Arms Legion Discussion

[Exotath]

I kind of wonder if the reason they backtracked on those first iterations of Arms and Fury and created what is on the alpha today was actually due to plans for T20 set bonuses. I could see the CS extension mechanic coming back as a tier bonus. Perhaps my tinfoil hat is engaged, but it feels like they heard what people liked, then stripped it out so they can add it back later as a tier bonus rather than make the baseline gameplay compelling. I'd feel a lot more paranoid about that if we didn't literally have that happen to us in WoD. I don't know anymore... maybe it's time for warriors to crash a server again?

I hope not. I am tired of tier sets and trinkets being used as a way to fix broken mechanics.

[Artunias]

I hope not. I am tired of tier sets and trinkets being used as a way to fix broken mechanics.

This.

Same thing with legendaries to some degree. Like the MS generating rage. I remember when we had complete classes that didn't require set bonuses/trinkets/legendaries to play well.

[Bigbazz]

If your account is flagged for access then all you need is to create a character on a US server and it will allow you to post. If your starter account is linked to your main account, then you should be fine.

My old character didn't show up, for some reason it just said "you have no characters". So I made a new one last night, it's showed up finally this afternoon. It appears I can post, which is awesome.

Edit : and gave my 2c on there. It's sad to see so few posts in the feedback thread.

[Breccia]

I hope not. I am tired of tier sets and trinkets being used as a way to fix broken mechanics.

I brought this crap up last expansion. There were people who said "but the entire spec includes tier bonuses and trinkets!" And I told them to fuck right off. Glad to see those people are gone now, they at least helped ruin a perfectly good spec.

EDIT: Let me be clear: there will be Arms warriors levels 10 to 109. They are not stopping for tier bonuses, and even if they did, they're not stopping for the ones we'll be talking about anyhow. Breaking the spec for them is not something that interests me.

[Exotath]

I brought this crap up last expansion. There were people who said "but the entire spec includes tier bonuses and trinkets!" And I told them to fuck right off. Glad to see those people are gone now, they at least helped ruin a perfectly good spec.

EDIT: Let me be clear: there will be Arms warriors levels 10 to 109. They are not stopping for tier bonuses, and even if they did, they're not stopping for the ones we'll be talking about anyhow. Breaking the spec for them is not something that interests me.

Yea I really do not want to continue that model at all. Tier should enhance our play and maybe change it slightly but not be mandatory/defining of the spec itself or fixing bad design.

Our thread has been so far well received and gained decent traction...maybe it will have some effect?

Don't let it die. http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/20743444406

[Archimtiros]

Edit : and gave my 2c on there. It's sad to see so few posts in the feedback thread.

Most of us just don't care anymore. You can only be asked for input so much and ignored before you give up, which is precisely why I haven't posted in weeks (since the last actual class changes in fact).

- - - Updated - - -

I brought this crap up last expansion. There were people who said "but the entire spec includes tier bonuses and trinkets!" And I told them to fuck right off. Glad to see those people are gone now, they at least helped ruin a perfectly good spec.

EDIT: Let me be clear: there will be Arms warriors levels 10 to 109. They are not stopping for tier bonuses, and even if they did, they're not stopping for the ones we'll be talking about anyhow. Breaking the spec for them is not something that interests me.

Well to be fair, it's a thin line between improvement and enabling. The expectation of current content is to play with that content. A player who is still leveling won't have access to the entire toolkit anyways, so there is little reason to even try to balance the spec around it.

That said, it only works when:

A) The items are accessible; meaning a relative certainty to obtaining them in a timely manner. In otherwords, the items shouldn't be gated behind a specific difficulty or progression.

B The spec works without them. As above regarding improvement vs enabling, I've taken this stance quite a number of times with regards to talent setup as well.

[Deleted]

The one thing i noticed is that it doesn't seem to be a general Blizzard directive to hold off on communicating with the players in those feedback threads, just look at what the healers are getting feedbackwise from Sigma. It's really just the personal choice of Celestalon and co.

[Archimtiros]

The one thing i noticed is that it doesn't seem to be a general Blizzard directive to hold off on communicating with the players in those feedback threads, just look at what the healers are getting feedbackwise from Sigma. It's really just the personal choice of Celestalon and co.

