11/12/09 10:41:39 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Onefivesix |
If Blizzard can't even get tank
balance now, what hope is there for any semblance of tank balance
in Cataclysm? For all intents and purposes, once we deal with a new
level cap, gear, talants, it will likely be as imbalanced as it was
during Ulduar or even worse.
Blizzard has shown us that they do not care about tank balance. As
far as PVE goes, it is quite literally, the last thing they think
of. They've shown us again and again by:
1.Letting paladins go without a decent second cooldown until patch
3.2
2. Their refusal to nerf death knights until 3.2.
3. Going way too far with nerfing Death Knights in 3.2.
4. Refusal to do anything worthwhile about improving block. And it
already appears the change isn't even going to make it for
Cataclysm.
5. Refusal to balance any of the separate class's resource systems,
deal with the gaping problems and the glaring weaknesses to any of
them.
6. Refusal to do anything about improving bear itemization.
7. Refusal to bring AoE and single target TPS inline with each
other.
8. Hell, the horrible itemization for tanking gear in
general.
What makes you think they will managed to fix anything by
Cataclysm? What makes you won't think they won't break anything?
The truth is, tank balance is all going down hill from here. I
suppose saying "they don't care about tanks" is too much, but its
become apparent that its and after thought to them.
I mean Christ, its painfully apparent how they don't even care
about tank itemization. Look at the Icecrown gear? Do you remember
about a year ago, GC was stating how players "start out with
chicken (lower Ilevel gear with less favorable stats) and work
their way up to steak (High ILevel gear that is itemized very
well).
Well, we're at steak, or at least we should be, and they still feel
the need to have the majority of tanking gear have block on it.
Why? Not even tanks with block on it want that.
|
11/16/09 12:05:09 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
On Sartharion +3, cutting-edge guilds
who normally tank with a warrior would (perhaps somewhat
begrudgingly) use a DK to tank instead because the benefit was so
massive. The same thing happened on Vezax where good guilds
replaced their warrior tanks with DKs. Death knights were
overpowered at the time.
We are not seeing the kind of massive swapping one class of tank
for another in ToC or the preliminary Icecrown testing. It's just
not happening. If paladins or druids are too good or warriors or
death knights aren't good enough, we're just not seeing them
getting used for those fights to anywhere near the extent that DKs
replaced other tanks on the encounters mentioned above.
As just one example (and I wouldn't put too much weight behind
this), the number of paladin tanks used to test Icecrown on the PTR
has been almost imperceptibly low. It's possible there were
actually none this weekend, or else the numbers were so small that
we missed them. Sure these are not the hard mode encounters
generally being tested, and you can come up with your own
explanations for differences between how players might approach PTR
and "real" raiding. But these are the kind of lopsided datasets we
have to deal with when we're looking at who is using what tank and
how that relates to success.
I'm not talking about balancing around representation, as players
often mistakenly claim. I am asking the question that I have asked
before: if one or two of the tank classes have such a superior and
unequivocal advantage in making a fight easier, why aren't more
guilds using them, especially given the evidence that they
have swapped tanks on previous encounters? I understand
individuals of you may state it has happened to your guild. That's
fine, but understand you are in a small minority. Overall, it's
just not happening.
One conclusion you can draw (though certainly not the only one) is
that whatever differences in survivability there appear to be "on
paper," just don't make a significant difference in the actual
fights, or at least not enough of a difference that guilds feel
compelled to switch or are held back by not switching.
As an aside: there are some specific fights where the specific
mechanics lead guilds to tend to use one tank over another, say a
druid to tank Thorim hard or a shield-using tank on adds for Anub
hard. Most players aren't as concerned about these one-off
encounters because it feels like such an encounter-specific problem
and doesn't feel like anyone's job as guild main tank is in
jeopardy. (Individuals of you may feel differently of
course.)
I know there are lot of threads on this topic right now. I avoided
many of the ones that are doing a good job discussing numbers
because I didn't want to derail them.
|
11/16/09 12:35:09 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
When you mention Sarth+3 or Vezax hard mode, you make it sound like
it really mattered that DKs were better tanks for those encounters,
but then when discussing Thorim hard mode or Heroic Anub, you make
it sound like it doesn't matter that certain tanks are better for
those encounters.
No, I totally agree that the distinction may be subtle or even
subjective. The way I would describe it is that druids are good on
Thorim because of Unbalancing Strike, and not just because "druids
are better tanks." If every, or even many, bosses had Thorim's
attacks, then druids might be perceived as too good overall. (And
they may be, but not because of their lack of reliance on
defense.)
To use a contrived example, if there was a boss that could be
beaten by anyone but more easily defeated by Spell Reflect, you
might see a lot of grumbling about how good warriors were tanking
that particular fight, but you wouldn't I expect see a lot of folks
arguing that warriors were too good across the board. That case has
less to do with say EH or cooldowns and more to do with a specific
mechanic of that fight. But as I said, it's subjective. If the
druid was so good on Thorim that you felt gimped without a druid
and felt like you had to recruit one, then it would cross the line
and doubtless that line would be at different positions for
different folks.
|
11/16/09 12:38:39 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
So basically you've realized that you posting tends to make threads
worse more than they make them better and have decided to post in
the threads that are terrible QQ in the first place?
If I wanted to comment or criticize someone's numbers, I would post
in a thread about numbers. If I wanted to discuss philosophy, I
might look for a different thread. Overall I try to avoid both the
worst and best ones.
Honestly though you would do us all a favor not to put too much
emphasis on whether a thread is rewarded or punished by a blue
post. When I have something I want to say, I try and say it.
Requiring me to analyze the absolute best place to say it just
takes away time I could be using to address another issue
elsewhere.
|
11/16/09 12:42:47 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
so, unless Kungen, Xav and the other warriors that have been
tanking for their guilds for 5 years quit....
You named those names, not me. I feel the need to respond here so
that my original post doesn't get locked into "Blue only cares
about the top 1%," because of your interpretation. I feel if I had
not added the caveat that we look at reasonably good guilds that
someone like you could have easily posted "Oh great. Because some
idiot chose to tank Icecrown with a Voidwalker instead of a tanking
class, they dilute the data from groups that actually know what
they're doing."
|
11/16/09 12:46:13 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
First, you are limiting it to within a guild when you should
actually be looking at it as different guilds using different
tanks.
