to feel like a micro patch and not just a constant stream of boss nerfs.

For raids, we look at curves indicating the number of new players who beat an encounter each week. That slope tends to be steep at first as the most talented guilds race through the content, and then slows down as other players make progress. It's time for us to step in when the lines flatten out and no new players are beating the content. It’s a bit easier for the five-player dungeons because we want players to prevail almost all the time. Nobody wants to go back to Throne of the Tides week after week until they finally beat Lady Naz’jar.

The statistics we look at the most are number of attempts to beat the dungeon boss, how many kills the boss gets, and how long the dungeon took to complete. Bosses such as Ozruk in Stonecore at Cataclysm launch were strong outliers. Sometimes we can handle these changes by tuning alone (lowering boss damage for instance) and sometimes we need to change encounter mechanics to the extent we can via hotfixes, which actually gives us a pretty big toolbox since almost all creature information is on the server.

Example Four: Class Rotation Change

There are a couple of sub-categories here: intentional and unintentional changes. Often we make fixes to make a class more fun to play. Allowing Arms warriors to refresh Rend without having to constantly reapply the debuff was a quality of life change to make the rotation a little less obnoxious to play. It also ended up being a moderate DPS buff as well. It forced Arms players to relearn their rotation slightly, but it was an improvement overall, and not too many players complained.

Example Five: Overpowered Specs

This would seem to be a pretty cut-and-dried case, but is one of the most controversial, because the community will never agree on when someone is overpowered or when someone is so overpowered that the developers need to step in. Being nerfed sucks. Period.

Players would typically rather we buff everyone but their spec rather than nerf their spec, even if the outcome is the same. It’s totally human nature to want other specs nerfed immediately, but when it’s your own character that’s in question, you wonder: what’s all the rush, man? Again, it comes down not to the developers being cold-hearted bastards (though we are) but to whether or not players are having fun. It’s fun for you to be a one man army. It’s not fun when the one man army rolls over you. It’s fun for you to top meters. It’s not fun for when you feel like you have no hope of competing with the guy topping meters.

Also keep in mind that when we make class adjustments via hotfix, we want to make the simplest fix possible that addresses the problem so we minimize the risk of us breaking something else and minimize how much testing we need to do before we can deploy the change. This is the main reason we are more likely to nerf via hotfix than to buff everyone else, because it’s just fewer changes. (Remember, that if we buffed everyone up to the DPS of the outlier, that we might very well have to buff creatures as well to keep you from trivializing content, which adds a lot more overhead to the change.)

I also want to point out that we virtually never make stealth class nerfs these days, at least not intentionally. It just makes players really paranoid to think their damage might change from under them. At worst, our programmers will manage to deploy a change before the community team gets it documented in the latest hotfix blog, but that situation shouldn’t usually last more than a few hours.

Example Six: Exploits

There is a gray area between when players know they are doing something they shouldn’t be doing and when they’re not sure if the developers would consider what they’re doing to be crossing the line. As I said above, we generally give players the benefit of the doubt. If they found something clever to do and it doesn’t give them an unfair advantage or make other players feel underpowered, then we will often do nothing, at least in the short term.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad guys out there who attempt to break the game in the name of personal profit or just because they have a malicious nature. We feel like we owe it to the other players to stomp out these abuses when they happen. Understandably, we also don’t want to publicize these changes too much. If one guy figured out a way to solo a boss to reap huge gold profits, we don’t then want to give ideas to thousands of other players by pointing out the loophole he found and how we fixed it. These also aren’t changes that we feel like we can sit on for very long. We need to get them out quickly.

I just wanted to point this out because sometimes players scratch their heads about a patch note that we made to prevent or discourage exploitive behavior. “Was anyone really doing this?” is a common reaction. Just remember that by their very nature, these kinds of changes are going to be on the down low, and they need to stay that way.

Example Seven: Expansions

We generally save up a lot of design changes for expansions. We know even this is too much for some players who don’t want to have to relearn their character’s rotation, let alone how glyphs work or what the new PvE difficulty philosophy is. However, we feel like we ultimately have to fix the problems we perceive in the game design if we want to keep players playing the game. In this case, we think some reasonable amount of change for change’s sake is desirable.

We hear from players who say “My dude hasn’t fundamentally changed in years,” and they want something, anything, that makes them look at their character in a new light. We don’t want to fix things that aren’t broken of course, but we do want to make sure that a new expansion feels all new. Expansions are opportunities to reinvigorate the player base and the gameplay itself. Therefore, you shouldn’t always view a class revamp as meaning your character is horribly broken and adrift on a sea of designer ignorance and apathy. We probably won’t ever reach a point where a particular class has reached perfection and no additional design iteration is necessary. Change, in moderation, is healthy.

