I really don't know enough about DKs to discuss them, but if it was killing world PvP before, I don't really see how it was ever a bad thing. It seems to me (from what I can find on the subject), that the removal of DKs was more of a housekeeping issue frm the revamping of the honor system. There's really no point in keeping an unnecessary component of the game in place.
It's not so much that
they removed it, it's why they removed it. They recognized a problem (griefing of low level players) and fixed it with DKs. However, that raised another problem. People who wanted to raid towns were no longer able to without destroying their PvP ranking. The DK system was not perfect, but the problem it fixed is still an important one, and they simply removed DKs after their fans whined about it enough. There are more elegant ways to fix the DK system. Or, my personal favorite, not fix it at all. There was never any objective need to change it, especially at a time when the whole PvP system was being revamped. I wouldn't have minded them changing DKs to something that promoted world PvP while discouraging dishonor via griefing. But they simply removed it, ignored the problem it was meant to fix, and I saw that as them simply doing a fanservice.
This statement is just grossly inaccurate. A fresh 80 cannot function adequately in an Ulduar group. I disagree with how they went about tuning Naxx, where a fresh 80 can really pull their own weight, but there is no way I can bring a new class up to 80 and pop right into Tier 8 or soon to be Tier 9 content.
That was an exaggeration. I thought I wrote that in there, but I guess not, my bad. Anyways, after the patch, it sounds like we'll be getting marks of triumph from heroics, which will prove my point further.
Mages and shadow priests already have low representation and need more utility in a PvP situation. The developers had a debuff that needed to be spread to more classes. This was the best possible solution to both problems without drastically altering balance.
The phrase "low representation" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The fact that not that many mages or spriests play arena is not a sign that the classes are balanced badly, even though that's what the community would have you believe. It's not a sign of anything, really. Think about BRD. BRD is a fairly under-represented job. That is, not that many people play bard. Should they buff bard because not that many people play it? I really don't think they should. BRD is one of the most powerful classes in FFXI. Mage, also, is quite a powerful class, but it requires a certain type of player, especially for arena, and most people end up preferring their juggernaut warrior or ret paladins for that purpose. The change was unnecessary. They should strive for every class being unique and fun to play, not for every class to be able to beat every other class in PvP.
It made no sense to the game developers to have a situation where two players of equal skill and gear could not perform on the same level or possibly even make it into a raid because one did not provide the necessary tools to help the raid.
Well why not? What is the huge tragedy about one class/spec being more desirable in raids compared to another?
See, but you're supporting your discussion in this very thread with your ideas that you admittedly state have no hard proof.
Well, what I'm trying to establish here is that the best way to develop an MMO is not to bend to the will of the players. Listen to players' concerns, sure. Glitches, whatever. That's all fine. But the fact that a player doesn't think some aspect of the game is tweaked right shouldn't be of much consequence to the developer.
They've spent a lot of time since LK release toning down excessive burst in a PvP situation. Arcane mages were able to put out too much damage in too short a time given character health pools, and something had to be done about it.
I would have to agree. But then, my point of view is not specific to mages. Warriors, mages, paladins, hunters, even locks are putting out disproportionate amounts of burst compared to player health pools. Blizzard's rationale for this is to counter the disproportionate amount of healing that healers can do. But again, this is really off point. My opinion of the way the game should be run shouldn't be an issue to Blizzard. They're professional game developers and I'm not one.
Any good game designer has a goal for the number of people that they want to see the endgame content they release.
I disagree. There is a ton of content in wow that people aren't experiencing, because they want to see ulduar, and the problem is: most of them aren't ready. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard should balance content around those players so that they can experience endgame.
Ulduar is still plenty difficult. Their entire goal for LK was to enable more people to see the endgame raiding because they didn't see a point in investing the majority of their development time into something that very few people could see or defeat.
Oh I agree, but you must admit, Ulduar's original design was much harder.
Why were the customer ideas bad in the first place?
They're not bad ideas, but they're not blizzard's
How do you know that they weren't ideas the developers were toying around with in the first place?
They very well could be, which is why I say I don't have hard evidence. But some of the moves they make seem awfully coincidental (and in many cases, just lazy on the front of innovation).
