Locking stable flying but not skyriding to pathfinder is stupid

[Nayaga-lightbringer (Nayaga)]

@Quivermethis-rexxar

True, but most of the neutral or pro pathfinder START amicable.

Not in my opinion.

[Quivermethis-rexxar]

And you are entitled to it. You’ve also been amicable in everything you’ve said thus far.
If only everyone posted in the same manner and mindset.

[Zuleika-hyjal (Zuleika)]

@Laeuko-draenor

I have good news there is a setting to fix that.

My friend who got motion sickness from the dragonflying in DF says the new settings actually make it worse.

[Nayaga-lightbringer (Nayaga)]

@Zuleika-hyjal

My friend who got motion sickness from the dragonflying in DF says the new settings actually make it worse.

I’m guessing what helps for one person, may not for others. This is a list of what helped and didn’t help me:Skyriding and motion sickness

[Derkz-westfall]

They’ve separated the animations out so you can select the level of ‘animation’ you want, particularly when using surge forward and other boosty type moves.

Screen effects/speed effects both disabled for me.

Unfortunately, there is an FOV adjustment during the animations, regardless of settings, and it’s probably still going to be a potential factor for motion sickness for some.

[Derkz-westfall]

@Quivermethis-rexxar

Do you have statistics?
What is the metric that makes one worse and the other one better other than you don’t like/disagree with the changes?

@Quivermethis-rexxar

Neither.

You said it.

The idea that something needs metrics to be true is kinda insane, just on the face of it. All you need to accept something as being true is one verifiable instance of it. One player coming here to say ‘this happened to me’ is all you need.

If during a marathon, 100 runners participate, and 1 breaks their leg, We don’t need any consensus to determine the leg is broke, the person needs treatment, or that either is ‘true.’

If we waited for metrics to be a factor? Someone is waiting on the side for medical attention while we poll runners on whether or not someone broke their leg.

All it takes is the person with the broken leg assessing ‘this is objectively bad’ ‘this is objectively worse than before’ to conclude ‘I need to get medical attention right away.’

I hope this helps in understanding objectivity vs subjectivity.

Also: google ‘subjective objectivity’ and spend some time with it. I guarantee I am 100% on the nose here. Once again, thank you for being here, you are appreciated, and valued.

Lastly, when designing a game, it’s critical to understand any instances of the game going from a better to worse state, especially as a designer. That’s how you identify ‘better’ game design, such as dragonriding prior to 11.0 (TWW), and the increased mount pool for skyriding post 11.0 (TWW).

Objectively speaking, there are better and worse states about both features, past and present. We can talk about it if you are willing to have an argument/discussion in good faith.

[Quivermethis-rexxar]

@Derkz-westfall

The idea that something needs metrics to be true is kinda insane, just on the face of it. All you need to accept something as being true is one verifiable instance of it. One player coming here to say ‘this happened to me’ is all you need.

That… that is not how that works…like at all lol.

Based on that statement, ANY claim becomes fact.
Your entire premise is based on “just trust me bro.”

@Derkz-westfall

If during a marathon, 100 runners participate, and 1 breaks their leg, We don’t need any consensus to determine the leg is broke, the person needs treatment, or that either is ‘true.’

That’s an even worse example…

@Derkz-westfall

I hope this helps in understanding objectivity vs subjectivity.

I already understood, however you can’t seem to grasp it. Which was made even clearer by your example and explanation

Also I already gave you the definition and a good example. No idea why you feel the need to rehash that again.
I asked for your source of WHY it is worse. Not player statements or feelings. That is subjective.

@Derkz-westfall

Lastly, when designing a game, it’s critical to understand any instances of the game going from a better to worse state, especially as a designer.

While that is true, you can’t just take “player reports” and deem that as a valuable enough source to make major changes.
That’s why I asked for stats. Sources.
If something was in such a state that it was truly BAD, there would have been some kind of report of someone somewhere of importance addressing the issue. And THEY can cite numerous player stats as they would have access to that info.

You however don’t. For all I know, some random in trade chat said some nonsense and that is your “player report”. Again, why I asked for a source.
Hearsay isn’t a valuable source, nor can it be objective. There is a reason hearsay isn’t admissible in court.

