AnimeSuki Forums

Xacual · 2012-01-23, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Ah yes, forgot that little management decision: the dying servers Blizzard doesn't want to merge because forcing people to pay for a Char-Transfer is more lucrative

Server merges also have kind of a stigma in the MMO industry. Games only do server merges when they're dying so Blizzard doesn't want to do that because it would send even worse messages.

Flying Dagger · 2012-01-23, 12:55

I never bothered with a lot of those rare mounts/mobs: too time consuming. I already dumped enough time into progression raiding. Sometimes I look back and think to myself, "omg, I spent so many hours grinding dailies to get rep and tokens for pets and mounts, I could have been playing something else instead". I believe those timesinks are major factors which drove me away from WoW.

Some marketing rep in blizzard HQ would be smiling to know something as simple as a rare mount can encourage people paying...

Ithekro · 2012-01-23, 13:44

That sort of ties into the Pet Battle System they are adding in MoP. There are people that have to get everything...and with a system that lets you do something while you wait in the queue....you gotta catch 'em all.

GDB · 2012-01-23, 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xacual

Server merges also have kind of a stigma in the MMO industry. Games only do server merges when they're dying so Blizzard doesn't want to do that because it would send even worse messages.

All they'd have to do is give it proper spin. Merge servers so they can open new ones with niches, like the Vanilla servers, BC servers, etc that people are clamoring for. Two birds, one stone.

RWBladewing · 2012-01-23, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDB

All they'd have to do is give it proper spin. Merge servers so they can open new ones with niches, like the Vanilla servers, BC servers, etc that people are clamoring for. Two birds, one stone.

Or they could do what Rift did, close servers but say they're being moved to "trial" status just to sidestep actually admitting they are closed. The funniest part about this is that some people actually believed that PR spin; because apparently the idea of a game with exponentially more trial servers than servers with actual players makes total sense.

Flying Dagger · 2012-01-23, 14:43

Blizzard invested a lot of money into cross-realm BGs/LFG to bypass the need of mass server mergers.

Blizzard can have very valid excuses, such as "upgrading to more powerful servers and using the opportunity to rebalance faction population".

Nightbat® · 2012-01-25, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xacual

Server merges also have kind of a stigma in the MMO industry. Games only do server merges when they're dying so Blizzard doesn't want to do that because it would send even worse messages.

But one butthurt player spouting in a forum is just a click away from server activity and population reports
Only if those numbers weren't public, Blizzard could have acted like nothing's wrong

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

Blizzard invested a lot of money into cross-realm BGs/LFG to bypass the need of mass server mergers.

Yup, but the players there have to invest even more time and money trying to get gear and mats

Ithekro · 2012-04-05, 17:09

I think the Mists of Pandaria Beta has started.

Xacual · 2012-04-05, 17:16

It's been going for a few weeks now I think? They just added another wave of invites.

A lot of the information coming from it sounds good so far.

Ithekro · 2012-04-05, 17:26

I got an invite. Though it may be a few days until I start playing.

Mainly because I'm busy being too hyped up about Space Battleship Yamato 2199.

Last Sinner · 2012-04-05, 22:16

I got mine a few days ago but haven't acted on it yet. I suppose I should this long weekend maybe.

Ithekro · 2012-04-15, 18:05

There are a lot of people running around in Beta. I assume things thin out after the starting zone in Pandaria like they thinned out after the Hyjal and Vash'jir in CATA.

Also things crash a lot....but it is Beta.

Nightbat® · 2012-04-30, 16:59

Well don't expect any improvement during PTR over any imbalances
They'll go live and leave the playerbase to suffer them for months

Ithekro · 2012-04-30, 18:20

You only have to worry about that in PVP.

Unless it is so bad that no one wants to raid with you class because you cause too little damage, or you can't heal, or you can't hold aggro due to real balance issues (rather than lack of skill).

Nightbat® · 2012-05-01, 16:37

The problem often isn't with 'less', but 'more'

Class discrimination (for lack of a better term) happens when balancing favors certain classe'/specs/abilities overshadow everyone else's
Most classes will do enough damage/aggro/healing
but you want the classes that give the 'Most' or the 'Best' at an encounter

And though "IWIN" buttons are gone, there are still abilities that are 'too good' to wait months for to tone down

And they go live because they hardly pay attention to PTR numbers
they have 10000's of "FREE QC testers" running around on a game that's making them millions
yet they can't be assed to actually do their homework and correct things that 'common' people already point out going awry

8 years into the game, they still make the same mistakes as if they just released 1.0
even balancing negative/positively based the statistics how popular class/spec-population is
just to make you go play the 'current FotM/low-population toon'

With every expansion they've promised improvements that turn out just to be a rerun of the problems of the previous one except with a different name of the class having the trouble

Nixl · 2012-05-01, 17:01

To be fair, in past xpacs the problems have been slightly different. For instance during the Vanilla and Burning Crusade, the Hybrid vs Pure argument took up a lot of discussion in regards to dps versus utility. I do not even want to think about Vanilla Ret paladins.

