For Legion to Thrive, it must have a Post Launch Plan

[clevin]

Oh look, they're telling us about post-launch plans? Isn't that an amazing idea?

(waits for white knights to reverse course and tell us how this was the plan all along and it's great that Blizzard is delivering content according to a plan they share.)

[SirBeef]

Oh look, they're telling us about post-launch plans? Isn't that an amazing idea?

(waits for white knights to reverse course and tell us how this was the plan all along and it's great that Blizzard is delivering content according to a plan they share.)

You kind of can't just create a lot of content patches on the spot. So I'll bite.

[clevin]

You kind of can't just create a lot of content patches on the spot. So I'll bite.

Try making sense next time. I have no idea what you mean here. The topic of this thread was that they should have clear post-launch plans and communicate them. They do (and of course always did) and are communicating them today (see front page). Yet there were a bunch of people shitting all over the idea that Blizzard should tell us anything about the number of patches or raid tiers.

[SirBeef]

Try making sense next time. I have no idea what you mean here. The topic of this thread was that they should have clear post-launch plans and communicate them. They do (and of course always did) and are communicating them today (see front page). Yet there were a bunch of people shitting all over the idea that Blizzard should tell us anything about the number of patches or raid tiers.

Your white knight comment makes it seem as if this info about content patches is all of a suddenly planned in response. Of course this was planned. Patch content take a long time to create. Blizzard could not have just announced this as some sort of reaction to pissed WoD peoples.

[Raone]

Try making sense next time. I have no idea what you mean here. The topic of this thread was that they should have clear post-launch plans and communicate them. They do (and of course always did) and are communicating them today (see front page). Yet there were a bunch of people shitting all over the idea that Blizzard should tell us anything about the number of patches or raid tiers.

They always have a clear post-launch plan but things can and will change, and they shouldn't tell us this much because if they can't deliver one small thing the trolls will go on a rampage about the 1 thing they didn't deliver and ignore the 99 other things they did. I l love that their communicating I just hope they deliver on literally everything they said because if they miss 1 thing the trolls will unite and tell us how bad Blizzard is again.

[fooliuscaesar13]

Excuse the fuck out of me for being irritated by the constant, endless waves of "BLIZZ SUX NO CONTENT GG" idiots on this forum spew forth. Demanding the developers adhere to some absolutely arbitrary, ridiculous development cycle so they can feel like they're getting their money's worth. The ridiculous, completely asinine comparisons to other games in different genres and the oh-so-fucking-original implication that Blizzard makes infinite fucking money so they'd be able to shit out a raid instance every 5 minutes if they so desired.

Instead, everybody just circlejerks themselves into fucking oblivion about how much Blizzard hates their customers, how they feel like they could run the company better if they were in charge, how they can't seem to do anything right these days. I'd much rather people had an open mind about this shit and executed even a marginal level of critical thinking about how the company operates before jumping on the freighttrain of hate this forum breeds.

Hey, look...it's just about exactly what I think while reading every thread on this forum.
I wish that I could put this on a t-shirt. Absolutely beautiful. THIS BELONGS IN A MUSEUM!

[Dungo]

(waits for white knights to reverse course and tell us how this was the plan all along and it's great that Blizzard is delivering content according to a plan they share.)

This was their plan all along though, do you actually think Blizzard released all this new information because of this shitty thread or something?

[clevin]

They always have a clear post-launch plan but things can and will change, and they shouldn't tell us this much because if they can't deliver one small thing the trolls will go on a rampage about the 1 thing they didn't deliver and ignore the 99 other things they did. I l love that their communicating I just hope they deliver on literally everything they said because if they miss 1 thing the trolls will unite and tell us how bad Blizzard is again.

Never let your actions be guided by trolls. I think they're doing the right thing after the post-launch disaster that was WoD. For example, we hear '3 raid tiers' and 'at least 3 patches' but there's a lot of detail missing... which is fine. The 'at least' part on t he patch count allows for perhaps a 4th but only a hater troll can really damn them if they only do 3.

This is almost precisely what I thought they should do - make the big, outline commitments (and STICK TO THEM - do 3 tiers/3 patches) but don't commit to details since those can change.

For the "but things can change and maybe they have to cut a patch!" crowd - if you work in a job where you and your boss set goals for you position, you try telling them that hey, you'll try to get to those goals, but no promises.... Part of being a professional is being able to make plans, determine goals and then get shit done.

- - - Updated - - -

This was their plan all along though, do you actually think Blizzard released all this new information because of this shitty thread or something?

Not at all. But re-read the thread and observe how many people objected to the idea that Blizzard should in any way commit to things publicly and how stupid the idea was to even talk about it.

[SoulSoBreezy]

regular updates nearly every 2 months.

This post is woefully ignorant of the development process.
A timeline like this would basically mean that the *entire* expansion is planned, with little to no consideration for player feedback in most regards, aside from stuff that can be hotfixed.
For example under that paradigm during WoD, there would be no room for the re-implementation of flight. If somehow Blizzard caved and let it happen, it wouldn't come without a huge cost in other content as well as irreparable damage to that 2 month schedule.