@Derkz-westfall

Objectively speaking, there are better and worse states about both features, past and present. We can talk about it if you are willing to have an argument/discussion in good faith.

However, you can only speak on the terms of subjective. If you want a good faith convo, you have to stop acting like your opinion is law.

[Derkz-westfall]

@Quivermethis-rexxar

Based on that statement, ANY claim becomes fact.

Did you read the words ‘one verifiable instance of it?’ One person comes here, tells you what they just experienced, you go into game, verify yeah, that probably happened to them, and bingo.

Can move on to more productive conversation, rather than whatever this is.

@Quivermethis-rexxar

While that is true

If you’re agreeing something is true, why are you trying to be the authority on how it’s not? Bad-faith.

@Quivermethis-rexxar

However, you can only speak on the terms of subjective. If you want a good faith convo, you have to stop acting like your opinion is law.

If that were true, I wouldn’t have had at least 3 other lengthy, civil, and productive discussions in this very thread with other users.

They participated in good faith, we found common ground, they aren’t pretending like this is a science lab or a court room. Nothing here needs to rise to the level of pedantry you seem to desire.

You disagree with my posts. I am okey with that. You attack me over what appears to be your own understanding of what I have posted. I’m okey with that too.

I’ve already said I don’t need to participate in the hyperbole, that misses 99% of the intended audience, it does not warrant a response.

No one is saying you can’t post or disagree or even attack me. But a discussion in good faith has to abandon the circular reasoning that ‘subjectivity is subjective, never objective.’

Additionally, this conversation is happening within the context of game design. It is going to be an operating assumption of any designer that

1. Remaining objective in your work will help you receive criticism regarding the nature of design choices.

2. Design choices cannot be assessed objectively without making a determination about game states changing from good/bad/better/worse/ect.

3. Subjective player feedback is a part of understanding the objective nature of how to improve something that has been designed into a worse state. ‘This feels worse than it did prior to patch’ ----> 'Dev receives feedback, verifies the change resulted in a functionally worse experience, then makes an improvement, objectively.

[Holdmypug-stormrage]

@Sindai-stormrage

Is there an actual reason why they are doing this, or do they just hate people like me who absolutely cannot stand the new riding?

The reason is Ion wanted to remove flying in WoD and we protested. He’s still angry about it. This is his petty way of dealing with his fee fees.

@First-executus

Not everyone wants/needs to express skill in flying, but if showcasing that skill is vital to your enjoyment, they literally provide you with races to showcase those skills.

That’s the catch though …you don’t actually care about showcasing skill. That’s just a red herring. What you really want is to force others to do something they don’t want to do, solely to bring some ounce of meaning to an otherwise pointless existence of toxicity and loneliness.

I’m not mad at you, I pity you and what it must be like trying to find happiness in making others miserable because you can’t find any in real life. I wish I could say it’ll get better for you …but it wont.

Agreed 100%.

@Zuleika-hyjal

I have a friend who couldn’t play most of DF because of the dragonriding issues and motion sickness. This friend is almost certainly going to be heading over to FFXIV now because those issues continue.

That’s what I’m doing. I only recently became disabled and can’t use dragon flying anymore. So since Ion is still willing to die on that pathfinder hill, I am moving on. I’ll just waste the rest of my game time here to voice my opinion.

[Quivermethis-rexxar]

@Derkz-westfall

Did you read the words ‘one verifiable instance of it?’ One person comes here, tells you what they just experienced, you go into game, verify yeah, that probably happened to them, and bingo.

However… Your examples of “worse” are things like the name change. You can’t exactly verify that as it’s a subjective opinion.

@Derkz-westfall

Can move on to more productive conversation, rather than whatever this is.

You are the one refusing to give me evidence resulting in this circular nonsense

@Derkz-westfall

If you’re agreeing something is true, why are you trying to be the authority on how it’s not? Bad-faith.

Because you are passing that nonsense off as fact lol.
If you had quoted the entire thing instead of quoting it out of context, you could realize that.