While we are fine with talking philosophy or design goals, we
generally don't talk about how we come up with our decisions or
specific data. We want you to focus on the end result (the game)
and not on trying to criticize our data-collection techniques. Both
are valid things to comment on if this was a peer reviewed journal
and you wanted to point out flaws in our setup. But these forums
are targeted towards feedback on class balance and mechanics not on
how Blizzard operates.
|
11/16/09 02:46:34 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
GC likes to ask 'If it is unbalanced, why don't guilds swap'. The
answer is because of the massive barrier to finding, gearing, and
training a new tank. Often times the task is impossible due to
availability of certain classes. In case you haven't noticed, there
aren't as many paladins and druids in the game. And there are a ton
of experienced warrior tanks from Vanilla wow days, when warrior
*was* the tank. Guilds don't have a choice of tanks, they have to
work with what is available. Good feral tanks don't just spring up
out of the ground fully formed.
I can accept that the challenge of finding and gearing new tanks
can affect individual guilds. Overall I am suspicious that it
accounts for the fact that very few guilds use paladin or druid MTs
on progression attempts. It is arguing that guilds might
desperately want druid or paladin tanks because everyone knows they
make the fight easier, but they just can't find any. Yet when DKs
made the fights easier everyone managed to find those. I have a
hunch that if we made a fight in which stacking Blacksmithing BM
hunters with Nether Ray pets conveyed a significant advantage that
we would see Nether Rays coming out of the woodwork. Players
typically find a way when it matters.
We totally get that many long-term guilds still use warrior tanks
because they always have. We did see many of those guilds switch to
DKs for certain fights though. They by and large are not doing that
now. Why not?
|
11/16/09 02:50:18 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
The way you operate directly correlates with how things happen in
the game. Questioning your methodology is directly talking about
the end result. The end result is merely a product of your
methodology. It is always valid to question methodology when it
influences end result. To think otherwise is to believe one's self
to be beyond reproach.
We don't run our meeting schedules, marketing plans, office
configuration, compensation structure, shipping schedules or other
information about our operations with our customers or the
community. That isn't to say they are above reproach. We just
aren't particularly interested in your feedback on them. We are
very interested in your feedback on WoW classes. Stick to that
topic if you want to be heard. :)
|
11/16/09 03:13:54 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
This is an interesting point. One thing I've noticed is that
warrior tanks are still in raids, but as off tanks now, not as main
tanks. This is something that blizz might not notice as easily,
they just count the number of tanks with certain achievements, they
don't know what job the tank did. Even some of the more famous
tanks have put themselves in an OT role, for the sake of
progression.
Right now paladin and druid get put in front of the bosses.
Warriors clean up the adds in the back. And poor DK's are
dpsing.
I can understand how that might be your perspective, but if you
could see the whole picture you might understand that you are
dramatically overstating things. It may be true of your guilds or
your friends or the guys you talk to on the forums. It is not true
overall. Most bosses are tanked by warriors. Most hard mode bosses
are tanked by warriors. Nearly all server first boss kills are done
with warrior main tanks. Paladin tanks are so rare that it
sometimes doesn't even feel fair to compare the data.
However, we do know that sometimes those warriors will step aside
because another class conveys enough of an advantage that they must
feel it's worth it. This was true of say Sartharion and Vezax. It
is not true in ToC on anything remotely of that scale. We don't
think it will be true of Icecrown based on testing so far. If it
becomes a problem -- if we think that raid groups with warrior or
DK tanks (or even druid or paladins) are struggling more than other
groups -- then we'll do something about it.
|
11/16/09 03:19:37 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Blizzard does not have an internal raid group capable of
Heroic Mode 25 man raiding. They would be at best world 1000 in the
ranks to venture a guess. Ghostcrawler admitted that the internal
group had trouble with Yogg-Saron *normal*, all 4 keepers used,
during ulduar testing.
This is why PTR exists, or at least one big reason. Without the
bleeding edge guilds that test there, no Quality Assurance would be
done at all on heroic mode encounters.
Consider the number of hours a week many heroic mode raiders spend
raiding, farming, researching, etc. It is a full time job, one that
blizzard developers simply do not have time for, and blizzard isn't
going to hire players to test for them when they can get us to do
it for free.
We test hard modes and we employ outstanding players who know the
game very well.
We are also smart enough to recognize that independent testing can
be very valuable. Some of the best information we get out of the
PTR is seeing what solutions players try and come up with to handle
various encounters. That kind of coverage works better the more
players you have who partake. It's also great to see how players
with no previous exposure to the encounter react to it. Once a
tester here has seen the fight, they are no longer
inexperienced.
|
11/16/09 03:23:11 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Because Ulduar "ended" at almost the same time you nerfed
DKs. Coliseum has had one EH testing fight, and one fight where
mechanics favored warriors offtanking and Druids maintanking. The
other fights can have any tank thrown in without much worry since
they're more about raid coordination.
Again, my money is on you not seeing a lot of tank swapping till
the hardmodes of ICC are ungated/locked. However, at that point I
really think you'll see this shift you don't see now happening just
like DKs were shifted to in Ulduar. The EH, avoidance and cooldown
discrepancies between Paladins(and to a degree Druids) and the
other two tanks are too high to not make a difference on any fight
that challenges tank survival.
If your point is that swapping isn't happening now but might happen
in the future, I think you have more of a leg to stand on, simply
because we so far lack the empirical evidence to support or not
support that prediction. Some of your compatriots here are arguing
that swapping is happening now. It's not, at least not on a large
scale.
|
11/16/09 03:27:40 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
GC i sure hope your vision for "bring the player not the class" is
for every player to have a tank of each class and swap it in for
fights that need it...
cause that's what it really is feeling like right now.
"if things are so bad, why aren't people switching chars?" is never
a proper excuse to discount the math.
