Ghostcrawler and the pace of change
by Mike Schramm 
Mar 26th 2009 at 7:00PM
Ghostcrawler has a nice long screed over on the forums about Blizzard's theory about change. Way back when the first few patches went into the game, Blizzard had a plan to adjust a few classes at a time -- one patch would be all about Mages, while the next would be about Rogues. But right around Burning Crusade, they changed their mind -- no more large patches, and instead it would be back to lots of smaller changes.Of course, nowadays, whether they mean to or not, we're back to the way it was -- patch 3.1 will have pretty huge changes for all of the classes, and everyone is getting a free respec. GC says that while the "progressive patching" idea was a good one, Blizzard just doesn't have the chance to take that time -- patching is a big undertaking, and the way they change the game just plain leads to putting a lot of changes in a big patch. He would love to have the team make smaller patches more frequently (tweaking instead of a complete revamp), but the way things are now, the system just isn't set up that way.
He also reiterates that Blizzard is designing the game, not the people who complain on the forums. Blizzard listens to what their customers have to say, but they make their own decisions from there. Sometimes, that means we complain about problems that don't get fixed (Cower bug, anyone?), and sometimes it means they hear us complain about things that turn out not to be a problem (back in beta, a few forum posters claimed Death Knights would never be able to tank, and we now know that's clearly not true). We can hope for more sequential changes in the future, but GC says that right now, the way the game works is that Blizzard fixes as they can, and those fixes will come out in large chunks like 3.1.
Filed under: Patches, Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Blizzard, Classes, Wrath of the Lich King, Forums
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
oscatsz Mar 26th 2009 7:12PM
as long as they continue to do large patches, there will always be those who take advantage of bugs and imbalances to give themselves an improper edge over others.
imo this is the major reason why blizzard should avoid large patches and do little patches as often as needed.
elvendude Mar 26th 2009 7:22PM
Personally, I too would like to see a fair number of small bug fix patches. I'm fine with waiting for content and change patches. But bugs should be squashed posthaste.
The Hammer Mar 26th 2009 7:23PM
I'm always interested in hearing which developers players think would make a better job of balancing, developing, and maintaining this game. Blizzard have been developing games which require multiplayer balance for years, and their dedication to this task is matched by few. Hells, Diablo 2 still receives occasionally updates as far as classes are concerned, and it strikes me as ridiculous when players think they know the game better than Blizzard themselves do. There is a very good reason the developers have the luminary reputation they do.
Daniel Mar 26th 2009 7:36PM
I actually agree with GC on a number of issues. I worked with financial (economic) data that had to be released to the public and our philosophy was always that "accuracy has to be balanced with timeliness." "Revision" is not a dirty word, so long as those revisions are within bounds of normal error. So I don't think you can take a "scientific" approach to solving problems in the game. That's a recipe for failure.
Where I disagree with GC is on the player feedback issue. I agree with him that Blizzard has a right to design their game and then we choose to play it or not. But there is also an issue of taking the feedback that players give in a fair minded way. I see entirely too much cynicism from developers such as GC that all the QQ is a back door way of getting a buff for the players favorite race/class/spec/etc. I think that's nonsense. It's true that the developers know more about the game than I could ever hope to know. But that doesn't mean that player suggestions and advice should be treated like a horde of bothersome gnats. Developers and the CR people don't have to do what the players say, but the long run health of the game would be improved if they gave suggestions a fair and open hearing.
Hoggersbud Mar 26th 2009 8:09PM
Well, given the sheer insanity that occurs in the Forums, I think you may be taking GC's kidding about that sort of thing a bit too seriously.
Mr Magoo Mar 26th 2009 11:00PM
Dude.
As much as a scientific approach is doomed to failure, so is design by player comittee.
The problem is that MOST players are compromised in terms of objectivity. This includes business concerns, other classes's concerns as well as their perception of their own class.
There are posts that I have seen that try really hard to sound reasonable, but are just missing the point in terms of the wider game and how silly they sound in that context.
e.g. The numerous threads from DKs angry about the nerfs and using arguments such as how much they enjoy playing them now and how they are supposed to be a "hero" class so being OP compared to everyone else is fine. They totally miss the point about their effect on other classes and their enjoyment, about the meaning of hero class and that, like warlocks, the only reason they are OP is because it sold boxes as yet another reason to upgrade and/or start playing wow again.
I would even argue these particular people even miss the point about why they are enjoying the class.
As anyone who has had anything to do with committees or large groups of people will vouch for: if you try to give everyone what they want you will fail, and hard.
Even if you succeed you will realise that people don't actually know what the NEED, they only know what they WANT.
Fufilling WANTS only ever leads to more wants and dissappointment that the want did not satisfy them as much as they hoped. It is good to fufill these when you can and they make sense, but they are not the priority.
Fufilling NEEDS is that only way to go. Unfortunately asking people is not the most efficient way of working out what these are! You should, as GC points out, LISTEN to what people say. But then you take it all with a grain of salt and pull information from other sources and THEN make a decision.
THJ Mar 27th 2009 12:44AM
"But that doesn't mean that player suggestions and advice should be treated like a horde of bothersome gnats.'