@Quivermethis-rexxar

While that is true, you can’t just take “player reports” and deem that as a valuable enough source to make major changes.
That’s why I asked for stats. Sources.
If something was in such a state that it was truly BAD, there would have been some kind of report of someone somewhere of importance addressing the issue. And THEY can cite numerous player stats as they would have access to that info.

Bazinga.

@Derkz-westfall

If that were true, I wouldn’t have had at least 3 other lengthy, civil, and productive discussions in this very thread with other users.

I read through some. They weren’t productive. It’s almost copy/paste of how ours is going.
They say the same thing over and over and over. You keep trying a different angle to convince them otherwise. But they keep repeating themselves. It appears to me you refuse to understand intentionally, to keep fueling the argument.

@Derkz-westfall

Nothing here needs to rise to the level of pedantry you seem to desire.

You disagree with my posts. I am okey with that. You attack me over what appears to be your own understanding of what I have posted. I’m okey with that too.

I’m not attacking you. I haven’t called you names.
And I understand what you are saying. If anything, it’s offensive you keep saying I don’t understand or trying to teach me a thing or 2.

You consistently gloss over what is being said and for whatever reason are dying on the hill of how YOU define objective vs subjective Regardless of what is said.
You aren’t going to gaslight me or convince me that hearsay is objective.

@Derkz-westfall

Subjective player feedback is a part of understanding the objective nature of how to improve something that has been designed into a worse state. ‘This feels worse than it did prior to patch’ ----> 'Dev receives feedback, verifies the change resulted in a functionally worse experience, then makes an improvement, objectively.

If hardly anyone one is complaining about it, is it truly worse or worth changing?

I used to design minigames, come up with rewards and such. You CANNOT go off of “just trust me bro” or a handful of complaints. Which goes back to me asking you to verify your claims of it being objectively worse. Because you have yet to prove anything other than subjective.

Like I hate this circular crap, but by you refusing provide literally anything, it keeps going back to that

[Voidarcane-whisperwind]

I mean, just do the 4 zone campaign quests (all are available at launch) and you have steady flying. It could be FAR worse (WoD, Legion, and BfA are the worst iterations).

Now personally I think Pathfinder should simply be changed to giving a cool mount only and not unlocking flying, but that’s me.

[Derkz-westfall]

I think it’s worth discussing the actual merits of the feature, whether or not pathfinder is required to use steady flight, which content it should be a requirement for, ect.

If the design choice is only steady flight in TWW zones is gated behind TWW PF, that’s probably fine for the people who aren’t playing the game with some sort of accessibility issue.

If someone is motion sick, for instance, their Journey through TWW zones will be from the ground until they unlock steady flight, while anyone who isn’t motion sick can leverage skyriding from the moment they get to TWW continent.

I believe this is the point of contention for many, and why the hyperbole seems to be from a place of feeling personally attacked.

It’s worthwhile for anyone who wants to play wow, to have this part of the feature reconsidered for those players. Let’s say for sake of argument, if they did remove PF requirement from TWW, allowed steady flight right away, nothing is really negatively impacted by it.

The only person who could be negatively impacted by such a change, is the designer who believes the change shouldn’t occur, and has to go through with it for the sake of the game, anyway.

That’s going to be a pain point for their work, if they cannot remain objective.

For everyone else, it’s QOL improvement, whether it fits with PF design or not. When looking bigger picture and objectively assessing the feature for improvements, you’re likely to see how little impact forcing pathfinder is on the greater population, since steady flight is likely to be everyone’s primary flight choice anyway.

[Antiman-bloodhoof]

@Derkz-westfall

That’s going to be a pain point for their work, if they cannot remain objective.

It would be even more of a pain point if they feel like it should be on the ground and they developed interesting things that can really only be made out if on the ground. They alreayd take a hit on wanting people to see their work with DR.

Now some, if not all, of this could be countered by flying low (ground skimming active if using DR). But maybe some of the issue is instead of spite over being denied being able to remove it, we are dealing with developers/designers (if they read these forums) feeling slighted as the message being delivered to them is “we don’t care about your work, just let us play as we like”.

[Moused-cairne (Moused)]

@Voidarcane-whisperwind

I mean, just do the 4 zone campaign quests (all are available at launch) and you have steady flying

Then put Dynamic flying aka dragon flying behind same pathfinder now…what is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.

