Downranking has been supported by Blizzard

#0 - Aug. 15, 2008, 6:01 p.m.

I am the kind of person that gets offended when someone is less than honest with me. Especially when evidence to the contrary is so readily available. I do not see the downranking nerf as that big of a deal. It'll make the game harder, yes but not unplayable.

But I cannot abide someone intentionally misleading me. It's a matter of principle. Tell me the truth and I can accept that. But don't misrepresent the facts and expect people like me to just follow along blindly.

Blizzard is not being forthcoming with the truth ( That's the nicest way to say it ) and here are only three of the pieces of evidence out there showing that this is the case.

First, the fabrication:

Q u o t e:

Zarhym wrote:

This change was made primarily to prevent downranking, as it's a technique that was never quite intended.

Now the facts:

Blizzard has supported it in the past. The devil is in the details, my good Blizzard peoples. Allow me to show you.

1) If downranking is unintended then why are those spells accessible to the players?

Heroic Strike rank 2 completely replaces Heroic Strike rank 1. A warrior has no access to lower ranked abilities once he learns the higher ranked one. And yet, all lower ranked spells are still accessible once a higher ranked spell is learned. One cannot claim that they didn't intend to program the game this way. Unintended effects of programming is called a bug. Is Blizzard claiming that the practice of downranking is exploiting a bug? No they are not. In fact they cannot because they have supported downranking in two other ways.

2) CastSpellByName() API function

Why have this function require a rank delineation if Blizzard only wanted the highest rank to be used? Hmmm? Why add it at all? There seems to have been alot of programming work going into allowing players the ability to downrank, doesn't there?

3) Why sticky a guide about overhealing and downranking if it's unintended?

Over on the EU forums, the following thread:

http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=4271898338&sid=1&pageNo=1

It's a Priest guide which covers 5 points. 2 of the points are overhealing and downranking. If Blizzard didn't support downranking then why is the Blue Response as follows:

Q u o t e:

Wryxian wrote:

Nicely written :-) This thread should be appearing in the Forum Watch on our front page. Also, I’ve added it to the “useful thread” sticky post, here in the Priest forum.

So as recent as June 10th, 2008 ( when this blue response went up ) Blizzard employees were supporting the downranking practice.

In conclusion, Blizzard has supported the practice of downranking through their purposeful inclusion of accessible lower ranked spells, inclusion in their own .Lua functions for add ons and through their continued support of guides for new players explaining downranking and its benefits. For Blizzard to now claim that this was unintended is a falsehood and I for one cannot stand by and allow them to try to pull the wool over my eyes without standing up and saying," ummmm........no."

NOTE TO MODERATORS: I intentionally reworded much of this, before posting, to refrain from name calling or inflammitory accusations. This post is a metered response to information provided by Blizzard. It is informative to the community in the sense it tells them where the policies of Blizzard towards our community are leading us.

Nethaera

#14 - Aug. 15, 2008, 6:31 p.m.

We've been very forthcoming with the truth. Let's look at it from this angle. Downranking added a lot of extra considerations to design and balance. When people downrank, it changes the complexities of different encounters and how those complexities play into the design. We don't want to penalize people using low ranked spells because this doesn't quite address the issue of downranking either. So what we're doing instead is finding a consistent cost of mana across the board and making it so that when you rank up, you get more benefit out of that higher ranked spell. The cost should remain largely consistent as you go along.

What Zarhym has said and what Wryxian has said are not at odds with each other. One is simply saying "this wasn't intended" the other was saying "if you're going to do it, this is the strategy people are using" and highlighting someone elses' post. We are not advocating downranking, but we are now making it a thing of the past.

