Poster: Volod at 5/22/2006 10:44:56 PM PDT
Subject: Design Philosophy Changes Notes 3 |
| |
Both the original thread and it's replacement seem to be broken, and since discussion in no way was dead, I'm remaking it. I've included all my posts, but there certainly good ones from the prior one as well. If you think you had a particularly good thing to say, feel free to copy it over. Or, start new and find a voice in this thread. My notes to this thread will be added as posts are made and will appear on page two from posts #36-38, immediately following the archives of my posts from the previous threads.
WoW-Euro Readers, please view post #36 if you would like to respond to me.
INITIAL POST:
You very likely do not know me. I have been around since late beta, but have posted a spectacularly few times. I would say five times total. However, I have noticed what many of you have been saying and over these months, I have been reading theorycraft that tended to focus on one of two themes. The first was mechanics: how the world works is interesting to me, and I very much liked the portions that I could find. The second theme dealt with the mage class not being where it needed to be, and, indeed, progressively getting worse, rather than better.
I still feel this is the case, though I am glad that the Devs are making some changes to the talent review, I still think it's looking in the wrong direction.
Furthermore, I now have read from Blue that confirms not only they know about it, but they intend it to be this way, and I feel they should go back and review our class. Not our talents, our class. The talent review is actually some pretty fair changes, its almost all good, depending on your personal hopes, but it was never the talents that were really that bad, other than the set up of spell school, rather than game play style, which is seen in other classes, and I think would have made for a more interesting review.
This is about class design.
Observe:
Q u o t e:
Originally Posted by Tseric:
And here is the real crux of the matter when it comes to some mage's discontent. I pretty much expect someone to cite the original description of the mage class from the manual any time now.
Since Beta, mages have been laboring under the impression that they should unequivocably be the greatest damage dealers in the game, in any situation, all the time.
This is not a perception that has fit into the design scheme of this game for quite a while. To hang on to a version of print as it gets outdated through the gradual growth and design of this game is to live forever with fantasies not being mirrored by reality. That is painful and will continue to be so, until people come to terms with the fact that damage should be competitive and that a mages role overlaps areas and will not be constrained to pure damage.
That you would say that this makes them useless in PvP and PvE only goes to show that you will never achieve anything to those ends, not that it can't be done.
There are a few key things in this I feel are especially important.
1. The original description of the mage class.
Yes, this is important. It was a statement by the devs, the only one we got, about what we were signing up for. No, it's not that this can't be changed, it's that it has changed without notice (until now), while keeping with the party line that it remained the same. Observe these snippets from the Mage Class Description posted on the website:
"Type: Primary Ranged Magic Damage Dealer" This would imply we are as good at ranged damage as priests are to healing: primary is an important word on that page, and it carries expectations.
"Comments: Excellent primary ranged damage dealers" Again, only focus on mages having damage.
"Class Role:
When seeking someone to introduce monsters to a world of pain, the Mage is a good choice." This is the first note in the class role. It's said aggressively, it is not wishy washy, it is not about diluted roles.
"Damage is the name of the Mage game, and they do it well." Still from Class Role.
"We're not telling you how to play the game - one of the fascinating practices of this genre is the ingenuity exercised by the players every day!" OH, I beg to differ, but more on that later.
The problem I have here is not that they can't change the mage class to be something other than damage. It's not even they did it without changing the description, it's something bigger, and I'll get to that in a second. But this section just acknowledges that class descriptions matter. In the world of business, if you offer something than change it quickly, it's known as a bait and switch. In many states, this practice is downright illegal, at best it's sketchy. It's not what's happening here entirely, we all know that online games change, but it's the manner in which this change has been approached that is the bother for this section. Mages received zero blue posts for a matter of months, and when Tseric finally showed up, he started off on a very negative tone, stating in clear terms what we were asking for (such as more water conjured per cast) was completely unreasonable. No, this isn't illegal, but it feels deceitful. The service industry is supposed to be about treating your customers well. Really. I know most retail workers actually hate their customers, but they're paid specifically to be nice to them. Essentially, we are paying for service industry treatment, and not getting treated well. We're told our expectations are unreasonable when the same mouth that told us this also told us the expectations, and never gave notice of change. To this day, they still proclaim mage damage as paramount to the class with one hand, and work to undo it with other.
