Flying compromise

[Otaka]

Then you're even more rare type of players, than I am. I'm PVEer, who hates PVP and even I feel alienated in this game. But PVPers on PVE servers? That's something completely new. I won't even mention possible reasons for this to avoid insulting you. So, you kill griefers, who come to kill your Flight Masters? There is simple solution for this problem - completely remove ability to kill other faction's NPCs (via phasing into PVE zone for example, like in some Cata's content), remove PVP flag and therefore remove PVP from PVE servers. They you would have a choice to stay PVE or switch WarMode on. Would no-flying in WarMode be fair for you?

You dont get it... im not a pvper and saying it wont make it true.
The only reason why people play on PvE servers is not to avoid PvP but is to avoid getting ganked by people with insecurities.
You should probably socialize more... i can guarantee every server has pvpers, you just havent found yours. We found ours during wintergrasp and tol barad matches usually, they were the ones with the best possible pvp gear. Its not my fault if your scared to do these "world pvp"-battlegrounds when they are introduced.

Its a whole different experience when opposing faction comes outside your capital city and tries to get some fights where they will be outnumbered.
Thats just my guess, go ask the pvpers... why would they do that, i simply went and had fun driving them away. It gave us something to do instead of afking in cities waiting for queues to pop or raids to start.
Thats literally what people did in classic aswell... there are probably hundreds of pvp videos where some guy goes near the opposing faction capital and kills some nubs, its obvious people would try to replicate that experience since it "looked so cool" in the video.

I dont know why would you think they have to be griefers and come to kill our flightmaster.
The wonders of oldschool world pvp... people did it for fun, not to grief.

[Flarelaine]

It's appeal to authority, not actual proof.

It's not a mere appeal to authority to believe a person with access to vastly more data on the subject knows better.

[Psygon]

Let the kitten live!

[WowIsDead64]

You dont get it... im not a pvper and saying it wont make it true.
The only reason why people play on PvE servers is not to avoid PvP but is to avoid getting ganked by people with insecurities.
You should probably socialize more... i can guarantee every server has pvpers, you just havent found yours. We found ours during wintergrasp and tol barad matches usually, they were the ones with the best possible pvp gear. Its not my fault if your scared to do these "world pvp"-battlegrounds when they are introduced.

Its a whole different experience when opposing faction comes outside your capital city and tries to get some fights where they will be outnumbered.
Thats just my guess, go ask the pvpers... why would they do that, i simply went and had fun driving them away. It gave us something to do instead of afking in cities waiting for queues to pop or raids to start.
Thats literally what people did in classic aswell... there are probably hundreds of pvp videos where some guy goes near the opposing faction capital and kills some nubs, its obvious people would try to replicate that experience since it "looked so cool" in the video.

I dont know why would you think they have to be griefers and come to kill our flightmaster.
The wonders of oldschool world pvp... people did it for fun, not to grief.

We talk about cities, because they're the only place, where players would 100% get PVP-flagged. This is the only case, when PVP is deliberately. In all other cases it's so called "accidental" PVP. I call it forced, because devs design world specifically to maximize chance of "accidental" PVP. And what can happen - will happen. Sooner or later.

What you talk about, was valid to some degree on PVE servers. It's concept of voluntary PVP. You aren't ready for "open" world PVP (because you're coward, don't like to lose, unskilled or something), but may be you don't like Arenas/BGs too. Dunno, how to call such player. Pseudo-PVPer? But we have War Mode now and this argument is no longer valid. Now if you want to PVP - just switch War Mode on. If you don't - switch it off. PVP - isn't valid reason to remove flying in PVE mode, sorry. PVE mode isn't intended for PVP. PVP-flag - is just rudiment from the past. Blizzard still don't want to admit, that content, like attacking other faction's capital city, can be PVE too. It can be turned into raid for example. That's why they still treat other faction's cities as PVP zones, while it's no longer necessary.

What's the difference between PVP in War Mode and PVP without it? PVP in PVE mode is "safer"? But then may be problem isn't with War Mode or flying? It's with YOU? May be you lack skill or something?

[Raelbo]

This isn't a solution to the problem you claimed you're asking for. What you say is irrelevant, because what you're arguing for still isn't going to solve the problem.

I am not going to disagree with your logic.