In Wotlk (and before obviously) you had a lot of issue with players always having to switch to the most optimal spec due to the others being complete ass.

At the moment for Cata, no spec in game to my memory is sub-optimal to the point of being left out. There are classes that pull ahead, but I would not state that the imbalance between both classes and spec is nearly as bad as in the past. I have yet to see a class (or even spec) be Sunwelled this xpac. For example, warlocks specs are within 2k dps of each other (Demonology > Destro>Afflic generally), yet depending on the fight mechanics one can prove better than the other.

I have not enjoyed Cataclysm or even played it as much as previous expansions (or vanilla), but I do not think that is the problem at the moment.

Flying Dagger · 2012-05-01, 18:19

With MoP on the horizon I wonder if the pure vs hybrid argument would return:
assuming "all tanks are equal", why would you choose the other classes over a bear which blizzard is working hard to pack "off spec utilities"?

The answer is not to nerf bears so they are inferior tanks (hybrid tax), or shy away from the hybrid model, but to give them a reason to bring a warrior into the raid (something as slight as having "15% more dps" to go through the gear check).

Then there is the "skill" issue. In BC endgame, you can play a destro lock and pump out very high dps using a single button... some classes imo are "harder" to play. The skill level can use some balancing out. I do not want to see Wrath style of paladins spamming holy lights...

The WoW game engine needs a major update to create many new fight mechanics: I wish blizzard would work really hard on that.

Nixl · 2012-05-01, 18:30

The current philosophy of bring the player, not the class" has truly skewed certain dynamics between rotation/"skill" and dps output. They appear totally detached from one another. If a class has a punishing rotation, it is just for the sake of being punishing rather than showing skill through good dps.

For instance, current warlock design is one of the victims of this philosophy. Warlock rotations is about as complex as it has ever been (tedious imo), yet compared to past xpacs it is doing less damage. It is complexity for the sake of complexity or punishment for the sake of punishment at the moment.

There was a very good blog on how "bring the player, not the class" affected warlock that I wish I remembered.

Here it is,
http://cynwise.wordpress.com/2012/04...-magic-number/

GDB · 2012-05-01, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

The answer is not to nerf bears so they are inferior tanks (hybrid tax), or shy away from the hybrid model, but to give them a reason to bring a warrior into the raid (something as slight as having "15% more dps" to go through the gear check).

This comes down, in my opinion, to the gear. A bear can switch to a cat with the same gear and put out reasonable DPS. I think in MoP they may need to change specs to do this, since they separated bear and cat trees, so this may not be as much of an issue anymore. However, for now at least, a Protection spec cannot "stance dance" to Fury/Arms or Retribution and put out reasonable DPS. A Death Knight might be able to, just based on my leveling of a Blood DK.

I'm not sure how the issue will be now that cat and bear are different specs, though.

Flying Dagger · 2012-05-01, 19:15

Vengenace mechanics forbid tank classes from really dealing the damage.
IMO that is somewhat outdated (though I can really see how it might be a major issue in pvp - I rmb when prot was a viable pvp spec once upon a time...). I feel that it should be fine for a tank to be a major contributor to dps with the vengeance mechanic, and would still be able to function at maybe 75% of optimal value without vengeance.

2012-01-23, 13:44	Link #7663
Ithekro Space Battleship Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 35	That sort of ties into the Pet Battle System they are adding in MoP. There are people that have to get everything...and with a system that lets you do something while you wait in the queue....you gotta catch 'em all. __________________

2012-04-05, 17:09	Link #7668
Ithekro Space Battleship Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 35	I think the Mists of Pandaria Beta has started. __________________

2012-04-05, 17:16	Link #7669
Xacual Infinite Level Cap Join Date: Mar 2008	It's been going for a few weeks now I think? They just added another wave of invites. A lot of the information coming from it sounds good so far. __________________

2012-04-05, 17:26	Link #7670
Ithekro Space Battleship Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 35	I got an invite. Though it may be a few days until I start playing. Mainly because I'm busy being too hyped up about Space Battleship Yamato 2199. __________________

2012-04-05, 22:16	Link #7671
Last Sinner Screw The Rules Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: The Gloaming Age: 31	I got mine a few days ago but haven't acted on it yet. I suppose I should this long weekend maybe. __________________

2012-01-23, 12:55	Link #7662
Flying Dagger Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003	I never bothered with a lot of those rare mounts/mobs: too time consuming. I already dumped enough time into progression raiding. Sometimes I look back and think to myself, "omg, I spent so many hours grinding dailies to get rep and tokens for pets and mounts, I could have been playing something else instead". I believe those timesinks are major factors which drove me away from WoW. Some marketing rep in blizzard HQ would be smiling to know something as simple as a rare mount can encourage people paying...