Stuff like this is why I say game design is an art and not a science. Given the opportunity, there is no doubt various among you who would make individual design decisions differently, and in some cases I have no doubt your decision might have been better. We’d love to see discussion on this issue though. How much change is good? When can a problem chill for a few months as opposed to needing immediate attention? How much risk should we undertake to bring small, quality of life changes? Are we on the right track? Insane? Is this just more propaganda from the Ghostcrawler Throne of Lies?

Greg “Ghostcrawler” Street is the lead systems designer on World of Warcraft. He has an unnatural disdain for the male night elf shoulder roll.
This article was originally published in forum thread: Coffee With the Devs - Rate of Change started by chaud View original post
Comments 73 Comments
  1. kritos222's Avatar
    Thats a long coffe.
  1. Duster505's Avatar
    WOW has not evolved much over the past 2 epxansions in terms of new features that feel new and fresh. Its still the same basics and considering how easy it would be to add strong features into the game now that would maybe give the more casual players intrest in playing. One of those would ofc be player housing. Tech has evolved alot in the last 5 years and there is nothing saying that hubs of 100 houses in same instance can not be done. This would take out the feeling of player housing beeins something that no1 sees other than the player. Then ofc is guild castles that would build up as the Guild progresses in lvls and raiding content.

    The opertunities are endless. BLizzard has just not worked on those over the last 3-4 years. Thats a shame considering the game was still growing and would easily have carried extra crew working on these features. And these new systems would also have made current Professions ingame more exiting.

    BLizzard has dropped the ball in adding diffrent ideas into the game. Its pretty much exactly what is happening with every of their games. Starcraft 2 has nothing new to offer tbh. Same is Diablo 3. Its the same basics games with better graphics. The only new features focuses on getting more money out of players. Kinda says it all. And this has taken BLizzard 10-15 years... still paying devs in full doing very little new and innovative work at all.

    My feeling after the last 3 years ... Is that BLizzard does not have great Devs after all. When you look at Trion and see the job they have done in terms of technical improvements of their game... you really start to think Blizzard devs are only living on past glories with mediocer abilites for today standards of gaming development.
  1. Virandile's Avatar
    "Ghostcrawler Throne of Lies"

    I loled.
  1. Keosen's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Duster505 View Post
    WOW has not evolved much over the past 2 epxansions.... Kinda says it all.
    Use the "Enter" button if you want anyone to bother reading your post.
  1. Duster505's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Keosen View Post
    Use the "Enter" button if you want anyone to bother reading your post.
    MMOchampion has changed how break works. Need to double hit Enter to get a break. Fixed.
  1. Thustra's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganimah View Post
    So this is like what, the 20th persona change that Ghostcrawler has shifted into? I guess it was easier for him to demean the customers when they had 11+ million subscriptions. But I see the conciliatory tone has started to set in, now that he realizes that his game is going to be the #3 MMO in just 6 months time. Hope he enjoyed his arrogance, while it lasted.
    They still have 11M+ subscribers (!)

    Now, to put this into perspective, Trion announced recently they reached the one million mark in terms of 'accounts ever created'. This includes all trial, beta, VIP accounts, etc Add to that Blizzards statement that there are more people who have played wow and are no longer doing so than are playing wow right now. A conservative estimate would put the 'ever created accounts' well over 20M then.

    Long story short, Rift is an awesome game. SWTOR, guildwars 2 have potential to be really awesome games.. but if either of them tops wows subscriber numbers in 6 months I will get a figurine made out of warlock and eat it >.>