However that doesn't mean that aren't legitimate problems which flying does solve. Flying is a means to skip boring 'content' in order to get to enjoyable content.

The argument really isn't that difficult to understand, and once you deconstruct the problem, the flaw in Blizzard's thinking is pretty obvious:

When a new expansion comes out, immersion enhances the player experience because the process of exploration and discovery = fun content. But as players continue to spend time in the environment, part of the process is that the sense of exploration is gradually replaced with familiarity until all sense of discovery and exploration, the 'fun' part of the immersion, is gone.

And therein lies Blizzard's fallacy. They correctly understand that flying ruins that sense of immersion that is necessary for the process of exploration and discovery. What they fail to grasp is that the process of exploration and discovery is not repeatable with the same content. They believe that forcing players to remain in a state of immersion that they can extend the process of exploration and discovery - which of course they cannot, because it's not about the immersion, it's about the unfamiliarity with the content which has an inherent, built in expiration property.

Even worse is that once the sense of exploration and discovery has been expended for any given content, not only does the sense of immersion achieved by forcing players to experience content from the ground stop being enjoyable, it actually starts being the opposite - travel becomes tedious.

In essence, Blizzard are making exactly the same mistake you're alluding to: They are trying to use the prolonged prohibition on flying to try and solve a problem it cannot solve.


I still enjoy BfA content. And while I quite enjoyed getting to know the expansion by exploring the terrain on foot when the expansion was new, it has been some time now since that part of the game has held any attraction whatsoever. There is lots stuff I want to do in the game, but instead I am stuck on ground mount spending 2/3 of my time just getting there. It's the equivalent of spending time in traffic and serves only to detract from my experience.

[WowIsDead64]

Except that you're putting words in their mouth.

They never claimed they're trying to extend the process of unfamiliarity on the continent. You said that for them, from your understanding of their changes. Their intent was for people to experience the content the way it was designed - Which was from a ground perspective. Removing flight DOES force people to experience content from the ground, as they intended it - So it's actually working exactly as intended.

When they had flight, they still designed everything from a ground perspective. And unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be something they're immediately ready to move away from.

Based on our previous experience with non-ground content in the game (Fel Cannons in BC, Vehicles in Wrath -not just Wintergrasp, the DK starting area as well-, a certain zone of quests in Cata that were technically underwater, but still the same idea of 3D content), it's quite clear that Blizzard is entirely incapable of creating flighted content that isn't on a railway like the Quel'danas bombing run.

In all of the above examples, there was a problem with setting the hitbox of the target. Fel cannons couldn't hit moving targets, so as long as you kept flying you'd never get hit. Vehicles in Wrath? Same problem - The Wintergrasp flying vehicles ultimately got removed before launch and were never reimplemented for this reason, and you can still prove it by going and doing the DK starting area. Set yourself to autorun when you get the frost drake and see how long it takes for the enemies on the ground to hit you enough to have to heal. They don't predict movement at all - They shoot as if you aren't moving when they fire. And then Cata comes with Vash'jir, finally providing 3D content that doesn't fuck with the hitbox, probably the closest thing we've had to content in 3 dimensions in WoW, and it's universally one of the most despised zones for that reason alone. (I will not say THE most despised, because Ul'dum is pretty high up there for most as well due to the pop culture references - But definitely high on the list of most despised zones.)

Ultimately, if you want an answer for why they "don't just try it" - There's your answer. It's not that they don't - It's that they did, and people hated it.

Don't just assume - provide proofs instead.
Dev Watercooler: Flying in Draenor

[Darliane Sunblood]

I don't see why they oppose early flying so much when it worked perfectly in TBC, Wrath and MoP.

[SirCowdog]

I have read your posts.

All of them conclude "Therefore, bring back flight without pathfinder."

This isn't a solution to the problem you claimed you're asking for. What you say is irrelevant, because what you're arguing for still isn't going to solve the problem.

I think you need to consider a very important distinction between me pointing out the flaws with Pathfinder, and me talking about what's possible with flying. These are two VERY different subjects, and not necessarily one leading directly to the other.

[SirCowdog]

And I think you need to do a better job creating a distinction between the two.

If in the same post you are arguing that Pathfinder should be removed, but you are using reasoning that suggests they should do more with air content, you're suggesting the solution of "Pathfinder should be removed" for the problem "They don't do enough with air content."

