Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by piethepiegod View Post
    funny cause i would comply disagree cata-wod was the worse period for hunters if you ask me. i dropped hunter after cata going back to try it in both mop and wod and found it horrible classic-wrath were the best period for hunters survival or any spec by far and legion was a big improvement over what we had even if it isn't perfect. i think hunters were a dead class for me from cata-wod as you think survival was a dead spec.
    Ok, but be aware that that's you're personal perspective and it's contrary to just about every other Hunter given that Hunters reached peak popularity in Cata-WoD.

    You're also clearly confused about the tenure of melee Hunters because Hunters most certainly did not stop being melee "at Cata". All Hunter specs had melee capabilities from Vanilla-MoP, but moreso before Cata than afterwards. Survival had several talents that buffed melee abilities plus a couple unique melee abilities of its own. It still preferred ranged weapons at all times, even before 1.7. After 1.7, it was reworked to be much more ranged focused. I don't believe you're being honest when you say you picked a Hunter in Vanilla with the intent of playing a melee class. The goal was always to get to ranged and stay in ranged. The melee only existed because you couldn't use ranged weapons from within 8 yards, which was always a silly limitation. Once that limitation was g one, there was no reason to keep the melee abilities around other than inane nostalgia, which seems to be your platform here.

  2. #42
    Seriously, linking melee abilities from vanilla-whatever using the argument of "lol range/melee hybrid" as if that's a serious conversation topic is just asinine. Sure, they had melee abilities. To insinuate those were used over ranged given the choice is a complete show of disrespect to the class. There was a REASON those abilities were removed after a few expansions, afterall.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Banard View Post
    A hunter should always have a pet.

    I`m speechless....your opinion based on what?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by piethepiegod View Post
    http://vanilla-wow.wikia.com/wiki/Wing_Clip

    http://vanilla-wow.wikia.com/wiki/Raptor_Strike

    http://vanilla-wow.wikia.com/wiki/Mongoose_Bite

    http://vanilla-wow.wikia.com/wiki/Counterattack

    the facts disagree with you. survival was a melee range hybrid sure the melee wasn't optimal for dps but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.


    Uhh..never seen vanilla closely? Hunters had (give you a hint..any hunter...) melee abilities because the minimum range of ranged weapons was 8 yards....called dead zone http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Dead_zone
    The melee vanilla hunter is a myth, only with melee abilities any other class, even in afk owned them....

  4. #44
    Stood in the Fire Ladyoftheforest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Banard View Post
    (1) MM playstyle was better in HFC (petless), DS and ICC (with pet)
    In your humble opinion. I know what I like. And so far I have adapted to all the iterations and find them fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Banard View Post
    (2) There should never be a option for no pet.
    Then roll another class. A hunter should always have a pet.
    I write my own book what I like and how I like it. There is no holy bible where it says that a pet is mandatory. Having options is a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by reimmi2016 View Post
    petless is fine but current mm is dreadful, vulnerable is a colossus smash copy (lol so much for class fantasy)
    chimera shot, our most iconic ability since wrath given to bm who don't even use it... and the mobility is gutted. No. this is a terrible version of MM and i can't wake up
    Frankly, I only care about MM's current state and how much entertainment I get. Skills can shift, renamed or tossed away, but the actual gameplay is what matters to me and I find it sufficiently compelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by FAILoZOFF View Post
    And that's your right to like it, just as it is anyone's right to like some other "designs", then again there is probably way more people not quite happy about current state of hunters than those happy with them.
    Problem with petless MM is about that same as locks without demon, once you adjust everything and allow it to work, chances are (quite high at that...) that people choosing the pet will end up with inferior playstyle. If you'd read what I wrote you could see for instance my ideas regarding the pet for MM. One of which was to make pet as MMs autoattack, petless MM would still keep their autoshot, because as soon as you slap plain +xx% overall damage, it will either be a "go to" or suboptimal way of playing (because of how the spec scales, by its design, ie. MMs pet do not scale very well)
    BTW what did you think when you rolled a PET CLASS? Some of us very much liked the idea of MM with pet, problem now is to make that met not suck, and not "disappear" as if it never existed. Even now when petless MM is at the top, the class/spec feels super awkward with all the useless pet abilities and such.
    It's ok. I don't deny peoples right to moan. I actually did read your post. And I can tell you now directly that I don't like it. So I reiterate: No, thanks. I like MM the way it is and petless. When playing a Hunter for the first time I never was fond of the pet. You can imagine my delight when Lone Wolf was introduced. Had the exact same excitement when Lonely Winter was viable for the Frost Mage. I also don't see Hunter as a 'pet class'. It has a spec that has a pet specialization imo.