    edit: as for the player housing thing... do we *really* want more instanced stuff? And what would you do with said player housing? Access to your bank, a place to display trophies?
  1. Vongimi's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganimah View Post
    So this is like what, the 20th persona change that Ghostcrawler has shifted into? I guess it was easier for him to demean the customers when they had 11+ million subscriptions. But I see the conciliatory tone has started to set in, now that he realizes that his game is going to be the #3 MMO in just 6 months time. Hope he enjoyed his arrogance, while it lasted.
    Despite the fact that I dont play WoW currently.... I will eat a plate full of hats if wow becomes the #3 MMO after SWTOR and GW2 come out. Not gonna happen.
  1. bloodycallig's Avatar
    So yeah he is talking about certain OP specs and difference in dmg between specs in pve. Also saying they have to be carefull not to break pvp with pve changes and breaking pvp with pve changes. But seriously look at guild wars , some skills which were hard to balance have different dmg/utility in pve/pvp. And it works perfectly.Why can't blizzard do the same? You can react faster , less QQ on forums. You can buff frost mages in pve to the same lvl as arcane but keep them not OP in pvp. You could even make sub rogues more raid viable without having them one shotting ppl in pvp.Also where are the shaman buffs? Ele and enhance needs some love , retri needs some , but ooo well lets keep them at the bottem of dps meters , as long as our mages perform excellent in pve and pvp we are all good. Rlly seperating pvp/pve tooltips of skills is the best , easiest and fastest way to balance. And it is not even confusing for the players , they just have to read , It is alrdy in the game tbh , the duration of CC on players , CS , just take it a bit further. Other than that I did like the retribution overhaul for one fact , less faceroll as wotlk. 2 rets in wotlk with same itemlvls did about the same dps, now there is some difference , more things to look at , timers , inqui , HP. Only problem you have to rely on procs for your dps , if you are lucky dps will be good , unlucky and you will be bottem dps charts. Seen loads of things that could fix retri without making them OP in pvp or pve but yet again the only changes we see is like , divine shield gets new logo , yeah great... I rlly needed that O_O
  1. jayremy's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Duster505 View Post
    WOW has not evolved much over the past 2 epxansions in terms of new features that feel new and fresh. Its still the same basics and considering how easy it would be to add strong features into the game now that would maybe give the more casual players intrest in playing. One of those would ofc be player housing. Tech has evolved alot in the last 5 years and there is nothing saying that hubs of 100 houses in same instance can not be done. This would take out the feeling of player housing beeins something that no1 sees other than the player. Then ofc is guild castles that would build up as the Guild progresses in lvls and raiding content.

    The opertunities are endless. BLizzard has just not worked on those over the last 3-4 years. Thats a shame considering the game was still growing and would easily have carried extra crew working on these features. And these new systems would also have made current Professions ingame more exiting.

    BLizzard has dropped the ball in adding diffrent ideas into the game. Its pretty much exactly what is happening with every of their games. Starcraft 2 has nothing new to offer tbh. Same is Diablo 3. Its the same basics games with better graphics. The only new features focuses on getting more money out of players. Kinda says it all. And this has taken BLizzard 10-15 years... still paying devs in full doing very little new and innovative work at all.

    My feeling after the last 3 years ... Is that BLizzard does not have great Devs after all. When you look at Trion and see the job they have done in terms of technical improvements of their game... you really start to think Blizzard devs are only living on past glories with mediocer abilites for today standards of gaming development.
    I feel this to be true as well, everybody talks up how great WoW is and so its Devs must be great, all they judge it by are sub numbers.

    WoW has indeed only and I mean ONLY been living off its past glories, starting since its probably best production they have and will ever make, Warcraft 3 (face it SC series is only really great as an e-sport, its good for story telling too but nothing to Warcraft 3). WoW was fresh, it was never great back in Vanilla days, people only played for the experience, disregarding all numbers, they weren't important then and people could enjoy the game that way. It carried a bit into TBC and it had the best designed of the game next to (and maybe above) Ulduar's level of greatness(ulduar was actually designed long before its release).


    But people keep trying to give the current devs which are largely different team from Warcraft 3 and starter team for WoW the title best game Devs and put them on pedestals like that when they aren't that good at all, really, all they probably had was a good resume (and connections) to show off and awe the employers with and got hired, to do job they pretty much kick back in and have cups of coffee while they do, instead of really try to push it forward to something ground breaking.

    Other devs do it for so many other games, I mean who isn't a Hideo Kojima fan boy after playing MGS series? Its that passion and will to perfect your work. they spend so much time and scapegoat all the work onto micro-balancing somehow "competitive" PvE because there is a 1-5% difference in performance a class/spec does instead of focusing on bigger disparities or that fun factor they talk about.

    And no they aren't total, shit or morons, they just aren't as said above keeping up with what is becoming today's standards and been so for a while.

    WoW has just flourish off of its original success, it has grew off of its originally strong playerbase (exponentially) now many people ONLY play the game for the reason "its where everybody else is at" not because of the game as its current state at all. Can you really call it a great game, because it just has high sub count? Can you say the devs are the best MMO devs because of sub count?

    I think it should be judged of the % of completely/extremely satisfied players, or # people who would call it the best game ever played, most fun per time spent etc. WoW is mediocre, it is good at a lot of things, sucks at few, but doesn't excel at anything, this game has never awed me I would think, maybe except for TBC intro cinematic and prior cinematics are probably about it (not even gameplay), it has only done enough to keep me attached to it for years.
  1. omegatrigun's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiercethirst View Post
    can you prove 100% that every single *ret* pally wants this maybe the change
    Pretty much any ret who knows how the spec works wants it. That's like asking mages who like to raid as fire if they'd like some changes to compete with arcane.