That's not our vision. In fact, part of the reason we wanted to
make all four classes generally good at everything was to avoid the
burden of guilds having to gear up a DK for those relatively rare
magic fights for which they were originally (before LK shipped)
designed to tank.
I'll counter your final quote by saying that theoretical models are
never a proper excuse to discount empirical data. Empirical data in
this case can only be gathered by raiding. Making estimates by
using math does not somehow get you closer to the truth just
because the mathematical operations themselves are pure. If doing
math solved all the world's complicated problems, we'd be surprised
as a society a lot less often. :)
[ Post edited by
Ghostcrawler ]
|
11/16/09 03:34:40 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
because there a difference between having an easier time, and being
a fool not to switch. Using a paladin or druid will no doubt be a
better choice in current content, but this isnt enough to
counteract 5 years of dedicated service.
Now, early on Vezax and Sarth 3d, you would have had to have been a
complete fool not to use a dk because of their cooldowns. It was
because of a minute IBF. I know this, I know you know this, so why
are we playing these games?
If we know that players will switch tanks at some point and yet
they are not switching tanks now, then perhaps any perceived
imbalances among tanks are not that big a deal in reality, or at
least not as bad as some of these forum posts might have you
believe.
If your contention is that many of these discussions are about
slight yet annoying imbalances among tank classes, well okay, but
my sense is that many of these frequent posters are describing a
situation they think is much more dire.
|
11/16/09 03:35:20 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
You better print the lunch menu though!
Goretusk Liver Pie. Yum.
|
11/16/09 03:48:08 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Guilds don't switch tanks when it's do-able with one tank, but 10%
easier with another tank. 10% easier with another tank is still a
problem, though, and one that you have, thus far, not shown any
desire to fix.
It's just challenging for you to prove that a 10% difference
exists, or even that 10% somehow crosses the line. I'm not even
sure what "10% easier" means. That the fight is 10% more stressful
for your healers? That you progress 10% slower than other guilds?
That you have a 10% more likely chance to wipe? That means that for
every 10 times you fight a challenging boss that you'll wipe once
because you picked the wrong tank. That kind of prediction seems
like it would swamped with the myriad of other variables that could
affect your success. High latency probably makes a fight much more
than 10% harder or easier.
[ Post edited by
Ghostcrawler ]
|
11/16/09 03:51:26 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
1. Warriors are generally considered to be very "fun"
2. Paladins/Druids have a fairly "static" rotation which can lead
to boredom
Plenty of players find warriors not fun or enjoy paladins or
druids. I'm not sure you could quantify that at all. And even if
you could, I just don't buy that guilds wouldn't find a way if it
really made progress significantly easier for them. Maybe not every
casual raiding guild could, but the hardcore ones would do it
quickly. Someone would be willing to take the hit and play the less
fun class in order to advance. If it made progress slightly easier
for them, then yeah, maybe, but if we're talking about "slightly
easier" then aren't there more pressing issues to handle?
|
11/16/09 03:59:41 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
How in the world did you go from me questioning your data
collection methodology to your day to day activities like meetings
and work schedules? What I brought up was perfectly valid. I
questioned the metric you are using to determine if something is
imbalanced or not. I think you are looking at the wrong thing as
your litmus test for determining if there is an imbalance.
I am on the topic of class balance because I am questioning what
you are looking at to determine if there is a class imbalance. I
think you are looking at the wrong data. That is a perfectly valid
way to debate balance. Quite frankly I think you should stick to
the topic. You are the one bringing things completely unrelated to
the topic (you data collection's focus) by saying you don't run the
day to day activities of running a business by the players.
Also, I don't like your veiled threat to ban me. It is extremely
unprofessional.
It wasn't intended as a threat to ban you. I was just trying to
point out that we're not going to take very seriously feedback,
criticism or suggestions on how we gather data. Sorry if that
bothers you. I can understand why you think it's a legitimate topic
to discuss, but we disagree. That's just not part of our
development process upon which we want to have a public debate. We
want you to focus on the classes, not data gathering. That's not
why we are here on the forums.
|
11/16/09 04:09:27 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
I'm betting on at least 50% of the bosses having a huge EH
requirement, then we'll see who is tanking.
My prediction is warriors will main tank more bosses in Icecrown
than all the other tanks (probably more than all others combined),
even the hard modes, even Arthas. There might be specific fights
where other tanks do slightly better.
|
11/16/09 04:15:15 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Honestly, the only thing I want to know is why the DK cool
downs still have resource costs. For the life of me, I can't figure
it out.
Slightly off topic, but you contribute a lot to these boards so
I'll answer it. The original intent was that DKs press different
buttons when tanking than when doing dps. Warriors definitely do
that -- few Arms or Fury warriors incorporate Revenge or Shield
Slam and then Shockwave and Devastate are talented. We needed
abilities for a DK to use that sacrificed dps for survivability.
(The alternative is you don't need a tank spec at all and can do as
much dps while tanking as when not tanking, modulo gear.)
Given the realities of tapping for runes and the like, I don't
think the reality ended up where we wanted it. It would be closer
to the design if DKs dropped say one Blood Strike for a defensive
cooldown while dps DKs did not. That would be a tough change to
implement at this stage with all sorts of negative ramifications.
However just taking the costs off with the intent of putting them
on again in the future would be unpopular with players. We'll make
unpopular calls when we think they are worth it. I'm not sure this
is.
[ Post edited by
Ghostcrawler ]
|
11/16/09 04:27:14 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Q u o t e:
Nothing about anub himself is Gimicky, at all. In fact, tanking him
is as standard as they come. The only "gimick" to the encounter is
with the adds, which need to be tanked by a block tank due to the
"gimick". On anub, you want the best tank---you use a druid or
paladin, end of story.
Certainly no one has tanked Anub himself on a DK or Warrior. That
would be too hard because of class imbalance.
I agree that Anub is a difficult fight to discuss because of its
mechanics, but if you try hard enough you can find justification
for why every boss (other than Patchwerk maybe) is a gimmick and
shouldn't count. However let me also throw out that a lot of guilds
recognize that the hard part of the Anub fight isn't Anub at all,
but managing the adds. They choose to send the player who is either
their best-skilled or best-geared or just their traditional MT to
do the hard job. That player is most often a warrior.