[Derkz-westfall]

@Antiman-bloodhoof

It would be even more of a pain point if they feel like it should be on the ground and they developed interesting things that can really only be made out if on the ground. They alreayd take a hit on wanting people to see their work with DR.

Now some, if not all, of this could be countered by flying low (ground skimming active if using DR). But maybe some of the issue is instead of spite over being denied being able to remove it, we are dealing with developers/designers (if they read these forums) feeling slighted as the message being delivered to them is “we don’t care about your work, just let us play as we like”.

I agree with this. It sucks to read hyperbolic toxicity aimed at something you might have put a lot of thought and feeling into. It misses 99% of the intended audience, warrants no response.

I think the dragonriding aspect of it, mechanically speaking can be tuned to be more friendly for accessibility. I mentioned the FOV shift present. It appears to be tied to movement speed, slightly adjusting field of view outward when accelerating, then inward when slowing. It’s most noticeable when using the speed burst abilities.

Maybe one more setting could be added to toggle on/off the dynamic FoV adjustment, further reducing the potential for motion sickness?

@Moused-cairne

Then put Dynamic flying aka dragon flying behind same pathfinder now…what is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.

I mean, this is also something I’d be in support of, consistency and adherence to a philosophy, being the net result.

[Myfwyc-wyrmrest-accord]

Y’all are quick to resort to this.

Despite y’all’s attempts my opinion remains unchanged, I’m fine with them removing Pathfinder.

[Antiman-bloodhoof]

@Derkz-westfall

I mean, this is also something I’d be in support of, consistency and adherence to a philosophy, being the net result.

But coming from one like Moused, comes across more and more like "If I can’t have my choice unlocked without getting something, which I have an option that lets me get it, then no wone should have any choice at all:

Her attitude is “if I have to suffer, all have to suffer” and this is being pointed out by one that willingly CHOOSES to earn pathfinder via ground. If Blizzard gets flack for “forcing players to play as they want” then that flack should be TRIPPLED for players wanting the same.

[Derkz-westfall]

@Antiman-bloodhoof

But coming from one like Moused, comes across more and more like "If I can’t have my choice unlocked without getting something, which I have an option that lets me get it, then no wone should have any choice at all:

Her attitude is “if I have to suffer, all have to suffer” and this is being pointed out by one that willingly CHOOSES to earn pathfinder via ground. If Blizzard gets flack for “forcing players to play as they want” then that flack should be TRIPPLED for players wanting the same.

I don’t think they would want anyone to suffer, like actual suffering. I think that attitude tends to be the natural consequence of this sort of game design.

My feelings about it have nothing to do with the activity associated with pathfinder, it’s a chekcbox you naturally complete as you level, if you choose to quest. But pathfinder itself is an artificial gating mechanic, and devs shouldn’t RP their reasoning for putting them into the game.

It should never be ‘we feel like X would be a better experience from the ground, so we created an entire expansion without the intention of adding flight.’

I mean, that is one way to design a product, but some fundamental core aspects of it now shifted in paradigm, for seemingly what amounts to ‘a compromise and backtrack’ to try to make both the players and the devs happy.

I am not sure developers are in the right job if they think their happiness within the context of ‘releasing a product for someone else’ should be any sort of major consideration. Most games are not the product of a single individual, so when the larger picture is considered, especially on a live service, ongoing development project such as wow, the individual developer cannot be more important than the project’s integrity.

Upon release, the game will live and die under the merits of its design… always. When a game releases, and a subsequent dip in player participation occurs, that’s a message delivered swiftly by… action. Don’t D4 yourself, don’t Helldiver’s 2 yourself, and most of all, don’t World of Warcraft yourself.

[Mafic-emerald-dream (Mafic)]

@Fatoracle-moknathal

I remember when you just paid for flying and epic flying. Should have never been tied to a grind.

I remember that as well. That was the golden age of WoW.

I can see the golden chariots coming again. That is why the end of patchfinder for TBC normal flying is near.

[Gabitha-nagrand (Gabitha)]

There will never be a golden age of WoW again. stop having pipe dreams. The past is gone forever.