2012-01-23, 14:43	Link #7666
Flying Dagger Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003	Blizzard invested a lot of money into cross-realm BGs/LFG to bypass the need of mass server mergers. Blizzard can have very valid excuses, such as "upgrading to more powerful servers and using the opportunity to rebalance faction population".

2012-04-15, 18:05	Link #7672
Ithekro Space Battleship Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 35	There are a lot of people running around in Beta. I assume things thin out after the starting zone in Pandaria like they thinned out after the Hyjal and Vash'jir in CATA. Also things crash a lot....but it is Beta. __________________

2012-04-30, 16:59	Link #7673
Nightbat® Deadpan Snarker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Neverlands Age: 35	Well don't expect any improvement during PTR over any imbalances They'll go live and leave the playerbase to suffer them for months __________________

2012-04-30, 18:20	Link #7674
Ithekro Space Battleship Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 35	You only have to worry about that in PVP. Unless it is so bad that no one wants to raid with you class because you cause too little damage, or you can't heal, or you can't hold aggro due to real balance issues (rather than lack of skill). __________________

2012-05-01, 16:37	Link #7675
Nightbat® Deadpan Snarker Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Neverlands Age: 35	The problem often isn't with 'less', but 'more' Class discrimination (for lack of a better term) happens when balancing favors certain classe'/specs/abilities overshadow everyone else's Most classes will do enough damage/aggro/healing but you want the classes that give the 'Most' or the 'Best' at an encounter And though "IWIN" buttons are gone, there are still abilities that are 'too good' to wait months for to tone down And they go live because they hardly pay attention to PTR numbers they have 10000's of "FREE QC testers" running around on a game that's making them millions yet they can't be assed to actually do their homework and correct things that 'common' people already point out going awry 8 years into the game, they still make the same mistakes as if they just released 1.0 even balancing negative/positively based the statistics how popular class/spec-population is just to make you go play the 'current FotM/low-population toon' With every expansion they've promised improvements that turn out just to be a rerun of the problems of the previous one except with a different name of the class having the trouble __________________ Last edited by Nightbat®; 2012-05-01 at 16:48.

2012-05-01, 17:01	Link #7676
Nixl Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009	To be fair, in past xpacs the problems have been slightly different. For instance during the Vanilla and Burning Crusade, the Hybrid vs Pure argument took up a lot of discussion in regards to dps versus utility. I do not even want to think about Vanilla Ret paladins. In Wotlk (and before obviously) you had a lot of issue with players always having to switch to the most optimal spec due to the others being complete ass. At the moment for Cata, no spec in game to my memory is sub-optimal to the point of being left out. There are classes that pull ahead, but I would not state that the imbalance between both classes and spec is nearly as bad as in the past. I have yet to see a class (or even spec) be Sunwelled this xpac. For example, warlocks specs are within 2k dps of each other (Demonology > Destro>Afflic generally), yet depending on the fight mechanics one can prove better than the other. I have not enjoyed Cataclysm or even played it as much as previous expansions (or vanilla), but I do not think that is the problem at the moment. Last edited by Nixl; 2012-05-01 at 17:11.

2012-05-01, 18:19	Link #7677
Flying Dagger Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003	With MoP on the horizon I wonder if the pure vs hybrid argument would return: assuming "all tanks are equal", why would you choose the other classes over a bear which blizzard is working hard to pack "off spec utilities"? The answer is not to nerf bears so they are inferior tanks (hybrid tax), or shy away from the hybrid model, but to give them a reason to bring a warrior into the raid (something as slight as having "15% more dps" to go through the gear check). Then there is the "skill" issue. In BC endgame, you can play a destro lock and pump out very high dps using a single button... some classes imo are "harder" to play. The skill level can use some balancing out. I do not want to see Wrath style of paladins spamming holy lights... The WoW game engine needs a major update to create many new fight mechanics: I wish blizzard would work really hard on that.

2012-05-01, 18:30	Link #7678
Nixl Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009	The current philosophy of bring the player, not the class" has truly skewed certain dynamics between rotation/"skill" and dps output. They appear totally detached from one another. If a class has a punishing rotation, it is just for the sake of being punishing rather than showing skill through good dps. For instance, current warlock design is one of the victims of this philosophy. Warlock rotations is about as complex as it has ever been (tedious imo), yet compared to past xpacs it is doing less damage. It is complexity for the sake of complexity or punishment for the sake of punishment at the moment. There was a very good blog on how "bring the player, not the class" affected warlock that I wish I remembered. Here it is, http://cynwise.wordpress.com/2012/04...-magic-number/

2012-05-01, 19:15	Link #7680
Flying Dagger Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003	Vengenace mechanics forbid tank classes from really dealing the damage. IMO that is somewhat outdated (though I can really see how it might be a major issue in pvp - I rmb when prot was a viable pvp spec once upon a time...). I feel that it should be fine for a tank to be a major contributor to dps with the vengeance mechanic, and would still be able to function at maybe 75% of optimal value without vengeance.