  5. #45
    I want MoP BM back, readiness and all.

  6. #46
    I dunno. BM is pretty solid, the numbers aren't there, but they aren't for a good reason, the spec is as easy to play as it gets.

    MM feels pretty bad with vulnerability, I agree, but Sniper Training makes it more interactive. Ranged survival should be baked into MM talents far more than it currently is, let's say explosive shot replaces aimed shot and removes vulnerability, but adds some different interactions, black arrow not having the taunt summon in raids (does it still even have it?) and it'd skyrocket in popularity.

    Survival though, I absolutely love the spec, even though it flows poorly at times. It should be split into two sub-specs, where you have a pet and are bursty, or petless but dot focused. Would definitely make it more popular.
    Also removing some overlap in aoe design and talents (swipe/brutal slash and carve/butchery comes to mind). Like, drop brutal slash from feral and carve from survival, and make it apply lacerate or something. Small enough redesign to make sure survival isn't ruined for current fans of complexity, but large enough to make it playable to most people. (Absurd melee hate aside, survival is so complex when compared to any previous iteration of hunter specs, because of bloat and of interactions, that it definitely puts off the average huntard. Why Play survival and work your ass of for mediocre results if you can play BM and do the same if not better while being more mobile and having 8 times the range...)

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    Ok, but be aware that that's you're personal perspective and it's contrary to just about every other Hunter given that Hunters reached peak popularity in Cata-WoD.

    You're also clearly confused about the tenure of melee Hunters because Hunters most certainly did not stop being melee "at Cata". All Hunter specs had melee capabilities from Vanilla-MoP, but moreso before Cata than afterwards. Survival had several talents that buffed melee abilities plus a couple unique melee abilities of its own. It still preferred ranged weapons at all times, even before 1.7. After 1.7, it was reworked to be much more ranged focused. I don't believe you're being honest when you say you picked a Hunter in Vanilla with the intent of playing a melee class. The goal was always to get to ranged and stay in ranged. The melee only existed because you couldn't use ranged weapons from within 8 yards, which was always a silly limitation. Once that limitation was g one, there was no reason to keep the melee abilities around other than inane nostalgia, which seems to be your platform here.
    Your right about losing meele in mop I miss remembered that. But I am being comptly honest when I said I started because they had meele. When I started in tbc I originally picked a hunter because I wanted to have pets I then tried to make meele hunter for for about 40 or so levels only respecting when I could get tame exotic pets. Sure meele wasn't optimal but it was still part of the class and I sure as hell tried to make it work.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mavick View Post
    Seriously, linking melee abilities from vanilla-whatever using the argument of "lol range/melee hybrid" as if that's a serious conversation topic is just asinine. Sure, they had melee abilities. To insinuate those were used over ranged given the choice is a complete show of disrespect to the class. There was a REASON those abilities were removed after a few expansions, afterall.
    Ammo and eyes of the beast were also removed just. Because they were removed doesn't mean it was a good choice.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cateran View Post
    I`m speechless....your opinion based on what?

    - - - Updated - - -





    Uhh..never seen vanilla closely? Hunters had (give you a hint..any hunter...) melee abilities because the minimum range of ranged weapons was 8 yards....called dead zone http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Dead_zone
    The melee vanilla hunter is a myth, only with melee abilities any other class, even in afk owned them....
    And if we were talking about how to play the class optimally I would agree with you. But just because it wasn't optimal doesn't mean it wasn't part of the class and doesn't mean no one tried to make it work or played around with it.

  8. #48
    Survival feels very weak compared to, well, everything... needs to be reworked hard. Get rid of focus and give them their own kind of resource. Right now it feels like a warrior under weird hunter rules that doesn't fit at all... and nothing seems to be powerful at all. Or nerf the other classes and specs, because nothing here is balanced at all :P

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by FAILoZOFF View Post
    and by "complete" I don't mean to turn them upside down for no good reason, more like "set things right this time", because in Legion all specs feel and play like a total, poorly thought out mess, both by theme and gameplay.