I agree that druids are very common to tank Anub himself. However
so far it is not the case that the druid just ends up as the new MT
for the guild. Most often the druid just takes that one fight, just
as druids often take hard mode Thorim. Yogg 0 is a popular paladin
fight, probably because a million things spawn quickly to beat on
the tank at once, requiring both strong threat generation and
survival against multiple adds. However once again, this trend (if
it's even that) has not led to the paladin tanking the rest of
Ulduar hard modes.
I might even concede that every fight if you break it down enough
might slightly favor one class over another. As long as it isn't
always the same tank and as long as it doesn't lead to guilds who
"picked the wrong MT" being roadblocked, we don't think it's a
problem. We have no evidence that picking a warrior MT puts you in
that category, while we have a lot of evidence that correlates
warriors tanking with success.
|
11/16/09 04:29:23 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Only because there are numerically far more warrior tanks available
to do so.
The question was who was going to end up tanking Icecrown. The
smart money is on warriors. You can bring up EH discrepancies and
other issues if you'd like and we'll consider them. But if you're
the kind of player who is going to state for a fact that a
significant number of guilds are replacing their warrior MTs with
paladin MTs, I am here to disabuse you of that notion.
|
11/16/09 04:47:55 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
I hate when people [or Blizzard] say any of the following:
1) Guilds still employ more Warriors as MTs than any other
class.
2) The boss has been killed more times with Warriors as the MT than
any other class.
3) Guilds have more Warrior Tanks than any other class.
4) Only a small fraction of the Warrior Tanks have been benched or
replaced by a different class.
Every one of these is can be explained due to population
differences and balancing population is not balancing the classes.
All of the above can be held true simply by having 100 warrior
tanks for every 1 other class tank.
We only bring up the point because we know that raids or guilds
*will* switch tanks at some point if things are bad enough. The
fact that they aren't switching now could be evidence that things
are not as bad as some of you claim.
Q u o t e:
I don't have the population statistics, but it's pretty obvious
that there are simply more prot warriors than Prot Pallys, Bear
Druids, Tank DKs... and probably more even if you combine them all.
That does not mean that Warriors are OP.
I agree it does not mean that warriors are OP. But does it mean we
should nerf the tanking class that nobody is really using? Or maybe
it means that class balance is close enough (with regard to
tanking) that players can generally pick which class they want and
do okay.
|
11/16/09 05:12:49 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Just something slightly off-topic, have you ever thought it might
just be a better idea to start your own threads once you find a
thread you want to discuss and just post your thoughts there and
let it go from there. That way you won't find people running to a
good thread to derail it. Just an idea. :)
I've thought about it, and done it on occasion, but that tends to
minimize the back and forth between players and myself. When it's a
new thread, people sometimes seem to think that means it's an open
"Ask GC about anything" thread. We'll continue to try different
things though and see what works the best.
Sorry for going offtopic a second time.
|
11/17/09 02:52:30 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
We're just going to have to agree to
disagree that the only reason there aren't more paladin or druid
MTs is because they are hard to level or somehow less fun than
warriors. I still have a strong suspicion that guilds would find a
way. Our players have proven themselves capable of doing outlandish
even painful things that confer only a very small advantage.
Difficulty is rarely barrier to min / maxxing.
Therefore, if you believe paladins and druids are better than
warriors, then I think it must be the case that one of the
following is true:
1) The tanks are still close enough that there isn't enough
motivation to use a paladin or druid.
2) The more casual guilds are using paladins and druids. The
hardcore ones (ironically those usually accused of being most
obsessed with min / maxing) just power through the imbalance with
their warriors through skill and determination.
3) ToC and perhaps early Icecrown are not a good showcase of the
situation so the sidelining hasn't happened yet. But it's
coming.
However, even if you believe number three to be true, you can't use
that to justify the kinds of statements I am reading on this forum
about how all the warriors have already stepped aside for paladins
or that warriors are a dying breed or that your guild replaced you
for a paladin in quest blues or whatever. This last part is what I
keep trying to hammer on. You can say it might happen in the
future. It's not happening now in anything resembling a large
trend.
|
11/17/09 03:00:51 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
All they need to say is:
"We're investigating the possible tank imbalances by running stress
tests on all classes of all gear levels with multiple points of
failure embedded intentionally to ensure all tanks are reasonably
balanced on a metric of real survivability. We are running these
tests and closely observing the results and will make adjustments
as they are needed"
that's ALL.
leaving us in the dark is sheer arrogance and indifference towards
their consumer
We do that all the time. From the moment players first brought up
their concerns we looked into it. The problem comes then if we say
"We're happy with the state of things," many of you reply "No, no,
you must have done something wrong, or you would be agreeing with
us."
|
11/17/09 05:36:35 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
For most of this community, that "philosophical" vision is
dependent on Armor, Health, Damage Reduction, Cool downs and to a
lesser extent avoidance/threat. If a tank comes up short in almost
all those fields, then he is going to feel bummed out about
tanking.
Maybe our "philosophical" views are different but many of us
came to these terms about what defines a tank based on years of
playing your dungeons, GC...Trying to get us to see things
differently probably isn't going to happen.
Our philosophical vision is that you can pick one of four tanking
classes and generally be successful on any encounter. It's not a
big deal to us that someone "wins" the stamina contest as long as
everyone could still fight the boss within a relative degree of
success from each other. Determining that relative degree is pretty
hard without a large sample size of actual raid encounters. You can
estimate the differences. You can attempt to model them, and many
of you do. You can make anecdotal comments about how things feel
when you're raiding. All of those are important. Successful boss
kills are the most important metric, but also probably the hardest
thing for the average player to measure. There is no reasonable
equivalent of the dps dummy for tanking (not that dps dummies don't
come with loads of caveats for determining dps).