That said, there are other things that people need to remember when considering this change:

We anticipate there being some balance concerns and problems due to this change, and will be ready to implement new spells, abilities, or talents to resolve those issues as we feel are necessary. Consider that we are working to make sure that the impact of these changes isn't going to affect people negatively.
The change is factoring in BASE mana and is not taking into account the added bonuses of intellect, buffs, potions, etc. Base mana is just that. It's looking at the very foundation of your character and basing the mana cost from that.
It is known that some players may need to readjust their playstyle a bit to accomodate this change. Whether it's focusing more on regeneration, efficient allocation of healing, and utilizing the full range of spells and abilities within their repertoire.
This is still a work in progress. Adjustments will be made, but these will be made based on testing and experiences within the beta. This change isn't being removed, but will be adjusted as needed. Keep in mind also, that this change affects all ranks of spells and abilities that use mana so we will be keeping a close eye on what is occurring at both the lower end and at the higher end to achieve the best possible results overall.
Within the beta, people are gaining a lot of new abilities and are still getting used to what these can do and where the potential issues may be. The mana change is only one factor in this experience and it's important to keep an eye on how these changes are affecting everything as a whole.
Constructive Feedback- We can not stress how important this is. Pointing fingers, or "he said, she said" isn't going to help with getting the maximum value out of this change. Testing, trying things out, weighing and balancing experiences and reporting them to us, this is important. This is the best possible time for this feedback because changes are occurring right now. Could more changes follow even after the release of the expansion? Of course. We are always watching and keeping tabs on what is occurring with players.

In the end of all this, it's important to realize that we aren't making this change arbitrarily. We also understand that this change was going to bring about a lot of conversation. The message is still the same as when we first put it up. We are getting rid of downranking, but we are doing it in a way that we feel is the most beneficial and are keeping a close eye on what may still need adjusted to maximize the overall benefit of this change.

Nethaera

#23 - Aug. 15, 2008, 6:39 p.m.

Hello *taps the mic* Is this thing on? ;)

Nethaera

#39 - Aug. 15, 2008, 6:49 p.m.

Q u o t e:
I don't have a problem with adapting my healing style.

I do have a problem with the fact that my direct heal options will be reduced to a 9k greater heal or a 6k flash heal. I also object to priest healing being simplified in such a way that we're reduced to a 5 button mash and not a lot of thought required in choosing which one.

If I wanted that kind of mind numbing experience, I'd play my warlock.

I think you're underestimating the new possibilities you'll have. Then again, it's all contingent on your playstyle and what you want to get out of it. For example, Priests have some new tricks up their sleeves in the expansion that expands upon their options (depending on how you spec) that should make things a bit more interesting. In group settings, you will need to start looking at stacking those hots a bit more, focusing your heals out a bit more, getting some solid regen on your character etc.

Again, I can't emphasize this enough, but we are also still keeping a close eye on what these costs are actually meaning for people that are in these sorts of situations and will be making any needed adjustments. We also haven't reached cap in the beta, so that will also need to be a factor of consideration as well.

Nethaera

#67 - Aug. 15, 2008, 7:07 p.m.

Q u o t e:

No, Neth - that should have been a factor of consideration as to whether you should have enacted this change at all. What a ridiculous statement.

It is an ongoing factor of consideration on where we are for the base costs of spells and abilities that use mana. It would not be better to add this in at a later point in time given that it affects all ranks of these spells and abilities. This is about ongoing balance from the beginning to the top end at 80.

Again, we understand that there would be a lot of discussion both negative and positive toward this change, keeping it constructive though is what helps us most. Reverting it is not an option.

Nethaera

#89 - Aug. 15, 2008, 7:18 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Gheal rank 2
Gheal rank 4
Gheal rank 7
Fheal rank 7
Fheal rank 9
CoH rank 2
CoH rank 5

And now I get to use Fheal and Gheal only pretty much since I plan on going Disc in WotLK and their new heal in the tree costs a boatload of mana and comes with a 10 sec cooldown. This is nothing more than a dumbing down of healing as downranking added a layer of complexity to it, and I really do hope Blizz knows how much work is now ahead of them to make the game fun again without this change. Do you guys even know of the practice of reaching a new +healing plateau with gear and moving your spells down a rank so that +healing eventually leads to more regen as you use less mana to heal? Will anything you guys put in counter this?