    TBH I'd scrap idea of survival spec entirely. Cataclysm brought us idea of "specs" we know today, but before that we were playing classes, that happened to be able to follow certain path that would lead them to become better at what they do. So while it works for paladins to have 3 specs, as they have 3 possible roles to perform, it does not quite fit all classes and so some specs feel kind of forced as "survival" is just a generic hunter toolkit (traps, camouflage, feign death etc) no hunter should be ever left without. I was glad to hear they decided to just stick to 2 specs for DHs.
    For hunters tho, I'd go for option for BM hunter to be both, melee and ranged at will in a way Fwarriors had option to use 1handers or 2handers. Perhaps there could be slight TAX for ranged option compared to melee but nothing too big, say a ~5% difference, and with as small change in play style as possible, just an option to go melee or ranged. BM requires a revamp too so it would align very well.
    I am pretty sure its not all that hard to code abilities to change their functionality based on either equipped weapon type or some kind of stance (something like boomie talent http://www.wowhead.com/spell=202360, unusable in combat, or glad stance named "Way of the Mok'Natha") where it would change abilities between their melee and ranged version:
    Raptor Strike <---> Cobra Shot ST filler
    Carve <---> Multi-Shot AoE filler
    Moongose Bite <---> Chimera Shot
    Harpoon <---> Disengage
    Muzzle <--->Counter Shot
    etc
    option for 2hander or dual-wield would be welcome too, even if not totally balanced.
    overall, mechanically It could very well work 1:1 with little to no problem too as now even agi trinkets work for both melee and ranged attacks.
    For MMs "fantasy" is strictly ranged combat obviously, but pet could either:
    - be mostly an utility tool, and provide close to no damage, lets say ~3% of overall MM damage
    - or pet could work in tandem with hunter, more or less how it works for surv now, where it procs something like "vulnerable" debuff increasing hunters own damage (kind
    of like Quinn's pet from LoL)
    - or I'd scap idea of autoshotts and make pet perform that autoattack damage for hunter, while hunter fires just hard hitters in a way casters do. Monks were supposed to be a class with no autoattack but Blizzard has scapped the idea, so I don't know.
    Pre-Legion surv felt and played a lot like a weird twist of MM and I can see possibility to implement such talents into MM tree to regain that "original" surv feel.

    In before you start to scream at me for "destroying" legion surv spec you happened to like:
    As I said above, marksman's could choose to play "regular" marksman or more in a way old surv did (explosive shot instead of aimed, serpent sting, black arrow(It never fit hunter nor surv theme imo, such a random spell) etc), so really just a names of few abilities would change, that means hunters would have right of the bat not 3 styles of play/themes but 4, despite 2 specs, just without all the shenanigans that would come with trying to make 4 completely unique specs where there is a common base anyway, this way we could avoid problem with different loot tables and such. Basically MM could play like they always did, people that liked old surv would hgave it too, just under different spec name, and Bm, BMs would have to... L2P a bit as I can see bit of shift from pet doing 80% of the work to more active gameplay. For better in all honestly as even blizzard seems to have a problem with "AI specs" which is hard to balance, specially in PvP.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by piethepiegod View Post
    Ammo and eyes of the beast were also removed just. Because they were removed doesn't mean it was a good choice.
    I like how you lump eyes of the beast (a cool but completely un-influential ability that I have not really missed) with an absurd restriction like ammo. I mean, who the fuck misses having to make sure you're stocked on ammo before a raid night? I sure as hell don't. You could possibly make the argument that working up rep like the one with original kara was a thing, but actually maintaining it was a fucking nuisance more times than not and to state otherwise is just 100% rose tinted goggle bullshit.
    Last edited by Mavick; 2017-10-14 at 04:30 PM.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Mavick View Post
    I like how you lump eyes of the beast (a cool but completely un-influential ability that I have not really missed) with an absurd restriction like ammo. I mean, who the fuck misses having to make sure you're stocked on ammo before a raid night? I sure as hell don't. You could possibly make the argument that working up rep like the one with original kara was a thing, but actually maintaining it was a fucking nuisance more times than not and to state otherwise is just 100% rose tinted goggle bullshit.
    I liked ammo I think they should have changed it so it was more impactful to the class instead of being removed comptly.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by piethepiegod View Post
    I liked ammo I think they should have changed it so it was more impactful to the class instead of being removed comptly.
    Cool story dude.

  13. #53
    I firmly believe that BM should be the melee spec. My hunter is BM and I like the way it is, but from a lore point of view it doesn't make sense to me to be ranged. I mean, the BM hunter has a tight bond with his pet, and he goes beast mode, it only make sense that you go toe to toe with your beloved partner to chop your foes.