Put another way, cats have a ton of attack power, but it feels less
contentious because the dps specs can compare their dps. (Though
even in that case, there is a lot of quasi-religious debate about
whose dps is highest, even though it really depends a lot on raid
synergy, player skill and the encounter in question.) Holy paladins
have a ton of mana, but it's not as simple as the most mana = the
best healer. It's hard for tanking specs to compare their
"tankiness" so they tend to look at things like health and
armor (which to be clear are both amazing stats for a tank). But
the "tankiness" is far and away more important to us, and at
the same time avoiding homogenization is also really important. We
want death knights to have good cooldowns, druids to have high
health, and paladins and warriors to rely on their shields (ideally
we'd also have paladins and warriors more distinct in that
regard).
Q u o t e:
I don't see tank balance approached in the same way as DPS balance
or healer balance, I think they all get slightly different
philosophies. I think a lot of players though treat them like a DPS
treats his damage meter, we look at that one number (or a couple of
numbers) and we measure each other and see who's got the biggest.
Some of that is useful but I don't think it really applies so
easily to our role when measuring success comes in so many
shapes.
Yeah, I was trying to say something similar just above.
|
11/18/09 10:02:16 AM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
I've never seen evidence that Blizzard wants a given tank class to
be special, for one to have a niche that they'll have, especially
since they scrapped the anti-magic niche for DKs.
They want tanks to have their own special ways of doing the same
thing, but not necessarily doing one thing better than the rest
intentionally.
Yeah, we have to be very careful about the whole "I'm supposed to
be the best at X" thing. It is something we've grappled with on the
dps and healing specs too. It's fine for warlocks to have a lot of
dots and for that to help distinguish them from mages. It gets
tricky when warlocks then protest that they should have more dots
than priests because "they're supposed to be the dot class." We
aren't necessarily trying to give unique superpowers to every spec.
In fact, it's more accurate to say we've been moving away from
that.
What I was trying to say though is that we want the classes to play
differently -- the flavor goal you guys sometimes poke fun at.
Druids have a lot of armor and health. Death knights have a lot of
cooldowns. Warriors use their shields to mitigate damage. You
shouldn't take that to say "DKs need buffs because they're supposed
to have the best cooldowns."
I know the distinction may seem subtle. I'll also freely
acknowledge that A) shields have not kept up as a good form of
mitigation, and B) warriors and paladins overlap way too much as
the "shield guy." Warriors still get a lot out of their shields.
Shield Slam is not something a DK or druid can do. (Now please
don't go around quoting "GC says to bring warrior tanks on hard
mode fights for Shield Slam!")
[ Post edited by
Ghostcrawler ]
|
11/18/09 10:12:25 AM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
this would be true if you could all accomplish your task with 0%
fail rate. as soon as any fails are integrated you actually see the
benefit of having these advantages.
But paladins have a fail rate too. Furthermore, nobody has
demonstrated that the fail rate is lower for paladins. The best
anyone can do is to say "On paper it appears that paladins might
have a lower fail rate," or else "In my experience, paladins have a
lower fail rate." You can't discount either of those as sources of
information, but neither can you discount empirical evidence that
suggests in fact that warriors probably have the lowest fail rate
when you look at how many warriors successfully MT and defeat the
hard encounters. So then you are in kind of the awkward position of
arguing that even though warriors are relatively more successful
and paladins are frankly relatively rare, the warriors deserve
buffs because on paper it appears like they should be worse
tanks.
Now for those of you saying there isn't a problem now but there
might be at some point in Icecrown, I think that is a more
defensible position (if only because the empirical evidence doesn't
exist yet to support or fail to support that thesis). Part of this
job is definitely trying to look at trends and fix problems before
they get out of control. We don't think this one is going to get
out of control, but we'll see once more players are tackling hard
modes (with appropriate gear). I know some of you are saying it
will be too late then, but we're also not going to pre-fix problems
until we're pretty convinced they are actually going to be
problems.
|
11/18/09 10:20:44 AM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
If you're just going to reply to my
posts with lol, there's probably not much else I can add to the
conversation.
|
11/18/09 02:22:12 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
So it may as be a good place to vent my feelings.
No. This is a place for discussion. If that's not what you're here
for, then please don't post. There are plenty of places on the
Internet you can go vent your feelings. Please don't do so here.
Being super immensely frustrated doesn't give you a free pass to do
or say anything you want. Sorry.
|
11/18/09 05:21:35 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Q u o t e:
Didn't they say the ICC bosses will hit faster and for less
damage?
And in the same breath they said the hardmodes will test tank
survivability.
I know that seems like a two-faced answer and it bugs me that I
didn't explain it better.
The "Icewell Radiance" is designed to account for very high
avoidance levels. It lets us lower the damage bosses do per hit
because their hits will connect more often, keeping boss dps the
same but lowering spike damage.
However, I also know what that message says to some people. It says
that if I go into Icecrown and wipe on a boss all night that
Blizzard lied to me about boss damage. We're just sort of bracing
ourselves for the inevitable "I couldn't beat Marrowgar because he
hits so hard. I thought bosses wouldn't hit hard."
Bosses hitting less hard does not mean bosses can now be
facerolled. It just means they hit less hard. To be fair, most of
the folks posting in this thread understand the difference. But
it's not uncommon for us to see our quotes misused in other forums
where we can't necessarily bop in to correct the
misunderstanding.
|
11/18/09 05:40:18 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Yet those points are never refuted. Instead the response is 'tanks
aren't rerolling, thus no problem'.
How about I toss the burden of proof to the other side. Write me a
compelling theoretical model that describes, with facts from
current tanking, and current encounters, why a paladin is equal,
not superior, to a warrior. Not based on player behavior, based on
facts.
I'd love to read it. I'm a science type person and willing to
entertain the notion that I'm wrong.
I'm not sure if you were addressing us specifically Regill, but the
reason we don't do that is the same reason I have often
given:
We don't want to be in a position where we turn over all of the
power to design and balance the game to the community. We don't
want to be in a mode where we, the developers, have to get buy-off
from you guys to make the changes we think are right for the game.
We don't mind trying to explain our philosophy on things, but once
it goes from that to having to prove to the forum posters that
we're making the right decision I just think we're going to end up
in a very bad place.