Neth, a lot of the problem also comes from the fact that if I, say, MT heal, I'm using the exact same heals I had since like lv20. Now of course the beta is still early, and we don't even know the full range of trained skills we'll get on the way to 80, but yikes. I always liked having a "sweet" spot in terms of my heals. 2k fast heal, 4.5k or 5k slow heal. Usually any more than this is vast overkill, any less is not worth it. Please have them keep this kind of thing in mind. Also they should keep in mind that if this change went live today, Sunwell itself would be completely impossible, so that's also where some of the concern comes from. Of course I'm aware new content can be built around this change, but many of us find Sunwell fun and really hope WotLK raiding isn't dumbed down to too huge of an extent, which this change smacks of.

If you are talking about the top end Discipline talent Penance, it's an 8 second cooldown with a talent and can be extremely effective during healing or even as damage when solo.

I'm not disregarding what you are saying, but just letting you know that you can shave some time off of that cooldown and mixed with other spells, it's effective. You can't spam it, but it's still an effective tool.

Even outside of just Discipline, Holy itself is proving to be more improved and well-rounded though, again, we're watching feedback and taking in data from the testing on what is working well and what still needs tweaked a bit.

As for when I said "stacking" hots, I'm not saying you have more than one hot, but can take advantage of stacking hots with others as a part of spreading out the heals within a group.

Nethaera

#124 - Aug. 15, 2008, 7:36 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Neth, I appreciate your post on this. As a very long time raid healer I see this as a very negative change but if the Developers are intent on making it happen then so be it. We've adapted before we'll learn to adapt again.

My concern comes from your comment in two of your posts about our gearing choices. Pre-TBC I would say you are right. But in TBC everything became minor upgrades or side-grades with near identical stat balances. In WotLK we've been told Blizzard wants to stream-line armour so more classes will be able to share the same gear.

So my question is will we really have that choice? Could a healer eschew a glut of plus spell power and focus on regen if that was their choice? And I'm not talking about enchant choices. I'm talking about real gear choice. Pieces that have minimal to no spell power and instead use that stat budget for spirit or mp5?

We fully intend for there to be solid choices available for you dependent on what you want to get out of things. If anything, you should have a larger variety to choose from.

There are always those that have trepidations about the unknown of going from a known to a partly unknown and we're working to make that not nearly as scary as people think.

There are also many talents in the trees (in reference to priests in this example) that refund mana or increase mana regeneration.

Could there be hiccups in the system? Sure, but we'll be doing what we can to get that spoonful of sugar in there to make those go away where we can.

Nethaera

#147 - Aug. 15, 2008, 7:44 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Yes, but then we get things like Koraa in the beta Priest forums saying "You guys aren't testing enough." How are people supposed to test endgame scaling when there is no endgame?

Test what is in now and provide thorough feedback. Find those holes, ferret them out, and let us know. There is more to Wrath than the endgame. There is a whole journey in there that we want you to take, but we need testers to let us know how it's going along the way.

We're not saying at 80 we're implementing more sweeping changes. We're saying at 80, more options that factor in to balance come into play so we need to keep that as a part of the considerations we make when making changes in the "lower" end of play.

This is great conversation everyone is having and I think it's very easy for many people to feel as if this change is far more impactful in a negative way than it really is based on current experiences. Talents, playstyle, and gear will all come into play and we want to know where those bumps in the road are so we can smooth them out where we can.

Nethaera

#168 - Aug. 15, 2008, 7:53 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Nethaera I'm a sad panda right now, it feels like your making a simpler game, and it disgusts me

Actually this opens the door for better encounters that don't require a lot of extra and convoluted design that has to take into account factors that dilute the experience.

Nethaera

#206 - Aug. 15, 2008, 8:09 p.m.

Q u o t e:

What about those of us who don' t care for PvE encounters and are worried about how this has huge PvP ramifications?

It all gets taken into consideration. This isn't a PvE vs PvP thing. In the example of Holy Nova, hearing that it may not be nearly as useful in a PvP situation is good to hear. Whether how it works or what its mana cost ends up being or not, I couldn't say, but it's something that would bear into changes and design for this spell. (This applies to all classes that this affects.)

Also, I thought I'd mention that if you only want to show your top ranked spells, you can click off the "Show all spell ranks" option in your spellbook. (In the beta currently)

I don't want to overstep things on design concepts because I am not a designer, but an example might be creating an encounter where it's anticipated that players will maximize their efficiency by downranking to X rank. That in turn makes it so that any player that walks into that encounter would need to downrank in order to maximize their own efficiency and completely forgo those upper end spells and abilities. It's a catch 22.

