What pisses you off greatly in WoW?

[WowIsDead64]

No, I totally understand what you're trying to say.

Problem is, well, that you're wrong. There's very much a point to it, and it's not "we need to justify our jobs". Change has value as a product because customers seek novelty. This isn't about oh no we just can't balance the game without redesigning things - you are completely off the mark on the entire motivation and the thought process behind these changes. You are thinking about things purely as a long-term player - not a designer, and not a producer. That's why it all seems so weird to you, your perspective is narrow and singular and you fail to take into account the actual vision behind these decisions.

And I'm not saying this is some underhanded corpo maneuvering. People want change. They do this because their customers like it.

Novelty - is just one of buzzwords on a par with things like "treasures", "secrets", "mysteries", "puzzles", etc. Everybody needs them, but all of a sudden in most cases they're just waste of resources. Just explain, why would one need some sort of novelty in such area, as gameplay? Let's imagine, that you play Paladin. Yesterday you were pressing 1, 2, 3, you've got tired of it and now you want to press 3, 2, 1? Yeah? Something like this? Paladin should be, you know, Paladin. Otherwise it's not Paladin.

[Biomega]

That's not a point, that's a rationalization. A player can get novelty by switching to a different class/spec. There are so many now that very few, if any, players have exhausted their options.

That's another skewed perspective. You don't tell customers if you don't like class A, play something else. Because many of them won't do that. They'll just... quit playing at all. Many people like playing on a select few classes/ways. They're not interested in anything else. This is the typical thought process of very long-time WoW players who know the entire game and have tried everything and for whom it's no big deal to go from Arms Warrior to Holy Priest for a lark because hey why not. But average, regular customers will almost never behave like this. They have a narrow set of preferences.

Novelty - is just one of buzzwords on a par with things like "treasures", "secrets", "mysteries", "puzzles", etc. Everybody needs them, but all of a sudden in most cases they're just waste of resources. Just explain, why would one need some sort of novelty in such area, as gameplay? Let's imagine, that you play Paladin. Yesterday you were pressing 1, 2, 3, you've got tired of it and now you want to press 3, 2, 1? Yeah? Something like this? Paladin should be, you know, Paladin. Otherwise it's not Paladin.

You are, again, completely mistaken about motivation. Nobody needs novelty. People want novelty, because it's interesting, because it stimulates different aspects of their engagement with the game, because it provides them with unexpected and previously unexperienced experiences. It's a fundamentally different motivator from routine or mastery - some people enjoy those, too. Some people pick one thing and then spend their entire time just getting good at that one thing, because to them the fun comes out of perfecting something - but most people aren't like that. Most people seek new things to make new experiences, then stick with those for short to medium amounts of time. And then seek more new things. This is elementary human behavior.

[NineSpine]

No, I totally understand what you're trying to say.

Problem is, well, that you're wrong. There's very much a point to it, and it's not "we need to justify our jobs". Change has value as a product because customers seek novelty. This isn't about oh no we just can't balance the game without redesigning things - you are completely off the mark on the entire motivation and the thought process behind these changes. You are thinking about things purely as a long-term player - not a designer, and not a producer. That's why it all seems so weird to you, your perspective is narrow and singular and you fail to take into account the actual vision behind these decisions.

And I'm not saying this is some underhanded corpo maneuvering. People want change. They do this because their customers like it.

Change for the sake of change is not good design.

[Relapses]

Change for the sake of change is not good design.

Neither is stagnation for the sake of stagnation.

[NineSpine]

Neither is stagnation for the sake of stagnation.

Stagnation has a negative connotation. The actual opposite in this case would be "consistency". Absent a goal, consistency is more desirable than change.

[WowIsDead64]

That's another skewed perspective. You don't tell customers if you don't like class A, play something else. Because many of them won't do that. They'll just... quit playing at all. Many people like playing on a select few classes/ways. They're not interested in anything else. This is the typical thought process of very long-time WoW players who know the entire game and have tried everything and for whom it's no big deal to go from Arms Warrior to Holy Priest for a lark because hey why not. But average, regular customers will almost never behave like this. They have a narrow set of preferences.