I know that's not "fair" in the sense that we ultimately have the
power and the burden of evidence is 100% on you guys. But at the
same time, understand that we're not asking you to balance WoW for
us. We are very interested in your feedback, however. That's a
subtle distinction that players can't always get. They don't follow
why if we listen to them, they can't necessarily force us to agree
with them.
EDIT: I see later where you state you were talking to defenders of
the status quo and not necessarily us. That's cool -- I wasn't
necessarily trying to single you out. I still think my reply above
might help to explain our point of view a little better.
[ Post edited by
Ghostcrawler ]
|
11/19/09 04:09:43 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
So, just clarifying, Blizzard is using population as a measure of
balance with the justification that if people aren't rerolling,
then it's not a problem? So, this means that blizzard is
specifically looking for people to dislike their class so much that
they drop it entirely in lieu of whatever FOTM class their is. Why
is that necessary? Why does it have to get to the point that people
are doing making decisions on what class they play because of class
balance rather than what tank they want to play?
Some of you guys are way too hung up on this rerolling thing. I'll
try and explain it one final time, and then if you're going to
continue to try and claim I am saying something else, there's not
much I can do. The point is not that we're trying to force players
to reroll. The point is that if warriors in both cutting-edge and
more casual guilds are still beating bosses and guilds are still
overwhelmingly relying on warriors to tank content (in the face of
evidence that suggests they will swap tanks when the warriors
struggle too much) then maybe the perceived differences among tanks
really aren't that great.
Q u o t e:
What's the needed amount of people complaining in order to be
proven right since apparently that's the only way to be justified.
Is it 90 people? 100 people? 10,000 people? Are the arguments being
presented justified only if their are 50% of the warrior population
stating it?
The necessary amount is one. One player making a good argument is
sufficient to sway us. But it works the other way too. We have to
be allowed to disagree with you as well. When you slip into the
mode of "They are wrong until they make this change I want," then
you're not really granting us the ability to design the game.
You're specifying how we have to design it. I don't think you'd
like the end result if we designed in that manner.
|
11/19/09 05:41:24 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE RE-ROLLED DK WERE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT TAKES
YOU NO TIME AT ALL TO GET THEM TO 80, AND WHEN DK WERE OP, ULDUAR
HAD BARELY COME OUT,.... it's not like it was annoying to gear a
tank up then, and it's not now really, but at the same time it is,
there are "key" tanking pieces you can't get easily, such as a good
weapon for a DK.
Posting in caps doesn't make your argument any stronger. People
pages before this one acknowledged that a mere 55 level head start
is not enough to make a progression-focused guild give up on
finding someone with a vastly superior advantage to tank their
raid.
Given that they don't seem to be doing that, maybe just maybe the
advantage isn't that superior.
Q u o t e:
This conversation keeps going in circles.
If the tanks are overpowered, why aren't they being used? Because
of the myriad of reasons you want to stick with your main toon,
right? In that case, why did people not stick with their mains when
the DK was overpowered?
Is it because there aren't enough cases in TOGC where the Paladin /
Druid is overpowered? Then how do we know that there are going to
be enough cases in ICC? What if there still aren't enough cases in
ICC?
I agree. I'll keep following this thread, but I think it's pretty
apparent to the folks who have been sticking with it since page one
that we're now getting a lot of the same arguments brought up on
page 55 than have appeared several times now. It's the nature of
forum communication to some extent, so I'm not sure there are easy
solutions to that problem.
|
11/19/09 05:57:55 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
"people aren't switching" is not a valid excuse to deny
balance in a game. stop that noise
Warrior tanks can tank every boss in the game, and more often than
not get the world first and server first kills on those bosses.
More raids use warrior tanks than any other. Most cutting-edge
guilds use warrior tanks. We can't detect a higher "failure rate"
on warrior tanks, and frankly I'm not even sure what that means
given that most everyone here agrees there are far more experienced
warrior tanks than other tanks out there. Some of you are arguing
"when we switch to the undergeared paladin, we do better," yet very
few groups are actually switching. The best we're stuck with is
some kind of fuzzy "it's harder on the healers," which is pretty
hard to quantify, especially since the healers aren't running out
of mana healing anyone.
This is why the developers keep going back to what we are seeing
happening in the game, which is warriors tanking stuff.
Q u o t e:
no one ever claimed that paladin advantage now is DK Sarth level.
to compare them at all means you don't understand the issue,
GC
Then I'd argue we have spent 57 pages debating something that might
very well be a pretty trivial problem even in worst case scenario.
Even in the DK Sarth days, there were plenty of other tanks out
there. We just thought DKs were so good that it was jeopardizing
other tanks having a job. That does not appear to be happening now.
As I said above, if you're worried that we have a problem because
another tank does the job 5 to 15% (or whatever) better than you,
you're going to have to explain what that actually means and why
it's a problem.
|
11/19/09 09:04:16 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
I know you have a lot to digest on this mega-thread Ghost, but what
happens if Sarth and Ulduar hardmodes are repeated in Icecrown hard
modes, and Warriors/DKs can't tank stuff effectively compared to
the other two, to the point where their jobs are in jeopardy? Will
you be able to fix it while Icecrown progression is still relevant?
If you can't say yes to that, doesn't cutting down on that 15%+ EH
difference(new gear scaling) make more sense than hoping it doesn't
become a problem?
Yes, if we see paladins or druids (or warriors or DKs for that
matter) repeating what happened on Sarth or Vezax, then we will do
something while Icecrown is still relevant.
When is the appropriate time to buff or nerf is something that is
always going to be subjective. Buffing someone when we aren't
convinced they need it (assuming it affects relative power compared
to another class) is as dangerous as not buffing someone when they
do need it.
And again, it's not as simple as guilds having a favorite tank for
specific fights. Druids on Thorim or warriors on Anub adds didn't
cross the line for us, though I understand why it might for some
people.
|
11/19/09 09:30:40 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
What do we do about the fuzziness that will occur in ICC due to the
difficulty of the content? ICC and especially the hardmodes should
pretty much rock the crap out of us and expect really tight play,
with some fight or two being M'uru quality. There's been a lot of
talk so far back and forth, and some of it quite cynical too, about
how if your Healers just healed a bit better, that death would be a
success and it isn't the problem of the class.
