Ragnaros Mount Hotfix, MoP Archaeology Preview, Lorewalker Story, Blue Posts, Fan Art

This did not appear to be a bug at first, but with all of the QQ about earning the mount from other players they suspended it.
No, it was fixed because the drop rate was never intended.

For them this was a brand new encounter, why take that away from them?
I'm not entirely certain how fixing an unintended drop rate for a single item takes the encounter away from anyone.

My understanding is that it is a guaranteed drop
That is currently for heroic version.

Will I be suspended/banned for winning a mount I had no idea was bugged? I know it probably won't happen, I would love a blue to chime in on this.
I can't say for certain but as I understand it, obtaining the mount required no exploitation. The drop rate should be fixed now. Additional actions would seem unlikely.

Class / Spec Complexity and Listening to Feedback
I think there are a couple of points here worth addressing that either came up since my initial post or I missed the first time.

I think part of what the OP is asking for is alternatives to the hunter (IIRC) rotation with fewer buttons. That's a reasonable request. We tried in the talent trees overall to make sure there was always a passive option for every tier so you didn't need a button. The level 60 tier has 2 active buttons and one that is somewhat reactionary, and the level 75 tier has 3 active buttons. We like the hunter tree overall and are unlikely to change it at this stage, but I think it's a fair criticism for players who like fewer buttons.

Second, there is a lot of supposition that we somehow baited and switched players by changing the game. We have to change the game. Many of the rules and mechanics in vanilla wouldn't be acceptable to players these days. So I think we're just arguing about degree of change. Some warlocks are saying their class changed too much and some rogues are saying their class didn't change enough. Those are all valid opinions and the kinds of things we try and take into consideration when we're deciding on class changes going into an expansion.

I hope you take my word though that every change we make, even the ones that end up not working out again, are made because we are ultimately trying to make the game more fun for the players, and not because we're bored designers trying to entertain ourselves by experimenting with your characters. We weigh every change. You still may not agree with them all, but I want to reassure you that they aren't made on a whim, and nearly every one began with player feedback at some point.

Finally, it has been mentioned a few times in this thread that when most players feel a certain way, that the developers should absolutely take action. I'd generally agree with that statement. The main problem with that strategy is that we don't really have any idea what most players want. (And no, you can't just extrapolate that if 4 forum posters feel one way, then 400,000 non-posters must as well).

Instead, we fall back a lot on logic, common sense, professional experience and a lot of gut instinct. We do use a lot of ways to capture player feedback, and the forums are one of those tools. They're good for pitching ideas or points of view, but bad for trying to figure out how many other players agree with you.

What happens nearly every time is some group of players advocates position A and another group advocates position B. What sometimes happens after that is the A players try to argue that they are smarter, more experienced, or more important players, therefore their opinion should count more. As you have all experienced, it can escalate into an argument quickly. We try to take both positions under advisement, consider what A or B would mean for the game, maybe try some things out internally, and eventually come to a conclusion. Sometimes we do A, sometimes B, sometimes nothing, and sometimes C. None of that means we ignore player feedback. It definitely does not mean that we ignore these massive groups of sensible players who are unified on a given position that is so self-evidently correct that we're obviously derelict in our jobs for not implementing their changes immediately. Those scenarios just don't exist. It would make our lives much easier perhaps if they did.

Just my 2 copper here but in my opinion the problem is not the analogy so much as it always feels like anytime GC responds to any criticism over the years he consistently degrades the "way" you post be it bad analogy or "not constructive" etc. I may have missed a few posts over the years but he always seems to find a way to deflect from the intent of how a critical poster "feels" about an issue and rarely ever acknowledges that a critical post could have merit.
I do that a lot because it's in our (the developers') best interests to have clear, concise and specific feedback. Improving the tone of the discussion pays far larger dividends to me personally that turning the forums into an ask the devs Q&A. I don't personally (and neither does Blizzard as a company) have the bandwidth to answer even a fraction of the questions we receive. Therefore, trying to get the community to understand how to improve the efficiency of their messages can in turn improve the efficiency of our game design.

The second problem is, sometimes C just doesn't make sense. Literally, no sense. Example: What was the reason given for "homogenizing" Rogues? To paraphrase: "We wanted Rogues to feel like Rogues, and not have 30+ classes in the game to balance." After which we see Monks with three separate specs, Druids with four (4!!!), and even a complete change to one of Warlocks.
In this specific case, it's because rogues are a pure class with 3 DPS specs. If for example Combat had superior damage and Subtlety had superior control, then one is the PvE spec and one is the PvP spec and Assassination is probably dead. We thought the only reasonable way to let rogue spec be a choice was to share the utility and the damage, and make the spec choice about the way you do damage. Warlocks, mages, hunters and even the DPS specs of warriors and DKs follow a similar pattern.

I'm sure they must have statistical tools.

- How many people spec X v. Y v. Z?
- How many people use glyph A, B, C...?
- How many people talent D, E, F...?
- How many people use ability G, H, I...?
- In what parts of the game do they use A-Z?
- How do spec/glyph/talent choices and ability use correlate with time played in game?
Yes, we do all of that. I'd wager we collect more information than most players realize.

What it doesn't provide us is context. Do more players spec X because the guides tell them to? Because X does higher damage? Because it's harder to screw up the X rotation? Because X has prettier spells? Because X is more fun? Because they've just always played X?

Even more important, how much change would it take to get some players to go Y? How much change can we risk before everyone goes Y? We've caused that several times, and I hate it when that happens. It's a failure on the part of me and my team when it does.

A question to consider: Is there any real evidence on Blizzard's side that the majority want their chosen playstyle changed so much each and every expansion that they essentially have to relearn it?
We can't measure majorities for the reasons I mentioned above. Instead, we look at what players are complaining about, and try to evaluate the passion, legitimacy, and logic of what they say. To use just a few examples, players complained that warlock rotations were convoluted, that rogues had too many ramping mechanics, that rage was too boom or bust, that hunter minimum rage sucked, that mages had to be Frost for control, that totems were just group buffs with too many drawbacks, that Presences didn't match spec, and so on. Those are just a few examples, and I know not every player agrees with them.

As I mentioned before, you also have the cases (I see this the most with rogue and maybe shaman) that while the rotations aren't necessarily broken, the players are just tired of them and want something new. It's very hard to balance "Give me something new" with "I like my character exactly as they are." (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)

No Mana Constraints
It is just completely and utterly false. Mana might feel tigher at 85 (post-patch 5.0.4) than it does at 90? Mana is much, much, much tighter at 90 than it is at 85 (post-patch 5.0.4). It's not even close.
We're talking about 5 different numbers here.

1) Mana at 85, pre-geared.
2) Mana at 85, post-geared.
3) Mana at 85, post-geared, post patch. <-- You're probably here right now.
4) Mana at 90, pre-geared.
5) Mana at 90, post-geared.

Our expectation is that things look like this: 2 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 1

To explain:

• Mana for a Dragon Soul geared healer (2) is too good, but not dramatically so.
• Mana for a new level 85 (1) is too punishing.
• For Mists, mana for a raid-geared character (5) should feel good, but not as good as 2.
• For Mists, mana for a new level 90 (4), should not feel as punishing as 1.
• For the current "lame duck session" you're playing a level 85 character using Mists numbers (3). This is NOT the same number as 2 or 5. We knew this would be the case, so we nerfed Dragon Soul by an additional 5% to make sure nobody started stumbling where they had smooth sailing the week prior.

In other words, 1 and 2 no longer exist, so we're looking at 5 > 4 > 3.

Value 3 will be irrelevant to most players in a few weeks, at which point the only relevant thing is 5 > 4 (meaning geared characters have more mana than ungeared characters). (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)

FEEDBACK: Heart of Fear (Raid Finder)
The Wind Lord Mel'jarak encounter has a bug in LFR mode that prevents Recklessness from being triggered (increased damage taken on the boss for each trio of Mantid that are defeated). This should be fixed tomorrow. (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)