Will Cataclysm make it EASIER to fix things?

#0 - Feb. 18, 2010, 9:30 a.m.

TL;DR version at the bottom.

As long as gear and content keep changing, true class balance will never be achieved - and we're fine with that. It's what makes the game interesting. But with the state of WotLK, when a class, spec, ability or item is severely broken (OP or UP) the crazy complexity of the game and the evaluation process can mean it can take SEVERAL weeks or even months before it is addressed. Some things are addressed almost immediately, within hours or days. Most things are not.

Now I'm aware of the popular quote that if given a choice, the developers would never release the game because they would endlessly keep finding ways to improve it. But this is not the case and there are time frames involved.
In WotLK we've seen some things that haven't been addressed at all despite this expansion being out for well over a year - players are at a loss to explain why, only the developers know the true complexities of balance and they don't HAVE to reveal everything they discuss to the player base. GC has done a fantastic job considering he's only 1 person.

Cataclysm is said to add more depth to the game while reducing it's complexity and confusion. But don't be fooled, Cataclysm will also bring in a brand new set of problems - probably more problems than it will fix. This is expected and shouldn't be seen in a negative way.

My question to the devs is this - will Cataclysm's new and efficient approach make buffs/nerfs/fixes easier and most importantly FASTER to accomplish?
If, for example a discussion between the developers pops up in Cataclysm "ok guys, we feel demonology is doing too much damage" - will a solution be generated, discussed, evaluated and implemented within shorter time periods compared to WotLK?
Or will we yet again see things remain broken for frustratingly long periods of time?

TL;DR: Will Cataclysm's new design and approach make buffs/nerfs/fixes easier to figure out and FASTER to implement?

Ghostcrawler

#14 - Feb. 18, 2010, 8:57 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Will Cataclysm's new design and approach make buffs/nerfs/fixes easier to figure out and FASTER to implement?

It will. However just because we can make a change doesn't mean we should make a change. While a lot of players are understandably impatient when their preferred spec is falling behind, there are also a lot of players who don't dig the "rollercoaster of buffs and nerfs" as they would put it. The feelings of those players counts too and we have to weigh both when making a decision.

Ghostcrawler

#17 - Feb. 18, 2010, 9:10 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Fixes have not been fast.
By "fixes" I don't mean wishlists or hopes or dreams - I mean fixes for things that are blatantly overpowered, something which 90%+ of the forum community will immediately agree with.

Things like Subtlety, Armor Penetration, etc - there is a MASSIVE list of things that are considered broken and not simply wishes or hopes. And the evaluation process as to how to fix them is apparently still taking place.
If it had been finished we would've seen some ingame implementations by now. But the complexities involved are such that we can only take vague stabs at what the developers are discussing and why the discussions are taking so long, GC has admitted that he's not always 100% familiar with what the devs are trying to do. There is often confusion between GC and the devs who actually design/code the changes in, e.g. Mirror Images.

One can only hope that the new and more "simple" approach of Cataclysm will also speed up fixes.

Hmm. The fixes have been fast compared to any point in WoW's history. The old paradigm was to only make changes at major content patches. Hot fixes were reserved for stuff of the server-crashing variety. Now days we change things pretty frequently. Now I can accept that it still may not be fast enough for you, but we also hear from plenty of players who feel things change too fast. Their opinion also counts.

You may miss Subtlety, as do we, and it's a goal to get it back up to par. But you have to realize the risks. When we wanted to get Survival up to par with Beastmaster, we ended up driving most PvP and raiding players into Survival. That's a drag when you have to learn a new spec and possibly even regem and enchant your gear. Buffing Subtlety would be awesome. If we over-buff it then we force all of the Assassination and Combat rogues to change. If we underbuff it, then we face the wrath of all those players who ask why we even bothered. That gives us a pretty narrow window. :)

I am dubious that "90%+ of the forum community" would agree on anything (except perhaps "my class needs buffs") and even if it did, we don't design by community poll. It would be a pretty interesting game if we did. Now we do like to make informed decisions, but that's different.

I am a developer, and I am intimately familiar with what we are working on and can speak with 100% authority about high level philosophy as it applies to class and item design, since in essence that's a part of the game my team owns. I was wrong about Mirror Image with regard to threat, though to be fair, so were many of the designers, because that was the original design of the spell. It's a big game and it's hard for any one person to know every detail of every spell, though the issues are simple enough to research when needed. Even if we didn't know an answer (and to be fair, most of them we do know), we have the tools to get them quickly.

Ghostcrawler

#22 - Feb. 18, 2010, 9:22 p.m.

Q u o t e:
This is kind of a moot point in my mind. If the buffs are targeting the proper areas and thought out fully then there is no roller coaster ride.

The key words being "in my mind." :) I know it may be strange to you that some players might prefer less frequent updates, even if that means some classes / specs are overpowered or underpowered for a time, nevertheless I can assure you that is the case. Initially, I didn't realize that would be such a strong sentiment. I assumed more changes, assuming they fixed problems and weren't just for change's sake, would always be preferable. I was disabused of that notion. Some players prefer a status quo over constant change. You can cynically imagine that those are only the OP dudes wanting to stay OP, but I don't think that is 100% fair. Perhaps some of them will speak up in this thread, but even if they don't, they still exist.

Ghostcrawler

#24 - Feb. 18, 2010, 9:23 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Personally, I'm more concerned with whether Blizzard is still committed to evaluating and making changes as appropriate for the rest of this expansion...

We are.