Now I have homework for you: Tell me how this post, which I can promise you has not been editted by me in any way, creates a distinction here:



(Spoiler: This is the post I responded to, so try real hard or you'll just end up looking silly.)

I'll start by pointing out that you DID edit the post. You cut out the latter part of it, where I said:

"Returning flight to the open world design isn't about convenience, or wanting to skip past everything. It's about wanting Blizzard to start thinking outside of the box again. It's about getting them to innovate, and create NEW, more complex obstacles, challenges, and enjoyable environments. "

I also point out that in no point in that post is Pathfinder mentioned.

I'm not sure where your confusion about this post comes from.

[Kaver]

Here's a proposed compromise on the flying issue that could potentially satisfy both the community and Ion Hascostus:

Pathfinder pt.1 is available as soon as the expansion launches and unlocks flying, but at 100% speed.
Pathfinder pt.2 comes in x.1.0 and boosts flying speed to 200%.
Pathfinder pt.3 comes in x.2.0 and boosts flying speed to 310%.

This way people can stay immersed in the world while not having to fight every minor bump on the road.

From Blizzard's point of view the flying speed is not the issue. The issue is the flying itself. Therefore, they will not view reduced flying speed as a compromise. They don't want people to skip the landscape they create.

My personal opinion is that they should embrace flying and create cool zones around it. No need to reduce flying speed or anything. I don't believe you will be more immersed in the world if you fly with 100 % speed compared to 310 % speed. They have introduced flying to the game and people are used to it now. It is therefore a point of no return and trying to reduce flying is just wierd.

[SirCowdog]

In other words: Fighting the removal of Pathfinder in favor of a gold cost at max level to gain flight, which is what you want you've made that very clear since the day flight was touched - Means you're arguing in favor of worse content. That's YOUR words..

Quote me the post where I say I want flying for gold. Go ahead. You'll spend a LONG time looking and won't find it outside of VERY specific context of ALSO includes content which takes flying into consideration, with proper challenges and obstacles for it. That means terrain which is appropriate for flying players, mob AI, placement, pathing, and abilities that can threaten a flying player, and very likely changes to the mechanics of flight.

You've based your entire argument against me on a bad assumption, or at the very least a gross misunderstanding of my point of view.

[Raelbo]

Except that you're putting words in their mouth.

They never claimed they're trying to extend the process of unfamiliarity on the continent. You said that for them, from your understanding of their changes.

Wait..what? No, I wasn't trying to say that for them. Ironically it's you who is putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say that they are trying to extend "the process of unfamiliarity". I said that they were trying to extend the process of exploration and discovery. I said that they are (seemingly) unaware of the link between the fun derived from immersion and the unfamiliarity of the content.

A core part of what I am saying is that the process of exploration and discovery requires the transformation of content from unfamiliarity to familiarity, the result being that once the process has run its course, it can no longer be repeated. Blizzard seem to believe that by controlling when we get access to flying, that they can keep us have fun through exploration and discovery. But what they don't seem to understand is that the ability to keep us having fun through exploration and discovery has nothing to do with how long they withhold flying, but rather, how long it takes us to get through the process and familiarise ourselves with the new content.

Their intent was for people to experience the content the way it was designed - Which was from a ground perspective. Removing flight DOES force people to experience content from the ground, as they intended it - So it's actually working exactly as intended.

To a certain extent, yes. As I said, they correctly understood that withholding flying for new content is a good idea that adds to the game experience - working as intended. What they don't get is that once the content is no longer new, withholding flying becomes a bad idea and actually ends up detracting from the game experience - not working as intended.

It is pretty clear from their narrative that Blizzard regard the addition of flying to the game as a mistake. But it's an erroneous conclusion because they are only considering half of the picture. Yes the inclusion of flying is detrimental to the game experience - but only for new content. For familiar content, the opposite holds - and the lack of flying becomes detrimental to the game experience.

The fact that they need to remove flying at the start of each new expansion doesn't mean it was a mistake to add it in the first place, it's simply a consequence of the cyclical nature of the game.

edit: Here is a simple way of showing the problem in mathematical terms:

Blizzard model: Immersion => Fun
Actual picture: Unfamiliar Content + Immersion + Discovery and Exploration => Fun + Familiar Content

[SirCowdog]

only Blizzard can be trusted to do this since they have the metrics to say when people have stopped doing certain kinds of content.