You are, again, completely mistaken about motivation. Nobody needs novelty. People want novelty, because it's interesting, because it stimulates different aspects of their engagement with the game, because it provides them with unexpected and previously unexperienced experiences. It's a fundamentally different motivator from routine or mastery - some people enjoy those, too. Some people pick one thing and then spend their entire time just getting good at that one thing, because to them the fun comes out of perfecting something - but most people aren't like that. Most people seek new things to make new experiences, then stick with those for short to medium amounts of time. And then seek more new things. This is elementary human behavior.

You have strange logic here. First you say, that players don't want to change classes. Then you say, that they want novelty. So, what you mean - is exactly what I said before. Players want to play other class while not changing their class. Yeah?

What I try to say - is, again, that classes/specs build around certain gameplay designs. Too long to explain. Rogue for example. It's about some sort of cold blood. You don't rush. You don't mindlessly mash your buttons. You wait patiently for your venoms to tick, while saving your resources for updating them at right moment. Warrior is about mobility and some sort of "dancing" feeling. Players pick classes according to liking/not liking certain designs. Changing core class design? Terrible idea. It's exact thing, that pisses players off. Shuffling things back and forth while keeping the same design? Pointless waste of resources. Again. There are not so many mechanics in this game. Just renaming fireball to FIREBALL or Fireball!, changing it's icon, adding some minor effects - adds nothing to gameplay.

Overall idea behind constant class changes:
1) To give simmers some work to do. It's some sort of puzzle, that may be interesting in theory. But majority of playerbase just doesn't have time to solve it. They want somebody else to do it for them and they would just use result of this work.
2) Again, to use abilities as selling points. That "Hero talents" or something like that. You want them? You buy xpack. Without them your class isn't complete. So, give us your $$$ ASAP.

But it's never about changes just for sake of changes, because some Bobby got tired of pressing same buttons for 2 years and wants to press other ones, even if they're still exactly the same 1, 2, 3.

- - - Updated - - -

Stagnation has a negative connotation. The actual opposite in this case would be "consistency". Absent a goal, consistency is more desirable than change.

Yeah. Consistency. That's exactly what I want. If I like class design, then I don't want it to be broken due to some random changes just for sake of changes. If class is broken, then it should first be fixed and then never touched again. We have had, you know, 22 years to fix all classes. "Resets" are exactly about breaking them again in attempts to fix what isn't broken. Such resets are exactly about restarting process of "fixing" things just for sake of "fixing" them.

[NineSpine]

You have strange logic here. First you say, that players don't want to change classes. Then you say, that they want novelty. So, what you mean - is exactly what I said before. Players want to play other class while not changing their class. Yeah?

What I try to say - is, again, that classes/specs build around certain gameplay designs. Too long to explain. Rogue for example. It's about some sort of cold blood. You don't rush. You don't mindlessly mash your buttons. You wait patiently for your venoms to tick, while saving your resources for updating them at right moment. Warrior is about mobility and some sort of "dancing" feeling. Players pick classes according to liking/not liking certain designs. Changing core class design? Terrible idea. It's exact thing, that pisses players off. Shuffling things back and forth while keeping the same design? Pointless waste of resources. Again. There are not so many mechanics in this game. Just renaming fireball to FIREBALL or Fireball!, changing it's icon, adding some minor effects - adds nothing to gameplay.

Overall idea behind constant class changes:
1) To give simmers some work to do. It's some sort of puzzle, that may be interesting in theory. But majority of playerbase just doesn't have time to solve it. They want somebody else to do it for them and they would just use result of this work.
2) Again, to use abilities as selling points. That "Hero talents" or something like that. You want them? You buy xpack. Without them your class isn't complete. So, give us your $$$ ASAP.