2. unequivocably be the greatest damage dealers in the game, in any situation, all the time.
I don't feel this way. I know a lot of other mages don't. Though, Im sure some do. The manual he is so casually saying is trash also stated that rogues topped mages in dps, that's fine. It's fair that the melee dps class, which has more risks in the manner in which they deal damage should do more than the ranged dps class.
Stating that this is what mages are expecting though, shows the disconnect right now between mages and devs. You know some of them are pissed off when Tseric brings our concerns, because what we hear back is they think we want to be able to destroy worlds with the push of a button (instant cast, no cooldown, mind you). And I don't think that's the primary focus on what mages want right now. I think many of us were expecting a larger boost in the talent review that what we got, but I'm not surprised it didn't happen.
3. To hang on to a version of print as it gets outdated
Again, just a note that while the design philosophy on mages has changed, the documentation, by and large, has not. I propose that there should be less secret bulletins on what mages are, and more public ones, elsewise, when we're told we're living in a fantasy world because we read the current text (not outdated text, but actual electronic up to the minute accurate text) and it's contradictory, we don't feel like we're being taken for a ride.
This is the first time that Blizzard publicly came forth that the design has changed for mages. And while some of us knew, just by the comedy of errors surrounding itemization and others places of lacking, saying it's our fault we're living a fantasy is insulting, when Blizzard has been the one maintaining it.
4. damage should be competitive
Well first, it doesn't have to be. For someone that claims that "You also avoid using absolutes, like "never" "nothing" "always" ... Nothing is ever absolute on these boards, no matter how many /signs there are" there should be a underlying knowledge that the word should is a powerful one. It results in interpretation that this is, by natural law, the way things should be.
That's just as much of an absolute as never.
Damage should be competitive is really saying the the Developer's design philosophy is that damage will be competitive. It's a conscious choice to do this, not the way things have to be. However, mages knew from the start they weren't the only damage dealing class, fine. When you bring everyone up to the level of mage though, there might be some problems, more on that later.
5. mages role overlaps areas and will not be constrained to pure damage.
Great, so we now have nailed down that regardless of what the initial class function was, regardless of what was printed in the manual, and regardless of what is still to this day on the website, we now know that mages have a clear cut role, and it's not just damage! Good stuff. So, uh, what is it?
In design balancing, you have to make sure that the sum of all parts of one class roughly is equal the sum of all the other parts for everyone else. This gets sticky, of course, in having different people view the value of different parts differently. Presently, one of the largest issues mages have is that the sum of our parts no longer seem equitable in comparison to other classes parts. Because the Devs consciously decided to that the role of damage should be shared, more and more classes are getting large boosts to their dps output, while mages are left with little boost, and a sense of wondering where they should be focusing on -- since, clearly, if we focus on damage, we're living in a fantasy world.
Mages, therefore, asked then, based on the fact we have low survivability in comparison to other classes (at least among the lowest, I would argue completely lowest, but that's another discussion), what are we getting in return? Damage has consistently been going up much slower than physical based classes starting at level 60, and we've now been told that any dreams of high damage are pipe in nature. The strengths of the class doesn't seem to justify this weakness, especially when other classes (most notably hunters) do not seem to have our weakness and carry all, or nearly all, and greater than all many regard, of our strengths.
More on next post.[ post edited by Volod ]
SR Officer
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mage&t=986856&p=#post986856 | | | Poster: Tseric at 5/25/2006 4:39:41 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Design Philosophy Changes Notes 3 |
| |
Q u o t e:
1. The original description of the mage class.
Yes, this is important. It was a statement by the devs, the only one we got, about what we were signing up for.