The only thing you can trust a company like ActiBlizz to do is to make decisions based on what's most profitable for them, not what's actually going to make a game better.

[WowIsDead64]

This is their first post, in which they confirm that there will not be flight right away in WoD, which is the first time they ever restricted flight from players outside of specific zones. Meaning, at least initially, these were the reasons they took away flight. They have no doubt evolved since then, but you'll note that "extending the process of exploration and discovery" is not actually listed here at all.

Why do you think, that your quote is better, than mine? Yeah, it's first post and at that time they decided to completely remove flying from game. But problem is - they changed their mind later.

[SirCowdog]

Never claimed otherwise.

But you don't have the numbers to support any argument you make in favor or against favor of flight. Nor do I.

Blizzard does.

So you'd rather trust magical hidden numbers that only blizzard has access to, than watching their behavior over the years?

Sorry, like I said, if you trust that Blizzard is being benevolent when they take something away from players, or have the players' best interest, then you're being naive.

[WowIsDead64]

No, they didn't.

They still removed flight with that intention. All of their points still ring true today.

Just because additional, other reasons have also presented themselves, doesn't mean the original reasons went away.

Again, stop assuming and provide proofs. "Master content on a ground - get flying" - is their new and the most up to date concept and it follows my quote. That's it.

We believe this strikes the right balance between ensuring ground-based content lives up to its full potential, while providing players who’ve already fully experienced Draenor’s outdoor world extra freedom to “break the rules.” This also provides a general blueprint going forward for content to come. Players will explore new and undiscovered lands from the ground, and then once they’ve fully mastered those environments—a notion that continues to evolve with each new expansion—they can take to the skies and experience the world from a new vantage point.

See? I can do that too. And my fonts are more highlighted, than your ones. So what? Have I won?

What you do now - cherry pick statements and pull them out of context in order to suit your opinion. Yeah, prior to release of WOD they indeed tried such content. Problem is - they didn't deliver. What they actually promised, was BETTER ground content, that would be worth it. But it wasn't better. Because things, like "Kill X extra mobs", "Go through rat maze" or "Play bugged jump puzzle" - don't actually add anything valuable to your gaming experience. Immersion - was the only argument, that left, after players actually saw real changes to ground content. Or lack of them.

I actually agree, that combat is essential part of MMORPG game. I just don't agree with several Blizzards' design choices. First of all combat mechanic shouldn't be exceeding, i.e. overused. Open world isn't dungeon. It's called "open" for reason. Because players should have some freedom of movement, choices and options there. Also I just don't agree, that "avoiding combat" - is essential part of MMORPG gameplay. MMO and some sort of stealth action - are incompatible things. But "clearing locations" - actually is. As I've already said, there is only one motivation for me to kill mobs - to clear location. If it isn't possible due to exceeding respawn rate - then killing mobs is pointless. There are no other MMOs, that have so overused combat, as Wow.

So, what I think - is that such content shouldn't be forced. If some players like it, then, yeah, it should exist, but must be optional. And flying - is actually the best way to make such content optional. As it has always been.

[Raelbo]

Which is, again, not what they said.<snip>

you'll note that "extending the process of exploration and discovery" is not actually listed here at all.

You're right in that Blizzard didn't explicitly say they were trying to extend "the process of exploration and discovery". What they did say is that they wanted to extend that feeling of immersion and being engaged with the world - which I am pointing out originates from "the process of exploration and discovery". And given that the "fun" of no flying stems from that "process of exploration and discovery" I am saying that Blizzard's motives for extending the absence of flying are misguided and won't achieve the desired effect.

I am trying to both explain why withholding flying for as long as they do is a bad philosophy while also explaining why it is that Blizzard keep trying to implement it.

Like I keep trying to tell you, I don't believe that Blizzard have a full of understanding of the dynamics of flying on the game, largely because they are blinded by their prejudices against it. They are, absolutely, 100% correct in that having flying does ruin that sense of immersion that serves to enhance the experience of new content. But they have consistently failed to understand the benefits of flying once content is no longer new. This shift in their thinking basically started with Ghostcrawler tweeting that if he could go back and change things, he would not have put flying mounts into the game.