But it's never about changes just for sake of changes, because some Bobby got tired of pressing same buttons for 2 years and wants to press other ones, even if they're still exactly the same 1, 2, 3.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah. Consistency. That's exactly what I want. If I like class design, then I don't want it to be broken due to some random changes just for sake of changes. If class is broken, then it should first be fixed and then never touched again. We have had, you know, 22 years to fix all classes. "Resets" are exactly about breaking them again in attempts to fix what isn't broken. Such resets are exactly about restarting process of "fixing" things just for sake of "fixing" them.

I sympathize a lot with this because demo is my main spec and losing meta really sucked.

- - - Updated - - -

This is also one of the reasons I have long said WoW should have moved to a horizontally expanding customization system that they can continually add options to every expansion.

[Relapses]

Stagnation has a negative connotation. The actual opposite in this case would be "consistency". Absent a goal, consistency is more desirable than change.

Is it? Consistency can also just as easily be related to being boring. Isn't that, like, the opposite of fun?

The reality is the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. Some change, some familiarity. Enough change to keep the product interesting for new and returning consumers, but enough consistency -- as you put it -- not to alienate the playerbase entirely. Personally, I'm glad Blizzard at least tries to change things up from expansion to expansion, even if that means that the Ship of Theseus which it ultimately turns into is seen as a shadow of its former self for a certain demographic of the playerbase.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

Is it? Consistency can also just as easily be related to being boring. Isn't that, like, the opposite of fun?

The reality is the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. Some change, some familiarity. Enough change to keep the product interesting for new and returning consumers, but enough consistency -- as you put it -- not to alienate the playerbase entirely. Personally, I'm glad Blizzard at least tries to change things up from expansion to expansion, even if that means that the Ship of Theseus which it ultimately turns into is seen as a shadow of its former self for a certain demographic of the playerbase.

Most other major MMOs barely change their classes and it is horrible imo. But I am also the type of person who gets bored of games once they are "figured out." It's one of the reasons mods are great for SP games and patches are great for live service games.

That said, it's a pretty arbitrary gradient. I have friends who would be happy playing 3e D&D forever, I got bored of that 15+ years ago. I like changes as long as the core isn't changed...unless that core is shit, of course! There's no clear line to draw and I think anyone who pretends there is is fooling themselves.

[WowIsDead64]

Most other major MMOs barely change their classes and it is horrible imo. But I am also the type of person who gets bored of games once they are "figured out." It's one of the reasons mods are great for SP games and patches are great for live service games.

That said, it's a pretty arbitrary gradient. I have friends who would be happy playing 3e D&D forever, I got bored of that 15+ years ago. I like changes as long as the core isn't changed...unless that core is shit, of course! There's no clear line to draw and I think anyone who pretends there is is fooling themselves.

Exploration is legitimate kind of content, but I don't think, that gameplay is right thing to "explore". What do you mean, when you say "figured out"? I understand it as knowing the best winning strategy, so other things no longer matter and choices no longer exist. But it isn't how gameplay works. Gameplay is more about how game is felt. It isn't, you know, puzzle to solve. Because it takes may be 1hr to solve it. And what would you do for the rest 17519 hours? M? But problem is - if gameplay is broken, then everything else just doesn't matter. Again. It was ok to dumb game down in Cata and WOD. Because, yeah, let's face it, some classes really had excessive amount of abilities, so players struggled with adding them all to their action bars. It wasn't ok to use macros to auto-press half of your buttons. But what happens now - is more about turning Mortal Combat 3 into Street Fighter 2. May be it isn't ok for you to press exactly the same buttons for more than 2 years. But for me it isn't ok to press exactly the same buttons for more than 5 seconds. That's why I don't play 3-button style games, designed with consoles in mind.

[Auxis]

Specs that shoehorn one single theme of a class so the spec barely feels like a class anymore.

Some are fine like elemental or enhancement - they both use all of the elements, just different combat styles.
All rogues feel like some form of rogue, maybe less so Outlaw. Etc.

But then you got things like DKs and Mages which just shoehorn them into 1 literal element of the class and barely any other is utilised in an meaningful way (excepting mage stuff like Timewarp and portals of course)

[sensei-]

Specs that shoehorn one single theme of a class so the spec barely feels like a class anymore.