    On the other hand, a spec named Survival should try to, you know, survive, and last I checked, going melee against monsters is not the best way to survive, kiting, trapping, sneaking,... from a safe distance seems more accurate to me.

    MM is fine. I don't like too much the playstyle, but it's fine.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral Mage View Post
    OP: Everyone always says "It's easy to code this,"
    but the sheer fact you said "I'm pretty sure it is .." means you don't code. In reality, things are seldom easy to code, especially in a game as large as WoW, where there are so many variables, ref'-links to other skills, etc. It can take a lot of time to make even the simplest changes due to that. You have to go through every variable, every class code, and make sure it's all working right without any bugs or weird, unintended behavior.
    Dudee... why do you come and say such BS's at me? Sure, I don't code myself, but I am playing this game for some time now and can tell more or less what is possible or probable based solely on developers previous innovations. Sure, I am well aware of the fact that there are things not quite as easy to bypass as they could appear to be, for instance like "bigger backpacks". Changing one skill for another, or its functionality based on stance or weapon equipped has been in the game in one way or another ever since the release of this game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral Mage View Post
    But Hunters desperately need help.
    SV is "fun" in the way most specs are in Legion.
    That's most specs getting F'd pretty hard in Legion. Though a few got better, but most got worse.
    And MM and BM are both completely horrible.

    My G/F abandoned her Hunter entirely and main's her Warlock and Rogue now.
    I don't even see a point in leveling my Hunter the rest of the way, other than to get ready to level him again for the next expac. I'll probably level Survival due to the easy of AOE, and momentum it has in combat. But I don't like it. I just know it makes leveling easy.

    I had a long time Hunter friend return to the game, log on his Hunter, and he IM's me and goes: "wtf did they do to hunter? this is terrible" And began leveling his Warlock, heh. Interesting he swapped to the same class as my G/F.
    I rear such stories all the time since release of Legion, myself included. Sure there is a lot of happy players too, but where before Legion I couldn't decide what class pick to play because many of them appealed to be at the same time in Legion I had problem to pick something I'd like entirely as all classes/specs now have big parts I don't like.
    Something went wrong with class design I think, can't point out what exactly tho.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by piethepiegod View Post
    And if we were talking about how to play the class optimally I would agree with you. But just because it wasn't optimal doesn't mean it wasn't part of the class and doesn't mean no one tried to make it work or played around with it.
    The question is not about optimal or not..wing clip is not damaging ability, raptor and mongoose have 5 and 6 sec cd..counter 5 sec cd as well....so, you can "spam" 2 abilities and a 3rd if proccing...in pve the mobs eating you alive meanwhile, in pvp...bah...ranged mop the floor with you, melee as well...once more..it`s a myth...

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by cateran View Post
    The question is not about optimal or not..wing clip is not damaging ability, raptor and mongoose have 5 and 6 sec cd..counter 5 sec cd as well....so, you can "spam" 2 abilities and a 3rd if proccing...in pve the mobs eating you alive meanwhile, in pvp...bah...ranged mop the floor with you, melee as well...once more..it`s a myth...
    i don't think you know what a myth is. i'm not saying a ton of people ran away in melee as a hunter, that how ever doesn't mean people didn't try and make it work or that it wasn't part of the class.
    Last edited by Daemos daemonium; 2017-10-15 at 05:09 AM.

  17. #57
    Brewmaster Spiral Mage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Another World.
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by FAILoZOFF View Post
    Dudee... why do you come and say such BS's at me? Sure, I don't code myself, but I am playing this game for some time now and can tell more or less what is possible or probable based solely on developers previous innovations.
    Yep, that's what I figured. See, I actually am doing coding. That's why I can say that. I'm not imagining what's possible based on running around in the game, I'm imagining what's possible from actually programming myself and knowing WoW is far, far more complicated than what I'm working on.

    But yes, I will concur that something went very wrong with class design going into LGN. I mean, I understand some of it. Like, I'm not happy about where my Enh-Shaman is (main of 10 years now), but Enh-Shaman was in need of a massive rework and I think they knew that and decided to just go for it. Did it turn out like I hoped? No, it didn't.

    Now, if you want to a bone to pick with the developers, it's why did they ignore all the feedback on the forums, the streamers who were complaining about how many of the classes felt, etc? They disregarded *all* of that. Hell, during BETA, we were more or less told at the door, before they let us in: "We don't care about your feedback, the only thing we want to hear from you is bugs we need to fix. We're not changing any class mechanics or gameplay."