As you go up in level, so do many spells and abilities and it only figures that we would want you to use those spells and abilities over the ones you had before. It also goes to figure that we would design encounters with those spells and abilities in mind as being used in order to accomplish getting through those encounters.

Nethaera

#240 - Aug. 15, 2008, 8:21 p.m.

Q u o t e:

I would be more than happy to test it if it were available on PTR.

But it's in beta, and beta is an exclusive sort of club, so all the concerned players have is discussing it, hashing it, and engaging in dialogue (sp?) with the CM's.

Kudos to Neth for sticking with this thread as long as she has. It IS a good discussion, even if players disagree with her based on the information currently available (publicly).

Aside from the opt-ins, BlizzCon sign-ups, and WWI sign-ups, the various official fansites are also running contests. ;) Also, invitations continue to be ongoing so do not abandon hope just yet and get in on the contests while you can.

Nethaera

#262 - Aug. 15, 2008, 8:27 p.m.

Q u o t e:

When I wrote exams, I always went to the easiest questions first too.

Will you be retooling current content to account for these changes? That seems like a great deal of work to get done before the end of the year.

If you think addressing concerns people may have about downranking is easy, then I must be making it look that way. ;) There is a wide range of ideas and concerns here and there is no way I can address them all other than by giving the information I have and waiting until more people get experience with the changes.

Current content isn't being retooled though, again, we're watching the effects of changes for where there may be issues and I'm sure we'll run into a few more that weren't tested and we'll get to those as well too. Keep in mind, when this change is implemented, the new spells and abilities will be at everyone's disposal as well. So saying that the other content needs retooled isn't necessarily true.

Nethaera

#302 - Aug. 15, 2008, 8:43 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Heh, I did get a laugh out of that line of company mouthpiece-speak. "Please by all means test and discuss this change, but we have zero intention of reverting it, whatsoever."

It's basically the customer service version of "sod off, we're right and you're wrong, no matter what evidence you may try to provide to the contrary."

Y'know what, hey, they're allowed to say that. They do in fact own the game and can change whatever they want. They could declare tomorrow that playing a gnome is grounds for a ban, and it'd be the rules. It'd be stupid as hell, and would cause massive customer outcry (and a huge wash of cancellations, just for the moronic precedent it set), but it'd be their right to do it.

This change screams of "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

There is a big difference between saying "that doesn't work let's revert it" and saying, "we're committed to making this work and making the needed changes to make it work". Please don't confuse those. We have reverted things in the past that we felt just weren't working out so I'd hate for people to believe that once in, in forever for everything we do. We don't work like that and I think it misrepresents us by saying this.

I can understand people being frustrated by changes they didn't like, but that doesn't mean those changes didn't work, it just meant that some people didn't care for them.

Nethaera

#322 - Aug. 15, 2008, 8:53 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Glad I am leveling my druid now. If current content isn't being re-tooled leveling 58-70 looks to be a huge grind fest, since instances will be nearly impossible.

Also I can understand, well not understand, but I at least hear what you are saying about priests down ranking and thus messing up encounters. But no mage or lock is going to downgrade thier spells unless it is in pvp or they are farming soulstones.

Just makes me thing that this is another nerf to PVE based on Arenas.

If you're looking at leveling concerns, we do have some things planned for easing it from 60-70 as noted by Jeff Kaplan not long ago.

Nethaera

#351 - Aug. 15, 2008, 9:07 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Sorry Neth but Im gonna have to call you on that one.

YOU posted on the beta forums this:

allow me to highlight the important part:

You have already stated that this change is permanent. Only adjustments are to be made. Lets not backpeddle and act like we the player base should KNOW something opposite of what you have already stated to be the case.

Once again, this is NOT about the change itself but Blizzards ATTITUDE towards the playerbase and it's lack of consistency when it comes to its statements.

Please reread what I've said. I have said that the argument that we don't revert changes at all is inaccurate. I also said that there is a difference between not reverting a change we don't feel is working and being committed to something that we feel is beneficial and making sure it works well.