Some are fine like elemental or enhancement - they both use all of the elements, just different combat styles.
All rogues feel like some form of rogue, maybe less so Outlaw. Etc.

But then you got things like DKs and Mages which just shoehorn them into 1 literal element of the class and barely any other is utilised in an meaningful way (excepting mage stuff like Timewarp and portals of course)

It's almost as if those specs are called Fire, Frost and Arcane, or Unholy, Frost and Blood. Who would've guessed specs with those names have specialized themes? Shocking, I know.

[Biomega]

You have strange logic here. First you say, that players don't want to change classes. Then you say, that they want novelty. So, what you mean - is exactly what I said before. Players want to play other class while not changing their class. Yeah?

No. And there is absolutely nothing strange about that logic at all - it is in fact one of the central consumer paradigms. People want new things, but ideally in familiar frameworks. They want new Star Wars movies - but they don't just want old Star Wars, unchanged. But they still want it to be Star Wars, not something else. They also don't want to be told hey if you're tired of Star Wars why not watch Rebel Moon. They want the old. But a new one. Not so new it's something else. Just newer than before.

That's the whole point here. That's what people like. Which is why Blizzard is giving it to them - not to justify their own labor, but because of customer demand.

This isn't "change for change's sake" this is change for novelty's sake. Novelty itself is the benefit.

[Dejiko]

Having to unlock zones on alts.

[Illuminance]

People want new things, but ideally in familiar frameworks.

They do -- but classes are frameworks, too. If you ask old survival hunter or demo warlock players what they think about Blizzard's "novelty," I think you'll find many are rightfully upset by the latest designs. Those examples are wholly unfamiliar to players who enjoyed the specs prior to the revamps.

My perspective is that class design is a type of artform. Blizzard cannot continuously apply a chisel to a class and expect to progress from a rough marble block to Michelangelo's David and then somehow think their next revision will improve the design from there. At a certain point changing the fundamentals of the class is almost necessarily going to be destructive.

What I think players generally want with classes is improvement (not just revision), and if that isn't possible, leave it the heck alone. What we get is often stochastic change because the class designers, in my view, simply aren't very good at their jobs.

I agree that players want and expect novelty. That could be delivered so many other ways, though, including new story, new environments, new classes/specs, new spells/talents that are optional additions to specs, entirely new gameplay systems, etc.

I'm at a point now where if I enjoy a spec, I know the clock's ticking until Blizzard inevitably decides it's time for an overhaul that will destroy what made me like it in the first place.

[Jshadowhunter]

It's not WoW that I remember.
It's no longer a setting of war and struggle for survival, being FORCED to live in a world with opposition that you can't see eye to eye because you're different species and culture-wise, with too much unforgivable history.
Now, the entire multicultural fantasy (when I say fantasy, I mean as in, it's impossible in any logical sense, especially if you look at the real world where 1st world nations are importing 3rd world people with values that are not compatible), where different species live together in harmony, like the current year D&D, and the awful writing reflects it.

It's because of things like this that I decided to go to Warhammer, because there, orcs will be orcs, savage and brutal, not a shell of their former selves, where they've just basically bigger green humans, without any racial tendencies (like them being violent by nature).

[Biomega]

They do -- but classes are frameworks, too.

Sure. That's why they don't want to play a new class - they want their old class, just a new version. That's my point.

If you ask old survival hunter or demo warlock players what they think about Blizzard's "novelty," I think you'll find many are rightfully upset by the latest designs. Those examples are wholly unfamiliar to players who enjoyed the specs prior to the revamps.

My point isn't that every new iteration they made was a success. They fucked up many times. My point isn't about whether it's a good idea to do what they did with Demo or Survival. Or even Combat Rogue, for that matter.

My point is purely that they keep changing classes because people want new things. Not to "justify their own jobs" as someone posited. That does not translate into every new change being a good change. I'm arguing about the underlying principle, not for a particular level of quality.

My perspective is that class design is a type of artform. Blizzard cannot continuously apply a chisel to a class and expect to progress from a rough marble block to Michelangelo's David and then somehow think their next revision will improve the design from there. At a certain point changing the fundamentals of the class is almost necessarily going to be destructive.