I don't have a straight forward answer for that, in that we don't
have some kind of algorithm that returns a positive when things are
too tough. We will just have to keep evaluating how things are
going and how we feel about progress and success over all.
I will say that, ironically perhaps, the guilds that get early or
even first kills are often the least well geared because they went
through the instance so quickly while everyone else had weeks to
farm the easier content before they hit the hard stuff. The
difference between the best raiding guild and the worst raiding
guild is on the order of 1000s of percentages -- much higher than
any of the numbers players have been tossing around here. Skill can
overcome some amazing deficits. I say that not as "Suck it up" but
that if you think your healers can't possibly keep you up that
maybe you're not approaching the encounter the right way.
|
11/19/09 09:59:18 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
The subjective call on an appropriate difference in the feel of
healing will be fought tooth and nail by the community - maybe from
both healers and tank. I hope GC is ready for that. I think it will
be best for the game, but oye . . . a new set of headaches.
:)
|
11/19/09 10:39:29 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
i'm just saying. to any complaints we bring to bear, "all tanks are
completing content" is the answer we get
which is completely dismissive of the concerns and not relevant if
the content is not balanced around the people who have the level of
skill to easily beat content regardless of said
discrepancies.
it's like going to an obstacle course and then getting told that
you shouldn't have problems because jackie chan doesn't have
problems doing it
I would like to think that my posting in this thread like twenty
times would suggest we're not dismissing your concerns. My concern
however is that anything short of "Okay, we'll buff you," is going
to be interpreted as dismissing your concerns.
|
11/20/09 11:40:37 AM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
End of Wrath
Warriors: okay everyone else is a better tank than us now
Blizzard: no they're not
Warriors: but here's the data
Everyone else: FLAVOR!
Blizzard: no one is switching, shut up
Warriors: so we're supposed to just be the worst tank, that's our
niche?
Blizzard: look how many of you there are, your data must mean
nothing
Just one little nitpick on your exercise here. My background is in
natural science, so the terms I use to describe things tend to come
viewed through that lens. The definition of "data" I am used to is
stuff that is measured. Part of the problem here is that many of
the warriors can't actually provide data. They can provide some
estimates and predictions. Some are providing anecdotal evidence.
Now, those are all valid source of feedback. Nobody is saying you
shouldn't make posts like that.
However, when we look at the actual data (i.e. who is killing
bosses), the evidence does not support those predictions. The data
suggest (and data can only ever suggest, they can never really
prove beyond a shadow of a doubt) that warriors aren't at any kind
of significant disadvantage. However, the data are also
complicated. Do you only compare the most experienced tanks? Do you
compare very casual raids? Do you account for players who achieve
success in sub-standard gear? What about players missing critical
buffs? What if a group consistently one-shots a boss and then is
screwing around one day or trying a new strat or something and the
tank dies? Does that data point tell you anything meaningful about
tank balance? Is that the kind of thing we can easily even detect?
(Answer: no, it's not.)
I'm just pointing out this isn't the kind of data set where you
just take a statistical average and use that number. You have to
decide which values are fair to include or not. Different people
may use or exclude different measurements. This is nothing unique
to this situation. Many data sets require this kind of processing.
But it does mean things get complicated quickly.
I think part of the confusion here is that some players are trying
to estimate effective health (including not only armor and health
but also cooldowns and other factors) and then defining that number
as equal to tank success, and don't understand why we won't make
balance changes based on that definition. It's absolutely useful
information. But it is not the whole story. If the data suggested
that rogues had the most success as tanks even though nobody could
come up with a logical explanation for why that would be the case
since their EH is in the toilet, that would not mean that the data
were invalid. It just might mean something else is going on.
So if I was correcting your little summation, I would say:
End of Wrath
Warriors: okay everyone else is a better tank than us now
Blizzard: the data suggest warriors are still very successful
Warriors: but the calculations and comparisons say we shouldn't
be
Blizzard: but nonetheless you still are
Everyone else: I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE BUT I STILL
FEEL THE NEED TO CONTRIBUTE!
|
11/20/09 11:47:04 AM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Yeah, great forum like this:
Postesr: your class balance sucks
Ghostcrawler: Maybe but [long and involved reasoning]
Posters: lol
Ghostcrawler: [more explanation]
Posters: lol
Ghostcrawler ...
Posters: my gear score is lower!
Ghostcrawler: our tools say you're not getting kicked from pugs and
they aren't wiping any more than they do with that guy with a
higher gearscore
Posters: yeah but I think we are wiping more and we are getting
kicked more. your tools must be broked
Ghostcrawler: ...
Posters: what if I get kicked from icecrown pugs?
Ghostcrawler: then we'll buff your gearscore
Posters: I'll be waiting to say "told you so"
Ghostcrawler: ...
Posters: but my gear score is ALWAYS lower, the theorycraft clearly
shows it's lower, where's the fix?
Ghostcrawler: we don't want to mess with a highly technical and
delicate thing like gear score until you start getting kicked
Posters: why wait till I get kicked, why not now!
Ghostcrawler: ...
Now look i'm not GC's biggest fan, by a long shot, but he's
actually provided a number of answers in this thread, solid
reasoning (even if I disagree with it), and quite frankly some of
the respones he's got from particularly sutpid people here would
have made me get up, walk away from my desk and say to hell with
this. It must be trying his patience. Agree or disagree with what
he says, the fact remains he and his team are the guys balancing
this game, and they're not actually answerable to us at all. Stop
deluding yourselves and get the hell over it, you'll enjoy the
forums a lot more once you drop the sense of entitlement and just
read them for comedic value.
Thanks, Charsi. I know you don't always agree with us, so that
carries weight coming from you.
My patience is pretty much endless, and even then I have the old
coffee mug for backup.