Well there are lots of reasons for not making posts, so I wouldn't dive off the deep end and assume a sinister position from the get go.

I could go on a page long analysis of why they are so selective about responses, but it would just come off as whiney. Suffice to say, they believe in very selective developer -> player communication for the sake of not allowing players to undermine the developers. Certain developers are more lenient about this than others (most famously Ghostcrawler), but as a whole, it's not something the company embraces too heavily.

That said, personal communication between players and developers does happen, but it's generally private rather than publicized. This is to A) avoid complaints of favoritism (although it certainly exists), B) avoid issues of having too many screaming voices, and C) avoid the perception of players making gameplay or design decisions.

[Khelon]

I have to admin I have a hard time coming up with a tier set effect for the first version of arms other than a flat damage increase to certain abilities. But what they dont realise, is that I dont care if my tier set only says "mortal strike does 20% more dmg & mortal strike now has 50% more crit chance" as long as the spec works BEFORE I get my tier set.

You could just make something simple as this:

2p - WW will now reduce the cost of execute by 10 rage per target hit (With proper tuning WW could be worth using on 2-3 target fights during execute)
4p - Shattered defense now buffs the next two execute/mortal strikes instead of just one

And then make the current tier 19 set baseline, because the spec doesnt work without it.

[Murlocbait]

Even this shitty response that DK's got:

"Death Strike is not moving back to costing Runes. Please advance the discussion to other topics."

Would be better than the epic wall of silence presented to warriors.

[Archimtiros]

Even this shitty response that DK's got:

"Death Strike is not moving back to costing Runes. Please advance the discussion to other topics."

Would be better than the epic wall of silence presented to warriors.

That's more or less the point I was trying to make. We don't need a lengthy blue response for every change; it's easy to infer based on changes, so taking time to spell it out is worthless. What would be useful is an evaluation or response to the feedback, so that players know where to focus their attentions.

[Murlocbait]

That's more or less the point I was trying to make. We don't need a lengthy blue response for every change; it's easy to infer based on changes, so taking time to spell it out is worthless. What would be useful is an evaluation or response to the feedback, so that players know where to focus their attentions.

Exactly. I saw that response and thought, "That's all we want. A single sentence to direct feedback away or toward what is actually useful to the devs." But even that seems beyond the realm of possibility - let alone something as in depth and extensive as what Pallies got mere hours after their feedback post went up. Just puts me right back in the WoD beta mindset of "Our feedback doesn't matter and is not actually desired." I hate feeling that way, but all signs seem to indicate it.

[Celarent]

Even this shitty response that DK's got:

"Death Strike is not moving back to costing Runes. Please advance the discussion to other topics."

Would be better than the epic wall of silence presented to warriors.

Yeah, the shortcoming there is the lack of (easily added) tact and direction.

"We understand the interest in returning Death Strike to a Rune cost, having discussed it ourselves. For the current design, however, we're confident that this isn't a necessary change. We'd appreciate if feedback posts moved to topics like _____, ______, and _______, which we're still working on."

[Murlocbait]

Yeah, the shortcoming there is the lack of (easily added) tact and direction.

"We understand the interest in returning Death Strike to a Rune cost, having discussed it ourselves. For the current design, however, we're confident that this isn't a necessary change. We'd appreciate if feedback posts moved to topics like _____, ______, and _______, which we're still working on."

In a perfect world, yeah that'd be nice. But at this point I'd settle for "We're not adding the CS extension mechanic back in. STFU and move on." or "We don't want crit back on Bloodthirst and prefer how FS works. Talk about something else."

[Archimtiros]

Yeah, the shortcoming there is the lack of (easily added) tact and direction.

"We understand the interest in returning Death Strike to a Rune cost, having discussed it ourselves. For the current design, however, we're confident that this isn't a necessary change. We'd appreciate if feedback posts moved to topics like _____, ______, and _______, which we're still working on."

Eh, I'm ok with brevity in place of tact (as anyone who has gotten a message from me is likely to know), as long as it's not inflammatory.