I admit I jumbled up some of your words, but in essence, you ARE actually saying they're trying to extend the process of unfamiliarity.
By saying they are trying to extend the process of exploration and discovery, which implies they are trying to keep the amount of time where things are unfamiliar to players at it's maximum, you are indeed saying they are trying to extend the process of unfamiliarity with new content. One is directly correlated to the other.

Dude, what is wrong with you? Why are trying to tell me what I am actually saying when I have even told you that your interpretation was wrong.

I never said or implied or intended to convey that Blizzard were trying to extend "the process of unfamiliarity". That phrase doesn't even make sense. Unfamiliarity is not a process. It's a state. And what I have been saying is that the process of changing from that state to the state of familiarity is a fun process. I am not saying that Blizzard are trying to keep us in that state - I am saying that they don't recognise that once we've moved out that state, then the arguments in favour of flying are no longer valid, and the benefits that they expect to derive from withholding flying no longer apply, because they depend on us being in a state of unfamiliarity.

False.

YOU have set an arbitrary deadline that YOU have decided is "long enough" for content to be out where it's "no longer new." Blizzard does not agree with this timeline that you are trying to force on them, so they aren't going to release flight on your arbitrary schedule.

I did not set an arbitrary deadline. I considered my experience, the experiences of people I play with and talk to, applied critical thought, looked at the arguments for both sides, and drew my own conclusions about what, in my considered opinion, would be reasonable timeframe. The fact that I am not in agreement with Blizzard on this one doesn't make me wrong.

If you look at Blizzard's argument, it is pretty clear that they have a very strong anti-flying bias. In WoD their initial plan was just to keep flying out of the expansion altogether. The backlash they got was the biggest I have ever seen for anything in this game, and it's pretty clear that it came as a massive shock to Blizzard that people felt that way. They really did get it very, very wrong, and to their credit they were prepared to compromise. I just don't think they compromised enough, because deep down they believe they are right.

It is working EXACTLY as intended, and Blizzard will release Flight when THEY have decided content is no longer new. This will not be at the same time you want it to be, and realistically, only Blizzard can be trusted to do this since they have the metrics to say when people have stopped doing certain kinds of content.

Working as intended means getting the desired results. In this case, the desired outcome is maximising player engagement and satisfaction. As I already said, I agree that witholding flying at the start of the expansion results in the desired outcome: it does make the game experience better (even if some players feel that they really want flying). I even agree that it continues to deliver those results for some time after the release of the expansion. Where I disagree is where Blizzard are trying to stretch it out as long as possible.

Simply measuring how many players are doing content does not automatically yield the answer of when it's best to re-introduce flying. BfA is now at the point where the lack of flying has started to become an issue for a number of players. It is resulting in a growing amount of dissatisfaction at the game. That doesn't mean people are just going to stop doing content we enjoy or that we're all going to quit en masse.

If I look at myself, as said already, I still enjoy the game. The no-flying thing is an annoyance, but not a game breaker. If Blizzard are concluding, based on their analysis of what I am doing in the game, that I am 100% happy though, then they are drawing the wrong conclusion. I am still playing. But I am enjoying the experience less than I was. And I know for a fact that I am not alone in this.

And like I've already said: Blizzard have a pretty clear anti-flying bias. It stands to reason that their interpretation of the data will be influenced to some extent by this bias.

Only if you sit thinking "I wish I was flying right now."

You don't have to do that, you know. You could just play the game as is, and not worry about flight, knowing it's coming in the future.

Look, I totally get where you're coming from. And I am telling you that you're not getting it. May I suggest trying to understand where I coming from instead of trying to tell me how to think.

Try to bear in mind that this is now the third expansion where we've had pathfinder. I've been through this experience, as have many of my friends and guildies with whom I actually do speak.

So no, it's not just about me sitting and wishing I had flying and allowing that to taint my experience. It's about the fact that where 6 months ago I was finding it fun and engaging to traverse the world on foot, because I was exploring new areas and getting to know the new zones, now travel is just becoming tedious. It's no longer a part of the game I enjoy where previously I did. And it's not just that I no longer actively enjoy navigating around the world and view it as a neutral thing (which is where I was at 3 months ago), it's that travel is actually starting to detract from the game experience.

The content isn't designed to play with Flight - If you don't like it without flight, I have bad news for you - You probably won't like it WITH flight either.

