Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

    New GC design analogy

    I play Enhance and have always done so, if GC's new design philosophy requires me to reroll, I'll reroll in another game, period. His new design philosophy is based on pure laziness and the fact that 75% of our money goes to other games instead toward the game we are actually paying for.

    If you haven't heard about the new design goal at Blizzard, it basically goes like this: They want to have one spec viable for high end game play. This bodes poorly for Hybrids with the ability to heal as we all know that our healing spec will be the "well designed spec". So, what now? After 4 years of being an Enhancement shaman I am supposed to reroll a class I never wanted to play in the first place? I guess so. Let me show you how poorly this new design philosophy works in the real world.

    I go to a restaurant and order the chicken dinner. It comes to the table cold and tasteless. I call over the waiter who quickly summons the manager, who tells me that they focus all their efforts on the steak dishes. But, I don't want the steak, I wanted to eat chicken. "I'm sorry, we had to make a choice and we decided that making the steak taste great was more important." "LOLWUT!?!?!" I'm not paying for the chicken dinner then and I won't be back to this nightmare of a restaurant!"

    Imagine if any other company ran their business like this? It would be out of business quickly!

    You can use this analogy with any type of company and it always ends the same way, with unhappy customers and you being out of business.

    It's their own fault they made 30 specs and it's too late in the game to abandon specs.

  2. #2
    Pandaren Monk
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,941

    Re: New GC design analogy

    You might wanna give this rant some context, like which comments you're referring to and such.
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981
    I don't believe in observational proof because I have arrived at the conclusion that such a thing doesn't exist.

  3. #3

    Re: New GC design analogy

    In their defense, it was a steakhouse.

    OT: I need to see where GC said this.
    Snakes on an AC-130

  4. #4

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Someone post a Tl;DR please.
    I saw philosophy, GC, steak and chicken dinner and it was just all too much for me.

  5. #5
    Mechagnome Khraine's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Todmorden, UK
    Posts
    613

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Abandon specs? Source please. I doubt they would do anything like this.
    Stormrage 4 lyfe

  6. #6
    High Overlord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    178

    Re: New GC design analogy

    I'd like to see the blue post stating this class paradigm shift.

    And I'd also like an order of General Tso's right, for some strange reason.

  7. #7

    Re: New GC design analogy

    WHY WOULD YOU EVA TAKE CHICKEN OVER STEAK

    STEAK FTW!

  8. #8

    Re: New GC design analogy

    GC, word for bloody word.

    30 specs - ideally, they are balanced. Failing that, we will balance each class so at least one spec is viable at top levels. The simple fact is this - balancing 30 specs is never functionally going to happen. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know.

    In other words, we will make Holy, Resto and Disc viable at top levels.

  9. #9
    Mechagnome
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    569

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranis
    WHY WOULD YOU EVA TAKE CHICKEN OVER STEAK

    STEAK FTW!
    He's right you know.

    And all this is making me hungry.

  10. #10
    Pandaren Monk
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,941

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcleave
    GC, word for bloody word.

    30 specs - ideally, they are balanced. Failing that, we will balance each class so at least one spec is viable at top levels. The simple fact is this - balancing 30 specs is never functionally going to happen. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know.
    No where in there do they say they will abandon any specs.
    Quote Originally Posted by spinner981
    I don't believe in observational proof because I have arrived at the conclusion that such a thing doesn't exist.

  11. #11

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcleave
    GC, word for bloody word.

    30 specs - ideally, they are balanced. Failing that, we will balance each class so at least one spec is viable at top levels. The simple fact is this - balancing 30 specs is never functionally going to happen. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know.
    You are wrong...He is saying they will continue to try and balance every spec, though realistically there will always be a spec better then another spec.

  12. #12

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by wheresmywoft
    No where in there do they say they will abandon any specs.
    Making one spec viable in top end pretty much says that. In other words, if a class has one viable spec, call it a day.

    Can you guess which healing hybrid spec will be "viable"?

  13. #13

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcleave
    GC, word for bloody word.