Are you trying to instead make the argument that it was acceptable to have engineering continually nerfed from what they felt was a balanced point upon release, while the other tradeskills got constant additions and buffs?
Yes that would be ok. They didn't actually do that, but that would have been ok, because it's their game. They can determine the value of engineering. I dropped alchemy for engineering in 2006 so I could make fireworks, and for no other reason. Maybe they value fireworks as much as I do, but the point is: it's their design, their call, their ideas, their decisions. If they happen to coincide with what my selfish wants are, cool for me, I guess. But frankly, their changes have coincided with too many people's selfish wants lately for me to not become suspicious of their process.
I never even once played DRG, but I sure as **** got annoyed when they were completely unable to get into parties and nothing was being changed about it.
I remember those days, and back then, I never saw why DRG wasn't getting parties. They always seemed alright to me. Not amazing, but I wouldn't deny a DRG a spot in my party if I had a slot to fill. I think that was a prejudice within the community, not a problem with the game.
As a pretty good example, the RNG nerf is what I like to see. It became obvious to them that RNG was overpowering other jobs and dominating everything. I'm absolutely certain that RNGs would have been happy to go along, merrily destroying everything in their path in arrow burn parties and such. But they got nerfed, and SO hard too. It was a good change, though. It was a change that made sense. Well... some amount of sense. But they did it because they thought it would make their game more cohesive, and I applaud them for having the balls to do it. Blizzard could never do something like that.
I'm not really sure because you quoted me to reply to, but you don't really seem to be saying anything about why it's an absolutely horrible idea which is what I feel like AntiMe's opinion is.
Let's see if I can be clearer about this, because my opinion isn't "listening to your fans is an absolutely horrible idea 100% of the time."
I think it's a bad idea when there's no logical rationale behind changes that the community suggests. But my definition of "logical rationale" is fairly small. Changes that the community wants generally fall into one of a few categories. This will not be a comprehensive list, but it might help illustrate my point.
1. Changes that make one class better or worse against another class in PvP
These types of changes are unnecessary. Almost always. Don't give warriors shattering throw, it doesn't make sense. It's the wrong class to give to, and it's not even necessary. Paladin's bubble is very powerful, yes, but they need it. Not every ability in the game needs a counter. Better way to balance paladin's bubble: "limits your movement speed to 100% while shielded." But again, it didn't need rebalancing.
2. Changes that make one class better or worse compared to another class in PvE
These changes are also generally unnecessary. It's like a little kid running to his mom and saying "mommy his ice cream cone is bigger than mine! Make him share!" It's an immature reaction, doesn't promote class uniqueness, and shouldn't merit attention.
3. Changes that in any way make two classes more similar in any way: I say almost always don't do it. Class homogenization is one of the things that irritates me the most about present day wow. If it were up to me, every class would have a different style, and each bring different, unique buffs and/or debuffs to situations. None of this non-stacking buffs BS, that's just one more thing that hinders immersion.
4. Cosmetic changes:
I have no problems with them putting some time into the new druid bear and cat forms. Cosmetic changes are generally fine by me.
5. Changes to the interface or implementations of new features. This is where listening to the community can be good:
Dressing room - great idea!
Voice chat - great idea! Nobody uses it, but they should, because it's actually great
Preview talent changes - great idea!
Dual spec - double edged sword, but worth looking into idea
Resizable quest objectives pane - great idea! A bit annoying in implementation, but still, good in principle
If the community came up with those ideas in 5, great. I'm glad they listened for those. But 1, 2, and especially 3 need to be handled very gingerly. 1, 2, and 3 are generally the ideas I've seen on the forums, and those are the areas that, honestly, should be mostly left alone. Class balance doesn't need to be set in stone or anything, but they're always tweaking everything, trying to get things perfect, when in reality, the imperfection is what makes the classes unique and fun. The problem with listening to players isn't that they have bad ideas, it's that the goals behind their ideas are different. They're not coming up with ideas to make classes more varied, interesting, and fun. They're coming up with ideas to make classes more fair
compared to each other. And that's not the mindset that you need to have when trying to make a cohesive world. Edited, Jul 12th 2009 12:09am by AntiMe