We really don't fault anyone for being passionate -- WoW would be
in a far worse state if all of you guys were apathetic. Just
remember that a lot of players read these forums. Don't make them
work too hard at extracting the needles from the haystacks.
|
11/20/09 11:58:15 AM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Warriors (and to a lesser extent DKs, since they have gotten
some fixes) are very discouraged at being empirically worse than
druids (to a lesser extent) and Paladins (to a much greater
extent). Most of us are upset because it feels unfair and unfun to
be designed worse than our counterparts.
I would not use the word "empirically" in that way.
Empirical typically means observed or measured. What I am seeing is
generally in one of two buckets:
1) Warriors and DKs are discouraged at being *theoretically* worse
than druids and paladins (based on simulations and
calculations).
2) Warriors and DKs are discouraged at being empirically worse than
druids and paladins based on very small sample sizes (typically
your own raid and maybe a few friends you've spoken with). In these
cases there are easily dozens of other variables going on, so it's
difficult to pin point the reason you wiped / had difficulty on the
encounter.
Empirically, warriors don't seem to be at a disadvantage. Hence why
this thread has gone on so long.
|
11/20/09 12:02:39 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Blizzard's real world data is more important to them than
your theoretical data, but they appreciate it and are taking it
into account. They're not going to preemptively buff Warriors just
because the math says they need it, while the ingame statistics say
they don't need it.
Yes. Well summarized.
If we get to a point where warriors are stumbling a lot in Icecrown
(since they aren't really in ToC), then there would be no reason
not to buff them or nerf the other tanks. From preliminary testing
in Icecrown we don't think that will be the case, but the sample
sizes are very small at the moment. Players take things a lot more
seriously when it's their server and not the PTR and of course
there will be a lot more players trying to solve those fights in
the most reliable and efficient manner.
|
11/20/09 12:08:49 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
We don't want to be balanced around the encounter, we want to be
balanced against each other. That's why we think that we're not
balanced, and you think that we are.
Sorry. We balance around encounters. We don't really have strong
feelings for how you should tank a target dummy or a theoretical
boss or a boss in content nobody is really raiding any longer.
Encounters are all that matter.
|
11/20/09 12:13:08 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
therein lies the problem. you don't balance the game around
who is actually performing, this is an incorrect metric to view.
you balance the game around the mechanics and the data, and whoever
is performing better is actually SKILLED.
you're going about this all backwards, GC.
you're using the ends to justify the means, so to speak.
You're kind of trying to criticize the scientific method with that
approach. We use empirical evidence to support or fail to support a
hypothesis. We don't balance around a hypothesis. We're not willing
to throw data out the window just because some members of the
community are very attached to their hypothesis.
But I admit this isn't cut and dried. We're not debating the
temperature outside, which can be empirically tested very
easily.
|
11/20/09 12:21:39 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
so, why isnt dps balanced around encounters?
DPS are emphatically balanced around encounters. Many of the
arguments that break out in the dps forum occur because someone
looks at a simulation or training dummy parses or a top ten dps
list or what happened in their own raid last night and then argues
based on that alone.
Just like tanks, there are encounters for which certain classes out
perform others. Sometimes these are because of specific mechanics
that buff a certain class or type of damage. Other times they are
because of the way the encounter works: certain classes do better
on stationary single target bosses while others will do better with
large groups of adds. As long as nobody is consistently and
significantly behind others, we don't thing changes are necessary.
When that happens, we make changes, just as we have with
tanks.
I always try and preach that it isn't reasonable to say "Mage dps
is 8K" because that is meaningless outside of the context.
Similarly, it isn't reasonable to say "Paladins are better tanks
than warriors," unless you can address the encounters that lead you
to that conclusion.
|
11/20/09 12:28:25 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
Here it is. That's it. We don't need to continue this discussion
any longer. That's why you think things are fine and we don't. We
have a philosophical difference on how to approach things.
We think we're right, and we'll continue to be frustrated by your
refusal to see it our way. In my opinion, your way of doing things
is stupid and will always lead to situations like Sarth +3 or
Veszax, because Blizzard is incapable of anticipating the amount of
creativity that the player base is capable of to solve the problem
of an encounter.
As long as DPS is balanced around dummies and tanks are balanced
around encounters, there will be frustration and anger about that
distinction. I think that the way you balance DPS is superior and
the way you balance tanks will always cause headaches for
you.
DPS are balanced around encounters too (with the caveat that those
encounters can include fights against other players). We provide
training dummies for players to try out various combat rotations,
talent builds or gear allocations. You have to take any number
generated from a training dummy with a grain of salt. If warlocks
could do 12,000 dps on a training dummy and never broke 6000 dps on
actual boss fights, why would the training dummy even be relevant?
Who even cares if they "win the training dummy"?
My apologies if you don't like it and would balance the game
differently were you in our shoes. We care about encounters. My
suspicion is most players do too, but I could be wrong.
|
11/20/09 12:31:50 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
Q u o t e:
again, you don't use scientific method to determine what happens in
a game. you created the world, you KNOW the mechanics and the
variables. this isn't science where you're merely observing life
around you and trying to piece the nuggets of information you're
observing into some kind of understandable theory of how things
work
WoW is far too complicated or us to have a great deal of confidence
that we can accurately predict what will happen in any given
situation. If we feel that way given all the insider knowledge we
have, then I can't understand how players would feel
otherwise.
We make informed decisions, and we have a pretty good track record
over all. We're absolutely wrong sometimes. Players are creative
and do things we didn't predict. We try and respond quickly when
that happens if it causes a problem, but for various reasons (most
notably that we're Blizzard and we approach things cautiously) the
changes aren't always made as quickly as players might make them
were they calling the shots.
It is science. Just because it's a game and not the outdoor world
doesn't make it not so.
|
11/20/09 12:34:45 PM
Patch 3.2.2a
Ghostcrawler
<Lead Systems Designer> |
I don't think many tanks really
care about being the best training dummy tank or the best tank on
paper. Most of them want to lead their raid to success by surviving
the encounter, positioning the boss and doing all those other
things tanks are called upon to do. Ergo, I'm not sure the debate
over whether theoretical or encounter-based balancing is superior
is really that interesting.
|
