Alterac Valley in Classic


#1351

And they never followed up on any of that with specific questions or inquiries. Almost like the head of the company, the HR kingpin, was spinning for effect. All the people that matter to the development have said 1.12 ever since the first Dev Watercooler where they started talking about Classic development openly. There has been no further follow through on a figurehead’s statement to an investment magazine.


(Fateweaver) #1352

Classic™ hasn’t been released yet.

Whether or not they are specific is irrelevant as we know they are “listening” to feedback. Case in point, Spell Batching.

:cocktail:


#1353

Soon™…


(Fateweaver) #1354

Soon…™

FTFY.

:cocktail:


#1355

From what I saw, and what people I pay attention to saw, Spell Batching wasn’t even something on most people’s radar, and Blizzard chose to implement it because they could.

How about another example like… AV 1.12.


(Fateweaver) #1356

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Obviously, they were aware that it was being discussed among the community.

:cocktail:


#1357

It was discussed yes. But reading most posts, people were generally in the camp of “It would be nice, but unlikely”.

And yes, there’s a blue post saying they are doing it. Because they worked out that they could. “we’ve seen questions about spell batching” is a different intro to

posting direct links to threads.

And again… you’re on the “conclusion of watching feedback” thread where they announce the decision after reading the feedback. They’ve heard what everyone said and clearly there’s enough people saying 1.12, as well as no compelling need to deviate from 1.12, so…

You’ve come full circle trying to dodge the fact that this isn’t a “Tell us what you think about this idea” post. Its a “We’ve made our decision and this is what it is” post. They listened, they heard, they chose. Now listen to them, hear them, and adjust expectations accordingly. You can dislike the decision, but without a compelling reason that no-one has managed to provide yet, they’re not going to change it.


(Fateweaver) #1358

There you go again with the bias.

:cocktail:


#1359

There you go with the trolling again. Can’t make an argument, why not make a fallacy.


(Fateweaver) #1360

Fallacy? If you say so.

:cocktail:


(Seijuron) #1361

Disclaimer long post, sorry

Aaah the classic “Vocal minority” argument. I like that one … First off, if you are a little bit good at math, you might have heard of something called statistics and representative sample. This is how most theories, hypothesis are based on actually…
So if you go up the first answers of this posts and counts the like, you could use this as a representative sample of the larger group.

Now, as I guess you won’t like this argument, we can go over a little bit of history. The vocal minority is always “right”. One example of it, is the presidential election. In the past years, the participation at the votes have decreased, and the vast majority of voters do not vote at all or vote “Nothing”/“Blank” on the paper. And guess what, a representative will still be elected.

You don’t take decisions assuming what the silent majority wants. It’s sad to say but the silent majority is always wrong. If you have the chance to voice your opinion/choice, you should use it. If you didn’t say anything, you shouldn’t complain about the decisions afterward …

Back in November 4th 2017, J. Allen Brack gave several interviews. In the one given to Digital Trend*, he said:

" Content-wise it will be identical. Now, “identical” has a lot of nuance, [though], because WoW changed a lot in the two years between launch and [Burning Crusade]. One of the reasons we are talking about this as early as we are is to get the community’s opinions on which way we should go for certain things. A good example is U.B.E.R.S. — [Upper Blackrock Spire is a dungeon that had a 10-person version and a 5-person version. At some point in development, we dropped the 10-person version. Was that the right decision? Do they want a 10-person version? Do they want a 5-person version? Those are the types of things [we’re figuring out]."

And to Forbes**, on January 30, 2018

“My favorite example for this is Upper Blackrock Spire. There was a 10-person version and a five-person version for most of that two-year period, but toward the end we decided, nope, UBRS is going to be a five-person and we’re going to retune it to be appropriate for that. Is that the right decision? I don’t know. These are the types of questions. There’s lots of questions like that that we’ll be talking with the community about.”

It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t refer only to UBRS, and it is one example.


(Khëmîcal) #1362

Watch closely Blizzard at how people will be loving this pvp aspect of the game, with pvp currency and pvp gear being so important to some of the player base.

maybe even consider bringing it back


(Melaned) #1363

Really? Acting like this statement killed the 1.5 AV argument?..

If you think this is the kill blow to 1.5 AV then you are only thinking with a biased mindset. Like. . . seriously?

Don’t get me wrong, I get it, it obviously goes against the 1.5 AV argument, that’s for sure, but Blizzard restating basics to try and steer the conversation is only a reaffirmation that they want to avoid doing 1.5 AV.

In fact by not addressing the supposed issue of lost data and instead focusing on “take the pressure off players to be constantly figuring out what we might do next” that could actually help increase the assumption that the data was not lost.

The statement comes off as “Hey lets not talk about this because we want to do it the other way”. That makes me feel like the stated post for 1.12 AV here is their strongest argument and that they just don’t want to go through the work of 1.5 AV.

To be frank, if anything this statement has empowered my PoV in arguing FOR 1.5 AV.

Edit: INB4 “That was a “putting it to rest” statement”.
Yeah they tried that with WoD having no flying.


#1364

I am convinced at this point (having watched the Q&A video that had commentary by the vanilla dev) that the “clarity” that was spoken of is Ion and company seeing participation as metric for “fun”. Which is so very not how the game works currently, nor is it how the final iteration of vanilla AV was.


(Skrachee) #1366

Do you really think they are that stupid? These people are the face of a giant company, I really think they’re smarter than that. They may see participation as a metric for profit, but nobody with a brain would see participation equaling fun without some outside influence.


#1367

In the corporate world, anything is possible, especially when you have to answer to investors and get used to talking in language that they understand. It becomes second nature over time.

The state of BfA kind of points to them having lost their way in terms of game design: they don’t seem to understand what is really fun about an MMO.


#1368

Watch the Q&A that was posted recently with the commentary from the vanilla dev. It speaks volumes about their philosophy about “fun”.


#1369

Ion is the former Guild Leader of Elitist Jerks, where “fun” was a 4 letter word.

They’re highlighting in that in the 8.2 Q&A recently, he absolutely failed to define what he finds fun, and instead talked about how they use metrics to determine what people want to do.


(Melaned) #1370

The same company that relies on RNG and weekly chests for gearing for current game, rinse and repeat world quests for reputation grinds and that making a new race is equivalent to keeping everything going.

Sadly I am not surprised by much anymore.


#1371

Have you watched the video yet?