Simply put, you acknowledge that change in an MMO occurs, yet cite a brief class description as something that should be considered as a solid point of argument. The question then is, "If the game was not balanced at release, how could the manual be?" Using the manual as a leaping point for a discussion of class balance and game development and growth is trying to take a complex, lengthy process and saying it should be reflected accurately in short, simplfied, flavor text, to everyone's satisfaction.
Equating it to bait and switch is disingenuous. The fact that the manual was static for a time and the game design changed gradually over the course of a year+ does not qualify as bait and switch. If you acknowledge that this isn't exactly the case, why start with such loaded terms in the first place?
The manual was changed because of poor wording and the fact that players would cite it as "evidence" or a "promise" in a discussion of class balance. This caused disconnect in discussion and perception. Citing the manual has been a singular rallying point for many and it simply won't work in a discussion about something as complex as class balance.
Again, if we can't get beyond this point, we are at an impasse. The manual is never going to explicitly describe design philosophy. Why would you expect so much from it? Why would you expect something using loose terms and sensationalist language("It's said aggressively, it is not wishy washy, it is not about diluted roles.") as a foundation for something as gradual and complex as class balance? It is simplifying a complex issue and will never do it justice.
Q u o t e:
2. unequivocably be the greatest damage dealers in the game, in any situation, all the time.
I don't feel this way. I know a lot of other mages don't. Though, Im sure some do.
I'm glad you don't feel that way. I'm glad others don't feel that way. However, I have heard for calls of straight damage buffs more times than I can count. It happens, still and it is likely it will happen again. And when they do, they will probably cite the manual(original text), as well.
If we consider damage dealing for a moment, there are 2 parts to it. Damage and dealing. Damage obviously deals with straight numbers for the most part. Most mages focus on this aspect. The other part is dealing or delivery; the method by which damage is applied. This is something that mages also do well. Varieties of spell damage types or schools and methods of delivery, be they instant-cast or 3 second casts or distinct mechanics between fireball and arcane missiles. When I think about being good at ranged damage, I take both of those aspects into consideration, not just the straight damage. The devs also see it this way. This is something I have tried to communicate before, but it is hard to highlight nuance in the collective mind of the community. They are more prone to all-or-nothing distinctions. This feeds into much of the disconnect between players and devs.
In your breakdown of quotes from the manual, you focus on damage and exclude the dealing. That is my concern. For example:
Q u o t e:
"Comments: Excellent primary ranged damage dealers" Again, only focus on mages having damage.
It says "ranged damage dealers" not "ranged damage." See what I'm getting at here? Many mages engage in selective omission to make a point. It can lose some of the actual meaning when you focus on singular elements and exclude other important ones.
Q u o t e:
Again, just a note that while the design philosophy on mages has changed, the documentation, by and large, has not.
This is what patch notes are for. This is what forum discussion is for. Again, you are saying that the "documentation" of the manual should change with the game. I apologize, but that won't happen. Again, a few sentences in a book are never going to adequately reflect the reality of game experience. They are simply there to draw a crude outline of the classes comparitively.
Q u o t e:
This is the first time that Blizzard publicly came forth that the design has changed for mages.
Not really. I think the issue is that you were not aware of such talks or announcements, specifically. I have talked about hybridization before and will likely comment on it again. I have, in fact, made comments on the significance of the manual early on when I started working on this board. I made a light-hearted joke about it that people took seriously. Go figure.
Q u o t e:
5. mages role overlaps areas and will not be constrained to pure damage.
Great, so we now have nailed down that regardless of what the initial class function was, regardless of what was printed in the manual, and regardless of what is still to this day on the website, we now know that mages have a clear cut role, and it's not just damage! Good stuff. So, uh, what is it?
We can start by discarding strict roles and talk about tasks or jobs or options or opportunities where the mage can contribute. Dealing damage is a task. Decursing is a task. Crowd Control is a task. And, yes, the utilities of food/water and portals are tasks.
Then, we can talk about how the mage deals damage and elements that support that. They are distinguished with mana-regen abilities. They are distinguished with choices in what kind of damage to deal. This does not lend itself to a linear, hierarchal interpretation of "most damage" and "least damage", yet they factor in to contribution to the group or raid.