    30 specs - ideally, they are balanced. Failing that, we will balance each class so at least one spec is viable at top levels. The simple fact is this - balancing 30 specs is never functionally going to happen. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know.
    Way to read like... one post and go crazy about it. Ghostcrawler also made these posts very recently... Don't post without more info.


    http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/25026...-in-cataclysm/
    ^ Link to the quote as well as the other replies that this person apparently did not read, and he apparently did not read "WORD FOR BLOODY WORD".

    Here's a special part from it just for you Mr. Crazy!

    "It was before my time, but the talent trees were developed in response to beta feedback that all say warriors played the same and players weren't making any decisions about how to improve their character beyond a certain point. Maybe 3 wasn't the right number, or maybe the designers should have said that paladins and priests are healers and don't have a damage-dealing mode.

    In any case, those decisions have been made. While we aren't afraid of making a really controversial change if it improves the game, I'm not sure sacrificing some talent trees really does improve the game. It might make PvP or even PvE balance easier to achieve, but it cuts down on the number of ways to play the game or even sheer depth. For every number-obsessed power gamer there are thousands of players who just like their BM hunter or Frost mage and don't care if they can't top meters or win Arena because they're never going to do that content anyway. Those guys could very well be devastated by just taking away the class that they love. I think it's the kind of thing that might cause a big loss of subscribers. It's really had to support as logical any change that might be "good for the game" but causes a lot of people to quit. What does that even mean? "
    Word for Bloody Word Yo!

    (I don't know how to do blue quotes but you can just search for this and it's right there on that link. Word for Bloody Word Yo!!)
    Hide behind a little Bloodelf Paladin?!? Ridiculous! Make way for the Beef of Light! I will shield you, little ones, and should I fall, remember that I taste amazing with Mustard.

  14. #14

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcleave
    GC, word for bloody word.

    30 specs - ideally, they are balanced. Failing that, we will balance each class so at least one spec is viable at top levels. The simple fact is this - balancing 30 specs is never functionally going to happen. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know.

    In other words, we will make Holy, Resto and Disc viable at top levels.
    Your understanding IS incorrect, and the quote is out of context.
    Correlation does not imply causation.

  15. #15

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Galith
    Way to read like... one post and go crazy about it. Ghostcrawler also made these posts very recently... Don't post without more info.
    Is it one post? Honestly? What about Ret being total garbage now? What about Feral sucking in PvP? Or Enhancement? Sure Enhance has a comp, one comp where the Enhancement shaman is a purge/lusbot for his Hunter overlord.

  16. #16

    Re: New GC design analogy

    I assume he means GC's posts in this http://blue.mmo-champion.com/t/25026...-in-cataclysm/

    EDIT: Ooops, seems I was a bit late >

  17. #17

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcleave
    Is it one post? Honestly? What about Ret being total garbage now? What about Feral sucking in PvP? Or Enhancement? Sure Enhance has a comp, one comp where the Enhancement shaman is a purge/lusbot for his Hunter overlord.
    Any spec/comp can do well so long as the person behind it can back it up. Some specs do better yes but acting like any spec in game right now is completely garbage is false.

  18. #18

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcleave
    Is it one post? Honestly? What about Ret being total garbage now? What about Feral sucking in PvP? Or Enhancement? Sure Enhance has a comp, one comp where the Enhancement shaman is a purge/lusbot for his Hunter overlord.
    You re-post back within seconds. Go READ before you POST. GC even says they are absolutely NOT removing specs and are NOT going to leave some specs in the dust.
    Hide behind a little Bloodelf Paladin?!? Ridiculous! Make way for the Beef of Light! I will shield you, little ones, and should I fall, remember that I taste amazing with Mustard.

  19. #19

    Re: New GC design analogy

    Quote Originally Posted by Zulandia
    You are wrong...He is saying they will continue to try and balance every spec, though realistically there will always be a spec better then another spec.
    This.

    He pointed out the obvious, that there is going to always be one spec that is (even very slightly) better than another.

  20. #20
    Deleted

    Re: New GC design analogy

    You're taking it wrongly, it means they're going to make sure you have at least one option within your class as a last resort as oppose to rerolling all together. They won't abandon the other specs, they'll just make sure you have something within your class to play at a high end level at all times.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •