I told you so on Beta - Player Feedback

[Deleted]

This argument has been used a lot lately.
It was answered several times in the AMA and is being used constantly in MMO-C.
Some people are outraged because Blizzard didnt listen to their feedback to change the game on the Beta stage.

But is this really something reasonable to ask?

Beta lasted for less than 4 Months.
Feedback goes as far as saying "island expeditions suck", "Warfronts suck", "Azerite sucks".

So basically people wanted Blizzard to change almost the entire game in less than 4 Months.
Reasonable?

Also, people are asking to take part in "game development"
They want their feedback to effectively change the game as if they were game developers themselves.
Reasonable?

--------------

-When should player feedback take part in the game development?
-How much reasonable time should we give Blizzard to take actions?
-Who is to say if feedback "X" is reasonable and will appeal to the whole community (if the game actually gets changed)?

I think this are all VERY difficult questions...do you have the answer to them? I dont...and have no idea how we should approach the situation.

[Planetdune]

How do you know how detailed the feedback was? Seems like you are presenting guesses as facts to prove your point. Oh I can imaging there were plenty of that type of feedback but as always, there would have been nice constructed well thought out ones as well. It is impossible to state that all those complaining that their feedback was not listened to are the same ones that provided the type of feedback you put forward in your original post.

[Dreadlack]

People were very vocal about GCD changes fx... Blizz didnt change anything

[Vampyrr]

This argument has been used a lot lately.
It was answered several times in the AMA and is being used constantly in MMO-C.
Some people are outraged because Blizzard didnt listen to their feedback to change the game on the Beta stage.

But is this really something reasonable to ask?

Beta lasted for less than 4 Months.
Feedback goes as far as saying "island expeditions suck", "Warfronts suck", "Azerite sucks".

So basically people wanted Blizzard to change almost the entire game in less than 4 Months.
Reasonable?

Also, people are asking to take part in "game development"
They want their feedback to effectively change the game as if they were game developers themselves.
Reasonable?

--------------

-When should player feedback take part in the game development?
-How much reasonable time should we give Blizzard to take actions?
-Who is to say if feedback "X" is reasonable and will appeal to the whole community (if the game actually gets changed)?

I think this are all VERY difficult questions...do you have the answer to them? I dont...and have no idea how we should approach the situation.

Flip side, why give players an option to present feedback if you ignore 100% of it?

[Teri]

The whole original definition of Beta is "Test & Feedback", not a demo.

If they don't process any feedback at all, just call it Demo.

[grexly75]

How do you know how detailed the feedback was? Seems like you are presenting guesses as facts to prove your point. Oh I can imaging there was be plenty of that type of feedback but as always, there would have been nice constructed well thought out ones as well. It is impossible to state that all those complaining that their feedback was not listened to are the same ones that provided the type of feedback you put forward in your original post.

Exactly we have no idea what feedback Blizzard listened to, as they don't tell the rank and file player.. It is the scapegoat excuse a lot of players use when they don't see the things they want in the game..

- - - Updated - - -

People were very vocal about GCD changes fx... Blizz didnt change anything

They did do changes just a lot of people never noticed, one case was taking hunters disengage back off the GCD.. There were a few more but can't think of what they were..

[Deleted]

yes its a difficult question, but by now they have had cases of "i told you so" often enough on major issues for multiple expansions that it's safe to say there is a problem somewhere in the pipeline. but that problem could be something the devs have no control over (e.g decisions being made above t heir paygrade) just as easily as a problem on their end.

[grexly75]

The whole original definition of Beta is "Test & Feedback", not a demo.

If they don't process any feedback at all, just call it Demo.

I think that is the issue, most who get into beta don't give feedback they are there for other purposes..

[Deleted]

Flip side, why give players an option to present feedback if you ignore 100% of it?

Not really true, Blizzard listens to feedback at least 20% of the time (made up number)
So many changes to the game were made because of player feedback so far.

[Teri]

I think that is the issue, most who get into beta don't give feedback they are there for other purposes..

That's a problem too, either no feedback given , or in a non-contstructive way.

[grexly75]

That's a problem too, either no feedback given , or in a non-contstructive way.

Pretty much and are likely the ones to complain about feedback not being listened to when they themselves never even attempted to bother.. And or as you said they give feedback but it is just a load of non constructive rambling..

[Sanguinerd]

What I wonder about is do people actually expect just because they give feedback Blizzard is then forced to listen or something? You don't like something, you tell them why or how to improve it but that doesn't mean it has to change.

From what I can see Blizzard does listen to feedback - not all but alot... but again they don't HAVE to do anything.

[kumarshah]

There were countless threads and posts about why Azerite armor felt unrewarding and was not a good system during beta. Everybody was told to wait for release with higher level Azerite gear that will change game-play like Artifacts did.

Blizzard did not want to listen, they had this system they thought of, they wanted to stick with it.

[Charge me Doctor]

People were very vocal about GCD changes fx... Blizz didnt change anything

Except they did listen to feedback are removed bunch of buffs from GCD afterwards. They did put most CDs on GCD and it's healthy for the game in the long run.

- - - Updated - - -

There were countless threads and posts about why Azerite armor felt unrewarding and was not a good system during beta. Everybody was told to wait for release with higher level Azerite gear that will change game-play like Artifacts did.

Blizzard did not want to listen, they had this system they thought of, they wanted to stick with it.

I remember people expecting azerite to be gameplay changing like artifacts were, but i don't remember blizzard stating that they will be this way. And if they would be - imagine the outrage of "i have 370 azerite gearpiece that changes gameplay to something i don't like but i have to take it over my 340"?

[xpose]

Flip side, why give players an option to present feedback if you ignore 100% of it?

You take in feedback to gauge if something needs to be looked at or tweaked in the overall scope if they deem its necessary. Feedback isn't a guarantee something will change within the time frame it was given.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they did listen to feedback are removed bunch of buffs from GCD afterwards. They did put most CDs on GCD and it's healthy for the game in the long run.

- - - Updated - - -



I remember people expecting azerite to be gameplay changing like artifacts were, but i don't remember blizzard stating that they will be this way. And if they would be - imagine the outrage of "i have 370 azerite gearpiece that changes gameplay to something i don't like but i have to take it over my 340"?

This is inaccurate as you can pull up screenshots from last blizzcon that showed an entire armor set of nothing but class specific traits to choose from.

https://wow.zamimg.com/uploads/scree...mal/673312.jpg

[kumarshah]

Except they did listen to feedback are removed bunch of buffs from GCD afterwards. They did put most CDs on GCD and it's healthy for the game in the long run.

- - - Updated - - -



I remember people expecting azerite to be gameplay changing like artifacts were, but i don't remember blizzard stating that they will be this way. And if they would be - imagine the outrage of "i have 370 azerite gearpiece that changes gameplay to something i don't like but i have to take it over my 340"?

Q: Will Azerite traits from more lucrative sources alter our playstyle in impactful ways rather than just being passives?

A: All new traits from raids and future patches. The core spec modifying traits will be universal. The goal with the spec specific traits is intended to be powerful -- each should be equal to the power of a 2-piece of tier used to be. It is supposed to be powerful and impactful, rather than just being passives.

The power level of a Legion Legendary is higher than a single Azerite trait. The power of the Pyroblast Bracers could be an Azerite Trait. If you have Helm, Chest and Shoulders all having the same trait, then they will all stack and the combined power will be likely more power than a Legion Legendary.

This was from a Q&A

Another point from Q&A with MMOC:

In Battle for Azeroth, Azerite Armor modifications are going to fill the new abilities gap.

People were actually telling the ones giving feedback that oh wait for higher items. They came, nothing happened. Even before the core issue with why Azerite felt unrewarding was never taken into account.

Hell, Ion has even said that azerite armor was supposed to make it easy to determine whether something is an upgrade or not. And it has actually done the exact opposite, you can get an item that is 30ilvls higher and it is a DPS downgrade because traits.

A big part of that is to help make the decisions more straightforward. Except for extreme outliers, we want for an item level upgrade to be an upgrade, and for players not to have to invest in three different sets of powers and compare them to each other and figure out whether it’s worth a five item level upgrade or not.

[Temp name]

What I wonder about is do people actually expect just because they give feedback Blizzard is then forced to listen or something? You don't like something, you tell them why or how to improve it but that doesn't mean it has to change.

From what I can see Blizzard does listen to feedback - not all but alot... but again they don't HAVE to do anything.

The problem comes when there's a large out cry about certain mechanics that then doesn't get changed.

I.e. legendaries from Legion, which went unchanged for MONTHS after launch, or the GCD changes which, from what I've seen, has been neutral at best.

[quite an expert in wow]

Well first of all from your statement it sounds like you think there are currently gamebreaking things going on. Which I think is debateable.


-When should player feedback take part in the game development?
Always, however, devs should take it up on themselves to do something with the feedback
-How much reasonable time should we give Blizzard to take actions?
Depends on the impact. If I can't log on I expect it to be fixed as soon as possible. If rogues are slightly better in arena I expect fixing to take several weeks.
-Who is to say if feedback "X" is reasonable and will appeal to the whole community (if the game actually gets changed)?
The devs.

[micwini]

How do you know how detailed the feedback was? Seems like you are presenting guesses as facts to prove your point. Oh I can imaging there were plenty of that type of feedback but as always, there would have been nice constructed well thought out ones as well. It is impossible to state that all those complaining that their feedback was not listened to are the same ones that provided the type of feedback you put forward in your original post.

Completely agree. Nothing more needs to be said. Tons of good feedback was ignored as well as there being the usual "this sucks" posts.
Thread can be closed now.

[Hiromant]

I've mostly noticed how the "it's only beta" crowd has now changed their tune to "it's only been out a month" and all the while nothing has changed.