So they can do this, but Blizzard will sacrifice what little flexibility they currently have.

[Deathquoi]

If you think warlords was rushed, wait for Legion.

I don't think Legion is rushed at all. I think they shit out WoD to fill a gap between MoP and Legion and tie back to the movie. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Legion has been in development since MoP release or earlier. WoD was half an expansion that they dragged out for almost 2 years.

[clevin]

Your white knight comment makes it seem as if this info about content patches is all of a suddenly planned in response. Of course this was planned. Patch content take a long time to create. Blizzard could not have just announced this as some sort of reaction to pissed WoD peoples.

Yep. Again, my comment is mostly about the people in this thread who were saying that they shouldn't TALK about those plans and that it was stupid to want them to. Of course they had these patches planned - but telling us about them even in outline form like they have, alleviates the "are we going to get screwed with very little post-launch content again?" In the past we got used to counting on 3-4 patches and tiers. WoD undermined that faith. This is just reassurance, but I think it has value.


Also, thanks for doing what I said you'd all do - pass this all off as "of course this was all there, why worry??" I love predictability.

[Relapses]

Not at all. But re-read the thread and observe how many people objected to the idea that Blizzard should in any way commit to things publicly and how stupid the idea was to even talk about it.

It is pretty stupid for them to adhere to a pre-determined development cycle. It's not stupid for them to outline they're working on better paced content, though. That's exactly the gist of the feedback we received from developers in the FP article.

I just don't think it's a good idea for them to say shit like, "Yeah, we'll have a new patch every {x} months," because there are a lot of factors which go into content consumption. (For example, there are still guilds working on Mythic HFC even 12 months after its release.) Not everybody consumes content at the same pace and I think it's a very slippery slope to force the developers into creating things in pre-determined cycles. I realize that may mean more content droughts but as I've said throughout this thread, I'd rather deal with a content drought than miserably and woefully under/over tuned content.

[Deleted]

They don't need a plan. They had WoD as a proof that X Million people will play the game regardless of how little content there is and how long they need for the next expansion. If they wanted to, they could announce 8.0 at blizzcon and have another 10 months of drought and still have the playerbase they have now.

WoD at launch was actually one of the best times i've ever had with WoW. There was always something to do in the pre-raid race for gear.

[Molis]

Dont know why they ever abandoned the MOP post launch plan with every other patch having a raid or outdoor questing area.

[Relapses]

Dont know why they ever abandoned the MOP post launch plan with every other patch having a raid or outdoor questing area.

Players complained about dailies being too repetitive, so the Garrison version of daily questing took their place. Obviously, Garrisons have been received as a tremendous misstep and World Quests in Legion look to undo the damage caused by them.

[Deleted]

This is what I'm afraid of and I hope it doesn't become true.

Legion has been far from rushed

[clevin]

It is pretty stupid for them to adhere to a pre-determined development cycle. It's not stupid for them to outline they're working on better paced content, though. That's exactly the gist of the feedback we received from developers in the FP article.

I just don't think it's a good idea for them to say shit like, "Yeah, we'll have a new patch every {x} months," because there are a lot of factors which go into content consumption. (For example, there are still guilds working on Mythic HFC even 12 months after its release.) Not everybody consumes content at the same pace and I think it's a very slippery slope to force the developers into creating things in pre-determined cycles. I realize that may mean more content droughts but as I've said throughout this thread, I'd rather deal with a content drought than miserably and woefully under/over tuned content.

I agree that they shouldn't give timelines. We can infer from the past that if they do 3 or 4 patches that they'll probably roll out every 4-5 months. The first one could come a bit sooner, but eh. But that inference is on us and it's fine.

2 months is obviously not doable if we want patches with significant content and I don't know if it's even desirable - if patch 1 rolls out and then patch 2 rolls out in 60 days it would be a bad thing as people seem to always gravitate to the latest patch content. That kind of schedule is nice when a game is new and they're rapidly filling in stuff that didn't make the release of the game, but we're not in that position.

(For example, there are still guilds working on Mythic HFC even 12 months after its release.) Not everybody consumes content at the same pace and I think it's a very slippery slope to force the developers into creating things in pre-determined cycles. I realize that may mean more content droughts but as I've said throughout this thread, I'd rather deal with a content drought than miserably and woefully under/over tuned content.

Actually I disagree here. Droughts in the 12 month range are mostly bad for the game and the community despite the fact that some people are still working on Mythic, etc. There are ALWAYS laggards - you don't design for them anymore than you design for the world first, top 50 guilds. You design for the mass of people who play regularly but not obsessively and I would be shocked if they don't have a curve showing playtime per week and per month. My intuition is that most people play 4-10 hours a week once you exclude the people who are subbed but not playing at all. If that's in the ballpark then you design for people like that (and I'd bet they have more detailed activity reports).

Now, a 6-8 month gap at the end? Almost perfect. People can finish up stuff they've not done, take time to level an alt they've been meaning to get to, etc. It's more that the last two droughts have been in the 14 month range and ICC was, what, 10? That's too long for most people.