Again, you're not getting it. Yes I realise that others here are talking to this point, but I am not.

As said above, we've been through this for the last 2 expansions as well, and you are wrong. The addition of flight resulted for me in a significant increase in my enjoyment of the game.

I am still enjoying the content in the game. It's the travel between pieces of content that I am no longer enjoying. The addition of flying will reduce the negative impact of the travel between content, allowing me to spend more of my time focussing on that content which I do enjoy.

Here's a way of showing your problem in mathematical terms:
Blizzard model: See feedback from many => Try to implement changes to Flight based on that feedback
Actual picture: Blizzard sees feedback from many => Blizzard tries to implement changes to Flight based on that feedback => 20,000 300+ page threads mostly filled with people calling Blizzard dumb for making any change at all => 20,000 300+ counter-threads mostly filled with people calling the anti-flight crowd dumb for fighting the change they liked => Blizzard tries to find a compromise => Compromise isn't good enough => Riot, mass exodus of players

Can you see how that's a little unreasonable?

This is something I have observed often. Are you telling me I am guilty of that? I mean I totally get that the other people you're fighting with are taking such a stance, and I'd agree that they are being unreasonable (and I have had long debates against them for exactly the same reasons you are). So I'd kinda appreciate it if you didn't just lump me with other people simply on the basis that I disagree with you. Consider my arguments on their own.

To that end: While I do believe that Blizzard have got it wrong, and that their negative bias towards flying isn't entirely justified, I do still acknowledge their position. I totally get that their approach has been to try and reach a reasonable compromise based on player feedback.

From my side I am simply arguing for what I think would be a better compromise and how I think Blizzard should be treating flying in order to achieve the best outcome in terms of overall player satisfaction.

I totally agree with the concept of pathfinder. But I do think that by making us wait this long for it, they've passed the point of maximum benefit. To my mind, the benefits of no-flying to the played experience had pretty much run their course by the end of last year. Four and a half months into the expansion most of the playerbase had finished up all the quests and done most of the content, even those who took it quite sedately.

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in continuing to drag out the groundbound experience at this point, 7 months into the new expansion. We really should have had flying by now. And while I am not going to be one of those hysterical people calling for devs to be fired, while unsubbing and encouraging others to the same (vote with our wallets), I am not blind to the fact that Blizzard's insistence on this philosophy of demonising flying is starting to hurt the game at this point and it will only get worse.

[SirCowdog]

You're right in that Blizzard didn't explicitly say they were trying to extend "the process of exploration and discovery". What they did say is that they wanted to extend that feeling of immersion and being engaged with the world - which I am pointing out originates from "the process of exploration and discovery". And given that the "fun" of no flying stems from that "process of exploration and discovery" I am saying that Blizzard's motives for extending the absence of flying are misguided and won't achieve the desired effect.

I am trying to both explain why withholding flying for as long as they do is a bad philosophy while also explaining why it is that Blizzard keep trying to implement it.

Like I keep trying to tell you, I don't believe that Blizzard have a full of understanding of the dynamics of flying on the game, largely because they are blinded by their prejudices against it. They are, absolutely, 100% correct in that having flying does ruin that sense of immersion that serves to enhance the experience of new content. But they have consistently failed to understand the benefits of flying once content is no longer new. This shift in their thinking basically started with Ghostcrawler tweeting that if he could go back and change things, he would not have put flying mounts into the game.



Dude, what is wrong with you? Why are trying to tell me what I am actually saying when I have even told you that your interpretation was wrong.

I never said or implied or intended to convey that Blizzard were trying to extend "the process of unfamiliarity". That phrase doesn't even make sense. Unfamiliarity is not a process. It's a state. And what I have been saying is that the process of changing from that state to the state of familiarity is a fun process. I am not saying that Blizzard are trying to keep us in that state - I am saying that they don't recognise that once we've moved out that state, then the arguments in favour of flying are no longer valid, and the benefits that they expect to derive from withholding flying no longer apply, because they depend on us being in a state of unfamiliarity.



I did not set an arbitrary deadline. I considered my experience, the experiences of people I play with and talk to, applied critical thought, looked at the arguments for both sides, and drew my own conclusions about what, in my considered opinion, would be reasonable timeframe. The fact that I am not in agreement with Blizzard on this one doesn't make me wrong.