    But as the expansion has gone on, what has begun happening? They're changing classes based on feedback. So the question is, why is this not always the practice? Like Greg said, "Developers and players together make the best games." And someone else said: "As a developer, you're like a captain in a sense, you have final say on where the ship sails but you should always keep in mind where your passengers want to go. But it's always a trade off between where they want to go and how reasonable it is to try and take them there."

    So there's always a balance to be found between listening to feedback and changing the game to reflect it. There was none of that balance to be found in LGN Beta from my experience.

    As for what went wrong with class balance?

    There were alot of factors at play there but the two core concepts:
    [1] Make specs/classes more unique from each other.
    [2] Make specs more embody the fantasy that they seem to promise.

    There was definitely in some cases, a huge fall out between what WE expected there and what THEY expected. But it was the decision to move in those directions that set in motion the changes you've seen in LGN so far.

    Players are becoming more interested in the process, and not just the result but it's still largely focused on the result and not how it was reached. Which can make the result seem very confusing or disorientating. I don't always agree with where we end up, but I usually understand how we got there.
    Last edited by Spiral Mage; 2017-10-15 at 06:55 AM.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral Mage View Post
    Yep, that's what I figured. See, I actually am doing coding. That's why I can say that. I'm not imagining what's possible based on running around in the game, I'm imagining what's possible from actually programming myself and knowing WoW is far, far more complicated than what I'm working on.
    again, so what? its not something that wasn't in this game like... ever since... and you go on and tell me that you CODE, as if it had anything to do with the discussion...
    jeez... its not something more complicated than for instance how meta used to work for warlocks, just because warlocks meta changed Hellfire to Immolation Aura where ability I am speaking about, lets call it "Way of Mok'Natha" would swap between Raptor Strike and Cobra Shot

    Ps: as for enha I kinda liked the direction they were going to, it might not be exactly "there" but I feel like its a good direction nonetheless. Then again I don't play much shaman outside of it being my "green geared 110 alt" as I was never a fan of shaman class so I understand I don't have a full picture of it.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiral Mage View Post
    OP: Everyone always says "It's easy to code this,"
    but the sheer fact you said "I'm pretty sure it is .." means you don't code. In reality, things are seldom easy to code, especially in a game as large as WoW, where there are so many variables, ref'-links to other skills, etc. It can take a lot of time to make even the simplest
    Exceptional post, as is your most recent one. I wanted to elaborate on this part you posted for other people since I'm also in software development:

    Future-proofing code is not easy. If we all adhered to the programming standards and made good use of abstractions and minimised side effects of our code, it wouldn't be so hard. But people aren't perfect coders and there are implicit, seemingly-safe assumptions that end up coming back to haunt you further down the line.

    The backpack example is the most common: towards the start of WoW development whoever implemented the inventory system had decided to make the memory space underlying the backpack shared with the memory space of the bank, and set a delimiter of "16", i.e. adresses 0 through 15 in this memory space is the backpack, everything beyond is the bank. This probably seemed very sensible and I bet it led to simplified logic/control flow, but it is very hard to change this implementation in addition to everything built on top of this implementation with this assumption and ensuring all the existing data is preserved. What's worse is there may be other areas of the code that use the number "16" directly as the size of the backpack (this programming mistake is called "magic numbers") and you would have to search and update every area of the code base that decided to use that instead of referring to a variable.

    It seems like a novice coding mistake, but it happens and it's difficult to resolve when it does. All it takes is a small handful of mistakes/assumptions scattered across the codebase and now you have code that is effectively boobytrapped: if you change it, you can't ensure that you don't introduce a lot of hard-to-track bugs. Modern software development has continuous integration with automatic building and regression testing to provide safety to code updating, but a) regression testing is also the responsibility of the programmer and the quality of the testing is not guaranteed (who watches the watchmen?), and b) software development has advanced a lot in the last 10 years and I would wager that a rushed, pressured development team back in 2004 working on what was already legacy code (WoW is built on Warcraft's code base, if I'm not mistaken) had not ensured a solid testing suite with high code coverage. Adherence to good testing standards goes away very quickly in the presence of deadlines.