    ....should be happy your able to dps at all i remember back when if u went ret you would be laughed at and labeled a scrub..or moron
    Should be happy your able to dps at all? Seriously? So it's okay if, for a hypothetical example, ret was doing half the dps of the next lowest dps in top tier content, because blizzard oh so graciously allowed them to hit things at all? Biased much?

    People called rets scrubs because they were driveling morons themselves. All people care about is damage meters, so that's all they look at. Ret's strength back then lied in its utility, not dps. Most people had no idea of the unique utility ret brought until the very end of BC.
  1. Keosen's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Duster505 View Post
    My feeling after the last 3 years ... Is that BLizzard does not have great Devs after all. When you look at Trion and see the job they have done in terms of technical improvements of their game... you really start to think Blizzard devs are only living on past glories with mediocer abilites for today standards of gaming development.
    You cannot compare a game made on 2004 with a game released on 2011, it's doesn't make sense like there will be no point in comparing a future MMO of 2017 with Rift.
    Technology advance in a fast pace and every year they got something new to play with, a total revamp of the game engine will end up in unbearable cost and manhours and it's probably not wise to do so.

    MMO recipe for success is to keep a steady but also high number of subscribers, as long as this works for Blizzard they are fine with it.
  1. Montas's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Keosen View Post
    You cannot compare a game made on 2004 with a game released on 2011, it's doesn't make sense like there will be no point in comparing a future MMO of 2017 with Rift.
    Technology advance in a fast pace and every year they got something new to play with, a total revamp of the game engine will end up in unbearable cost and manhours and it's probably not wise to do so.

    MMO recipe for success is to keep a steady but also high number of subscribers, as long as this works for Blizzard they are fine with it.
    You cant sey they didnt have oportunity to "rerelease" game. They make new expansion every two years and every expansion could bring engine updates, or other technology updates.
  1. raggard's Avatar
    The only thing that comes to my mind when I see people asking/suggesting the game needs large reworking is Star Wars Galaxy and the NGE changes. Which to me proved serious reworking of any MMO risks killing your game.
  1. wiIdi's Avatar
    "Our general philosophy is not to punish players for being creative."
    I wish this would be true when in comes to talent trees.
  1. Tea's Avatar
    I must say, I'm never as excited as when they make major changes in patches. Even if I'm used to some kind of rotation is fun to learn new ones. With new short talent trees leaving out choices, and abandonning path of titans, it would be nice to have something new sometimes, they could just add more glyphs or something.

    Even if the specs I run with my 2 classes are "fine" atm and can't complain much, I still check mmo-champion regulary in hope for class updates and changes. Seeing blues like this doesn't make me that excited then. And also reading again that pve fix might affect pvp, come on? We all know that seperating pve from pvp would fix this. It would be something exciting for all players, probably not so hard to learn, and we might get some actual balance for once. Path of the titans would actually have moved us in this direction, but it didn't happen. Since this is the solution to most problems, I'd rather they at least tried.

    Ah well, what I get from this blue is that there likely wont be much class changes in next patch so we can cross that off the list. Now what, darkmoon fairy rewards only to the none pve community? ... "micro yay"
  1. Nevara's Avatar
    While you're all entitled to your opinions, you're really all a bunch of shitehawks. These new MMO's that are coming out are coming in on the back of work done by developers working on WoW and other MMO's. They'll be great, but they'll owe at least some of that greatness to the work done by Blizzard. Deal with it.
  1. MarizzaDraenor's Avatar
    Less bla bla more resources and quality content on WoW pretty plix. And just because you can hotfix things on live doesnt mean you need to let 100 things go past ptr on every patch.
  1. Tea's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by MarizzaDraenor View Post
    Less bla bla more resources and quality content on WoW pretty plix. And just because you can hotfix things on live doesnt mean you need to let 100 things go past ptr on every patch.
    I got to word you on that
  1. Granyala's Avatar
    Stuff like this is why I say game design is an art and not a science.
    In terms of class balance I have to disagree, GC. That's what simulation programs and mathematics are there for.
    Are we on the right track? Insane? Is this just more propaganda from the Ghostcrawler Throne of Lies?
    They are getting better, classes & specs come closer together, so yes, I thing they are doing ok.
  1. akts's Avatar
    Bla bla bla we are good or careful at least at balancing bla bla bla. I'm not buying it. If you are carefull at buffing you won't buff by more than 5% at once. And if you overnerf you have to start buffing the class back to appropriate level. I still remember feral aoe buffed tenfold not so long ago. From utter crap to godlike in 10 seconds flat. And everyone still remembers TO THE GROUND BABY. l2math I say.

Site Navigation