If you look at Blizzard's argument, it is pretty clear that they have a very strong anti-flying bias. In WoD their initial plan was just to keep flying out of the expansion altogether. The backlash they got was the biggest I have ever seen for anything in this game, and it's pretty clear that it came as a massive shock to Blizzard that people felt that way. They really did get it very, very wrong, and to their credit they were prepared to compromise. I just don't think they compromised enough, because deep down they believe they are right.



Working as intended means getting the desired results. In this case, the desired outcome is maximising player engagement and satisfaction. As I already said, I agree that witholding flying at the start of the expansion results in the desired outcome: it does make the game experience better (even if some players feel that they really want flying). I even agree that it continues to deliver those results for some time after the release of the expansion. Where I disagree is where Blizzard are trying to stretch it out as long as possible.

Simply measuring how many players are doing content does not automatically yield the answer of when it's best to re-introduce flying. BfA is now at the point where the lack of flying has started to become an issue for a number of players. It is resulting in a growing amount of dissatisfaction at the game. That doesn't mean people are just going to stop doing content we enjoy or that we're all going to quit en masse.

If I look at myself, as said already, I still enjoy the game. The no-flying thing is an annoyance, but not a game breaker. If Blizzard are concluding, based on their analysis of what I am doing in the game, that I am 100% happy though, then they are drawing the wrong conclusion. I am still playing. But I am enjoying the experience less than I was. And I know for a fact that I am not alone in this.

And like I've already said: Blizzard have a pretty clear anti-flying bias. It stands to reason that their interpretation of the data will be influenced to some extent by this bias.





Look, I totally get where you're coming from. And I am telling you that you're not getting it. May I suggest trying to understand where I coming from instead of trying to tell me how to think.

Try to bear in mind that this is now the third expansion where we've had pathfinder. I've been through this experience, as have many of my friends and guildies with whom I actually do speak.

So no, it's not just about me sitting and wishing I had flying and allowing that to taint my experience. It's about the fact that where 6 months ago I was finding it fun and engaging to traverse the world on foot, because I was exploring new areas and getting to know the new zones, now travel is just becoming tedious. It's no longer a part of the game I enjoy where previously I did. And it's not just that I no longer actively enjoy navigating around the world and view it as a neutral thing (which is where I was at 3 months ago), it's that travel is actually starting to detract from the game experience.



Again, you're not getting it. Yes I realise that others here are talking to this point, but I am not.

As said above, we've been through this for the last 2 expansions as well, and you are wrong. The addition of flight resulted for me in a significant increase in my enjoyment of the game.

I am still enjoying the content in the game. It's the travel between pieces of content that I am no longer enjoying. The addition of flying will reduce the negative impact of the travel between content, allowing me to spend more of my time focussing on that content which I do enjoy.



This is something I have observed often. Are you telling me I am guilty of that? I mean I totally get that the other people you're fighting with are taking such a stance, and I'd agree that they are being unreasonable (and I have had long debates against them for exactly the same reasons you are). So I'd kinda appreciate it if you didn't just lump me with other people simply on the basis that I disagree with you. Consider my arguments on their own.

To that end: While I do believe that Blizzard have got it wrong, and that their negative bias towards flying isn't entirely justified, I do still acknowledge their position. I totally get that their approach has been to try and reach a reasonable compromise based on player feedback.

From my side I am simply arguing for what I think would be a better compromise and how I think Blizzard should be treating flying in order to achieve the best outcome in terms of overall player satisfaction.

I totally agree with the concept of pathfinder. But I do think that by making us wait this long for it, they've passed the point of maximum benefit. To my mind, the benefits of no-flying to the played experience had pretty much run their course by the end of last year. Four and a half months into the expansion most of the playerbase had finished up all the quests and done most of the content, even those who took it quite sedately.

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in continuing to drag out the groundbound experience at this point, 7 months into the new expansion. We really should have had flying by now. And while I am not going to be one of those hysterical people calling for devs to be fired, while unsubbing and encouraging others to the same (vote with our wallets), I am not blind to the fact that Blizzard's insistence on this philosophy of demonising flying is starting to hurt the game at this point and it will only get worse.

I know we've disagreed on this topic for awhile, but god damn if that isn't some of the most reasonable and fair arguments I've seen in a couple years or so.

/respect