Dude, have you ever read the official forums? Any developer taking suggestions from there should get axed. Reminds of the ctrlaltdel comic:
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/20080227.jpg
Hagu Mar 29th 2009 1:21AM
This strikes me as the sort of arrogance that causes large, successful companies to ossify. Blizzard is pretty indifferent to what customers want; thinking they know best. I can't think of another culture where customer 's complaints are ridiculed as just QQ. Each customer is the world expert on what *they* personally like in WoW. No opinion or spreadsheet of Blizzard has the slightest relevance to that customer's opinion. Blizzard thinking the customer needs to adjust their desires to match what Blizzard is serving this month seems the height of arrogance. Oh well, I think history is full of industry leading companies that lost interest in being customer-driven and thus no longer had to worry about dealing with being a leading company.
I think the situation is hopeless in the short term; Bliz will do what they think is best, regardless of their customers' opinions. The question is once Blizzard misses a couple of quarterly growth forecasts, perhaps even has a subscriber decline, will management bring in some adult supervision in time? The alternative is to just relabel WoW a "cash cow", slash the budget, and invest in other products that are growing.
The good news is with all the recent change classes for change sake plus the ancillary annoyance of the decline in software quality ( how could you ship software that crashes when WG is over, has ice stone melting, and won't authenticate Macs ) and senselessly discouraging addons, means I am far, far more indifferent to whether WoW continues or not.
Mr Magoo Mar 29th 2009 4:10PM
Hagu:
You are living in the very naive world of the consumer.
Every company thinks of customer complaints this way. have you ever seen how people talk on help/support desks when the phone is off? And they are TOTALLY RIGHT in thinking about it this way. Customers that use forums and ring in do so with a purpose 80% of the time and they are jaded and/or compromised in their view of things.
Blizzard are just being more honest than most and calling a ranting, whining little child what they are is certainly not a crime.
Every person is an expert in their own wants, yes. The fallacy of this me-me-me generation is that they (aka: you) think that that somehow matters more than it does.
It would be logically impossible to design this game by player committee because of all the contradictions. It would also destroy the game. Simple.
Clint Eastwood said it best: "Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one."
obarthelemy Mar 26th 2009 8:41PM
the problem is not so much the pace, or even the direction, of the changes and tweaks: it is whether those changes make any sense at all, and all the bugs. Also, changing one way, then quick-patching the other way, is not good. Sad to see they don't seem to get any of that.
sephirah Mar 26th 2009 9:13PM
I wonder why before GC was hired by Blizzard there was much less QQ on the forums...
Amaxe Mar 26th 2009 9:22PM
Reading the thread over, one gets the impression GC would love to respond with "STFU and GTFO" sometimes....
Marc Sadowski Mar 26th 2009 11:05PM
Sometimes I can't blame him... I really feel for the guy... and then they nerfed Ret paladins...
Amaxe Mar 27th 2009 11:09AM
Yes, such is the problem with being the paid or otherwise official member on a forum. You have to maintain a professional composure even when the people you deal with don't deserve it...
supersaint Mar 26th 2009 9:42PM
If it wasn't for stupid arenas, the game would be balanced.
smiley Mar 27th 2009 7:56AM
why does 75% of the people on here hate on arena, its a good system to determine class balance on a one on one basis. I for one do veyr much love arena, its a fun avenue of play, and i play with an ele shaman, a marks hunter, and a prot pally (ye ai arena with a prot pally, i even am in the 1800"s with a prot warrior prot pally setup what about it >_<
arenas are fun, but average players get mad they can't move up and terrible players get mad that they do badly . don't hate on arenas cause you can't pull a 2k team
supersaint Mar 27th 2009 3:35PM
I'm not a fan of arenas due to the fact that Blizz constantly destroys pve class balance trying to get everyone involved in their "e-sport".
Plus, it's next to impossible to move up in the rankings from 0 to getting any gear to make yourself competitive.
You mean, you didnt get the memo about arena participation falling 65% in season 5?
I'm not the only one that's disenchanted with the current system.
Krutch Mar 26th 2009 10:57PM
IMO Blizzard should begin hiring a team to work only on bug fixes. I am fairly certain that they have the capitol to do so. Class balances can go in big patches but bugs really should be fixed when they are reported.
There is still a vulture caught under the tent by the leather working trainer in Badlands. I first knoticed it pre-bc...
Serr Mar 27th 2009 11:49AM
Having a "bug fix" team is an impossible venture. Anyone working in software will tell you that the best (sometimes the only) people to fix a bug is the original programmer. Bringing someone in from the outside, and saying "Fix this..." is akin to Stephen King to rewrite various sections of the Lord of the Rings -- it might work, but lord knows it wouldn't be pretty, and would likely cause more problems than it fixes (not a perfect analogy I know, but it's functional).
Similarly with any software, bugs are not isolated occurances - it's like the butterfly effect. A butterfly flaps its wings in Japan, and as a result a jet explodes in New York -- the principle is the same. Changing one thing often has unforeseen changes in other parts of the application. Then you run into the idea of too many people in the kitchen - you have bug-devs changing things, and it effecting patch/content devs, and then patch/content devs changing things which in turn cause more bugs ...
Again, not a perfect analogy but it works.
GamerJunkie Mar 26th 2009 11:00PM
A billion $ company claims that quarterly content releases are hard, is a bunch of lazy hats.
Re-colored artwork, re-used raids, and an achievement system as easy to make as playing sudoku.
I don't buy it.