I'm not as ok with devs posting antagonistic shit like "ah, look at all the salty tears on the forum", when they are asking for feedback. I'm not saying it was directed at Warriors (in fact that's part of the problem as everyone will assume it was directed at them) and honestly I could care less, but it is unprofessional.

If you're going to ask for feedback, don't mock the people who give it, at least not in public.

[Celarent]

@ Arch and Murloc, that's fair. For me it's devs' entire raised-by-wolves approach, where a valuable resource like dedicated testers isn't nearly as well-utilized as it could be.

[Murlocbait]

@ Arch and Murloc, that's fair. For me it's devs' entire raised-by-wolves approach, where a valuable resource like dedicated testers isn't nearly as well-utilized as it could be.

Oh i agree - the feedback they've received from warriors in Alpha is perhaps the most constructive and focused I've ever seen from this community, and yet it is met with silence and every design decision has eliminated or watered down the very things the alpha players said they enjoyed the most. At this point, for me, the bar on communication from Blizz has been set SSSOOO low that anything would be a welcome first step toward actual dialog from the devs. Arms has gone two years with zero feedback from the devs, during which they released into the live game the absolute worst iteration of the spec in 11 years of gameplay. I'd like to come back to the game for Legion, or at least feel some pull to do so, but right now I just have no desire to play my warrior again. I know folks have said Arms in Legion is better than in WoD, and that's good, but Blizz's treatment of Arms is still such a shit experience that it really doesn't make me want to give them my money or play their game again. I find I always get bored with Fury, just not my preferred way to play, and the shift back to rage on damage taken for Prot has made that a non-starter for me, so Arms was my real hope for Legion. Not so much at the moment...

[Breccia]

I know folks have said Arms in Legion is better than in WoD, and that's good, but Blizz's treatment of Arms is still such a shit experience that it really doesn't make me want to give them my money or play their game again.

I agree with the entirety of your post, quite strongly actually (in case you couldn't tell by earlier statements), but this part in particular. I don't know how many people they will actually lose due to bad customer service, but it will be at least me. The amount of effort needed to explain some of their design decisions to the forums is really not that much. I mean, they must have reasons for designing things they way they did, right? There was at least one meeting? Someone took notes? If so, posting something on that topic would take one person maybe ten minutes. If not...well, then it's a Dartboard spec, and I won't miss it. I fail to see how giving the spec one pass, saying "yep good enough" turning off the tester feed and walking away entirely is a design philosophy they feel will work and give good results.You need look no further than the shared CS bug for such.

[Bigbazz]

I agree with the entirety of your post, quite strongly actually (in case you couldn't tell by earlier statements), but this part in particular. I don't know how many people they will actually lose due to bad customer service, but it will be at least me. The amount of effort needed to explain some of their design decisions to the forums is really not that much. I mean, they must have reasons for designing things they way they did, right? There was at least one meeting? Someone took notes? If so, posting something on that topic would take one person maybe ten minutes. If not...well, then it's a Dartboard spec, and I won't miss it. I fail to see how giving the spec one pass, saying "yep good enough" turning off the tester feed and walking away entirely is a design philosophy they feel will work and give good results.You need look no further than the shared CS bug for such.

The shared CS bug is funny to me, it's the kinda thing you would see on private servers. I'm guessing though it will be fixed in good time and is not something we should panic about. I think Sweeping Strikes is worth panicing about slightly though, with the way Enrage duration being reduced by haste was a feature and not a bug I do worry about the possibility of Sweeping Strikes execute functionality being a "feature" rather than a bug.

[Murlocbait]

The shared CS bug is funny to me, it's the kinda thing you would see on private servers. I'm guessing though it will be fixed in good time and is not something we should panic about. I think Sweeping Strikes is worth panicing about slightly though, with the way Enrage duration being reduced by haste was a feature and not a bug I do worry about the possibility of Sweeping Strikes execute functionality being a "feature" rather than a bug.

This is where the silence from Blizz is at its most deafening. It would literally take 30 seconds to type "We know about the CS and SS bugs, they will be fixed in an upcoming build." or "SS functionality is intended." That doesn't even require committing to a particular time table, but it indicates they have received the feedback from testers and alpha folks can all move on (unless the bugs are still there when the pre-patch goes live, then it's time to get loud again). But even that seems to be impossible at this point.