Q u o t e:
The strengths of the class doesn't seem to justify this weakness, especially when other classes (most notably hunters) do not seem to have our weakness and carry all, or nearly all, and greater than all many regard, of our strengths.
What if I was to come out and say "Hunters are overpowered?" Why would you look to buffs for your own class if another class was so clearly overpowered, as you suggest? While class balance has to consider the whole, it also has to distinguish where the actual imbalance lies. Is it really in Mages or in Hunters?
Again, we are working on the unspoken assumption that mages should be distinct in highest damage. This is not what the devs are measuring balance or fun on. Simply put, having a class that is definitively the highest damage gives them the opportunity to "one-shot" everyone and would be enforced through game mechanics. The devs do not like that notion.
Again, if we can't move past the linear notion of "most damage" then we will continue to have miscommunication. You say you don't really want it, but you keep coming back to that point.
I'll try to comment on the other pages later, but overall I am pleased that you took the time to write all of this. However, I feel anything less than a term paper in responce will not meet the satisfaction of the community, as this is "the post to read." We shall see.
Oh, last comment.
Q u o t e:
Mages received zero blue posts for a matter of months, and when Tseric finally showed up, he started off on a very negative tone, stating in clear terms what we were asking for (such as more water conjured per cast) was completely unreasonable.
I can't take responsibility for what happened when I wasn't here. If you want to make a case for my starting with negativity, you should provide more than a vague reference to water. My comments from that time can be found and I look at them myself from time to time. I didn't start on the foot of negativity, I was met with it. Regardless, the "condescending" comments I have made are often due to a lack of inflection in text. I'll admit, I can come off harsh sometimes, but I'm here to debate matters, not tell you that all your desires will be attended to in customer service fashion. I have short comings and a temper, yes. I work to improve that. The issue I take, is that that attitude does not comprise the bulk of my communication on these boards, but a small portion. Yet, many will try to tell you that I'm really a bad guy and I can't be trusted. Again, an all-or-nothing attitude.
Consider the point that I petitioned vigorously for 10 waters per cast to the point where the devs didn't want to be bothered with the same thing over and over. The last time I brought it up was prior to 1.9 and I was flatly told they were aware of many concerns, but not to the point of changing it due to demand. I came here and argued a point that I did not agree with and I did it as hard as I could. I did it because I felt we had to talk about something else other than an issue we were not going to make real progress on through discussion. Go back and read the post. I comment on value of water in a game design sense and I never mention crashing the economy, as so many people repeat. A week later was a re-review period that happens before every patch, of contentious issues that may have been bumped a patch or two. The change was made then. The perception of the community will probably always be that I really believe everything I say, which will always be somewhat amusing to me. My opinions are rather irrelevant in this context.
Anyways, nice talking with ya.[ post edited by Tseric ]
What did one snowman say to the other?
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mage&t=986856&p=#post997859 | Poster: Tseric at 5/25/2006 4:48:40 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Design Philosophy Changes Notes 3 |
| |
Q u o t e:
So, if Im supposed to be able to find a class that suits me, what do I use?
Believe me when I say I'm not trying to be condescending here when I say, "You play them to find out what you like. Stop expecting a few text lines to show you where the fun is."
Fun is in the doing, not in the reading about it.[ post edited by Tseric ]
What did one snowman say to the other?
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mage&t=986856&p=#post997893 | Poster: Tseric at 5/25/2006 4:48:40 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Design Philosophy Changes Notes 3 *edited post* |
| |
Q u o t e:
So, if Im supposed to be able to find a class that suits me, what do I use?
Believe me when I say I'm not trying to be condescending here when I say, "You play them to find out what you like. Stop expecting a few text lines to show you where the fun is."
Fun is in the doing, not in the reading about it.[ post edited by Tseric ]
What did one snowman say to the other?
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mage&t=986856&p=#post997893 |
View all recent official Blue Posts
|