    Another example is how instances are handled. This information is probably only partially correct since I'm going off my memory of their Blizzcon discussion a few years ago about WoW's engineering and I'm struggling to find the summary right now, but I hope the core issue of the story is correct. It's also pretty long and it might be difficult to understand, so I apologise in advance. Feel free to skip to the TL;DR at the end:

    Data storage is important in software engineering. A notable improvement of WoW over prior MMOs was its heavy use of instanced content; older MMOs did have it, but it was very limited. WoW had instances for all dungeons, which was a huge playstyle and replayability improvement. The server needs to keep track of all active instances so there needed to be a data structure to contain all the references to the instances (think of it like a directory containing all the instance locations so the server can manage them). The most sensible approach would be to have some unique identifier for each instance and have a "dictionary" data structure which took that ID and gave you the reference you needed. You can think of this like an index in a book: you look up the search term in the index at the back of the book which will tell you where to go in the contents of the book itself. That's great because you don't have to search the entire contents of the book to find what you need.

    In C++, the preferred language of the gaming industry, you have a "map" data structure which does exactly this. Great! But, for whatever reason, Blizzard didn't use it. I believe they didn't have access to it, which is VERY believable because the map would have been very new to the C++ language at that time and they probably had to use compilers that did not yet have it (the software my company produces STILL has components that must compile of versions of C++ that don't have the map, and by now it's been around for over a decade). So you would have to implement your own map, which is hard. Not "impossibly" hard, but it would take a lot of learning, implementing, and testing. If you're reading this and you know any coding, give this a read and think about where to start (or perhaps this if you don't care about the order of the elements in the map), and do remember that it MUST be generic (i.e. work with any two types for keys and values) and you need to handle the memory allocation and sufficiently test all the edge cases. I would think that Blizzard did make their own for use in their code base, but for whatever reason a map was not used for instances. Instead, they settled on the simplest data structure there is: a linked list. A linked list has entries; each entry has the content, and a reference to the next entry in the list. You just keep going along the list until you find the content you want. If you don't know any coding at all, I'm pretty confident that it would take you a few days to pick up a language and make your own linked list (with the help of online resources, of course). This is what was used for instances on WoW, and it worked fine.

    Except there's a problem. Remember how I said that dictionaries/maps were great because they're like the index of a book where you don't have to go through the entire book to find what you want? Linked lists are exactly that; you're now going through the entire book to find what you want. BUT, it doesn't matter if it's a small enough book. Early WoW didn't have too many instances and the server hardware didn't have too many issues going through potentially every active instance to find the one it needed. Not just early WoW, either. This was fine for Vanilla and expansions 1, 2, 3, and 4. Expansion 5 (Warlords of Draenor), however, was where it fell apart. Because you didn't just have dungeons as your only instanced content now. They're shared between many players and temporary. Now you had Garrisons, and every player had one all the time. That book just got a whole lot bigger. Servers were having to constantly sift through thousands of instances just to access the one it needed at any given moment. That instanced could have been #1 in the list, or it could have been #100,000. Didn't matter. Whenever it needed a new instance, it had to start at #1 and step through all the way to wherever it happened to be. It operated on that instance, got the next instance job, and started at #1 again to step all the way through to wherever the next one had to be. Try to imagine navigating a book like this for each of your search terms: just starting at the beginning for every single one and having to potentially visit every single page. And the servers would have been doing this countless times per second. This was bloody murder for the hardware, and it seriously harmed WoD's launch which in turn caused all sorts of headache for Blizzard and gave them a boatload of horrible publicity and angry customers. If you weren't around for WoD's launch, all you need to know was that any moderately-sized server and above was borderline unplayable for days. This instance problem wasn't the only culprit, but it was one of the major factors. All because of a relatively minor choice of data structures made at some time in the early 2000s, which worked fine for a whole decade until it came back to fuck Blizzard up in a big way. They did end up changing the storage mechanism to a map structure, and that probably involved a whole lot of code wrangling as well.

    TL;DR: Blizzard made an implementation choice some time between 2001 and 2004 which worked absolutely fine for WoW until it blew up in their faces in 2014.

    This post is getting really long now, so I'll just end by saying that any large program is very delicate with years of addition and extension, which brings with it implementation tricks, inter-dependencies, and assumptions. It's a house of cards. Say what you want about the high-level decisions of the designers. I personally think most of them are incompetent, egotistical monkeys who think their shit doesn't stink. But you have to admire the ability of the programmers and engineers to continue adding features and improving the performance of such an old mess of spaghetti code.

  20. #60
    Bm is boring as hell. Marksman is fun(as always) survival is cool. Hoping for them to do some tweaks to survival rotation, its more clunky than hard. Generally hunters is legion is fine.

    Imo
    Okay, so I am gonna trap the blu..."FOR KAZ MODAAAAN"

Posting Permissions

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