That's a bad metaphor because that type of sculpting is purely subtractive - it'll inevitably be destructive because you run out of marble. But class design doesn't work like that. There isn't some kind of "design resource" that's finite and constantly being used up with every change.

Change the metaphor instead to bronze sculpture. If you want to stay in Florence, let's say Cellini's Perseus instead of Michelangelo's David. You melt it down, and cast a new sculpture. Then you melt that one down, and cast another one. And so on. You can pretty much repeat that infinitely (ignoring little physical technicalities) so there's nothing about the design that is somehow inherently hitting diminishing returns. And no matter how much you praise the original Perseus, you have no way of knowing it was the best that bronze could ever be. Who can say if the next casting isn't an even greater masterpiece; and the real value anyhow is in people want to see something new. So you give them something new.

What I think players generally want with classes is improvement (not just revision), and if that isn't possible, leave it the heck alone. What we get is often stochastic change because the class designers, in my view, simply aren't very good at their jobs.

That's a different argument.

Saying "we want good change, not bad change" is entirely fine. But that does not equal "we want no change".

And I get you: no change > bad change. But that's not an actual argument, because it operates from after the fact. You don't know it's a bad change until after you've made it. Hindsight is 20/20. You can't get good change without the risk of bad change.

Obviously I'm 100% with the idea that they should do their darnedest to make good changes and not bad ones; and I totally agree they fucked up so much so often. Current class design is one of the big reasons I no longer play.

But that's not the point I was making. It's a separate and different point. "Do better" - A-Okay. "Don't do anything" - Sorry, beg to differ.

[Aurabolt]

Nothing. More so over the last 14 years. Being subbed only a few months a year max helps.

[NineSpine]

Is it? Consistency can also just as easily be related to being boring. Isn't that, like, the opposite of fun?

The reality is the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle. Some change, some familiarity. Enough change to keep the product interesting for new and returning consumers, but enough consistency -- as you put it -- not to alienate the playerbase entirely. Personally, I'm glad Blizzard at least tries to change things up from expansion to expansion, even if that means that the Ship of Theseus which it ultimately turns into is seen as a shadow of its former self for a certain demographic of the playerbase.

There should be consistency until there is a reason for change. Once you start making changes just to make changes, you've lost the plot, and that's kind of how retail lost the plot. Just constant change for the sake of bashing you over the head with FOMO.

[WowIsDead64]

No. And there is absolutely nothing strange about that logic at all - it is in fact one of the central consumer paradigms. People want new things, but ideally in familiar frameworks. They want new Star Wars movies - but they don't just want old Star Wars, unchanged. But they still want it to be Star Wars, not something else. They also don't want to be told hey if you're tired of Star Wars why not watch Rebel Moon. They want the old. But a new one. Not so new it's something else. Just newer than before.

That's the whole point here. That's what people like. Which is why Blizzard is giving it to them - not to justify their own labor, but because of customer demand.

This isn't "change for change's sake" this is change for novelty's sake. Novelty itself is the benefit.

It's ok to want new zone, continent, planet, armor design, lore, etc. When you play Diablo, it's ok to ask for new act. But, as it was said by other poster, yeah, classes/specs - are exactly that "familiar frameworks", that shouldn't be changed. And yeah. As I've already said, I also agree, that changes should be made only if they lead to improvements. What design resets achieve - is illusion of improvements. When Blizzard run out of room for improvements - they just reset things and start from scratch. Is it productive? I don't think so.

Yeah. I have to agree, that some classes/specs still needed improvements. SP needed that 2nd AOE stack, because it was way too prone to wasting it's only one. But what started to happen with specs like BM Hunter - were exceeding changes. Some abilities aren't interesting enough? Ok, make them more interesting! Removing them - is terrible idea.

What you don't understand, is that any ability can be treated as "iconic". You understand, that Paladin without bubble isn't Paladin. You understand, that Rogue without stealth isn't Rogue. Then why don't you understand, that losing buttons is painful?