Blizzard and unintended consequences
by Mike Schramm 
Jan 14th 2008 at 6:00PM
Relmstein has an interesting post about Blizzard and all the "unintended consequences" they seem to run into. He talks mainly about Alterac Valley and Blizzard's recent AFKer battles, as well as the fight against smurfing and selling Arena ratings. Both times, Blizzard implemented fixes that were meant to, well, fix things, but both times, the "fixes" were either completely dodged, or simply lead to more problems.Now, Relmstein is just thinking critically about Blizzard's actions, and we always encourage that. But at the same time, you can't really blame them for having unintended consequences to their ingame actions-- the law says everyone does. And to go the other way, the mere fact that Blizzard is confronting this stuff (honor exploits and rating sales) while other games are just trying to get PvP or a good Arena system down says that they're way ahead of the game already. They're dealing with specific problems in implementation, while other developers are still just trying to get people to play.
But at the same time, Relmstein is exactly right to call both of these examples Blizzard attacking the symptoms rather than the underlying problem. Why do people sell Arena ratings or AFK in Alterac Valley? Because Blizzard's honor rewards system makes it easier for them to do that rather than actually be good at PvP. If Blizzard attacked the problem (a mixed-up rewards system) rather than the symptoms (AFKers and smurfs), then there would be no dodging their fixes.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Ranking, Odds and ends, Blizzard, Battlegrounds, Arena
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
icer Jan 14th 2008 6:30PM
wouldn't it be cool if they gave everybody free S3 set
don't flame me it's just a thought
hpavc Jan 14th 2008 6:47PM
Sure hand in your tier0.5 and get free S3, i am down with that.
Erika Jan 14th 2008 6:51PM
I think thats what they should do for arenas. It would even the playing field about as best as it can get. I think they should still be able to use it outside the arenas but inside everybody gets it. It would be down to skill and grouping to pull off a win. I also think that instead of having 4 different marks they should have just 1 universal mark and make things cost more of the universals. This would remove the having to put up with doing a bg you don't like.
Green Armadillo Jan 14th 2008 6:47PM
We're getting band-aids right now because mid-way through an existing expansion is not the time to gut and overhaul the PVP reward system.
That said, I'd dispute the argument that the current reward structure (time spent in bg's -> honor -> rewards -> maximize honor by any means necessary) is "unintended". Blizzard WANTS players to spend time in battlegrounds in exchange for incremental progress towards a reward. The old honor system was replaced precisely because it did not offer incremental progress. Blizzard WILL keep making changes, cause they don't want the BG experience to get so bad that people aren't willing to even try, but honor as a currency is almost certainly here to stay.
InterSlayer Jan 14th 2008 7:00PM
The system is flawed in that it has unintended paths of advancement specifically, not necessarily that it isn't fun.
For example, just because people buy level 70 characters or pay for levelling services doesn't mean that the game is flawed or not fun. It just means some people are in a position to do that, and its the easiest way to accomplish their goals.
Mindrinne Jan 14th 2008 7:35PM
Why is it only AFKing in AV that everyone mentions? I played a lot of EoTS on the weekend and there were heaps of people AFKing in there too...we had one match where only 3 people did any damage/healing, the rest were standing in the spawn area the whole time.
They need to track a combination of damage/healing, movement and time in the BG to determine if a person was contributing.
vildand Jan 14th 2008 8:29PM
"If Blizzard attacked the problem (a mixed-up rewards system)"
Sky_Paladin Jan 14th 2008 9:21PM
The problem is three fold.
A) The Battleground PVP experience is actually a pve one.
B) The playing field is not even.
C) No in-game leadership support.
A: Consider the difference between battlegrounds and arena.
WSG: The goal is a pve objective.
AB: The goal is multiple pve objectives.
AV: The goal is multiple pve objectives.
EYE: Still more multiple pve objectives.
ARENA: Kill as many people as fast as you possibly can.
PVP happens by accident during a PVE experience. The net reward (compensation for effort over time) is arguably better for non participation than participation.
B: The dependency on gear to be effective in PVP results in an arms race. As there are specialist PVP sets, these excel to the exclusion of all others. Removing the PVP sets results in the best PVE tier sets being the new 'best PVP'. PVP success becomes less about personal ability and skill and more about how much equipment you have acquired. It's impossible for a character to compete against a significantly better geared character, even if the player has greater pvp skill (for instance, their main character has all that pvp gear).
By removing the human factor the PVP experience becomes more autonomous, pre-determined, and players become resigned to their fate. It is not until late in the arena game when players have a roughly level field that it becomes fun again. Players who are disenfranchised by the PVP experience pre-Season 3 gear may not be interested to pursue it.
C: There is no in built coordination in the battlegrounds and no means for beginners to be shown the ropes without being called noobs. They are warzones with no strategy or encouragement to work together.
Some suggested solutions:
Remove all pvp and arena pieces from the game.
Remove all marks of honor and honor from the game.
Allow players to loot (proof of kill) from enemy players and npcs.
Allow players to turn in x (proof of kill) for heroic badges.
Consider some of the other leadership options (eg Battlefield 2's 'Commander' mode) for battlegrounds, including the ability for the raid leader to mute players/players to demote the commander.
Dave Jan 14th 2008 10:06PM
I think there's a greater overall problem, and that's the problem that some sort of management or senior management or whatever at Blizzard doesn't think projects through past the band-aid stage.
There doesn't seem to be a "what if" session regarding any major changes they do, they just see the problem and come up with a way to attack it without deciding if there's going to be a "counter attack" by the players. In the case of honor as currency, one of the first things they should have thought about are ways to abuse the system and put in corrective measures elsewhere to remove the ability to abuse it or at least make it less worth the effort. It's not that AFK'ing and botting in AV is new, people did it to get High Warlord all the time, along with account sharing to ensure there was someone on the account 24/7. What they didn't realize (i guess) is that the same sort of behavior instead of being restricted to the elite-only people, it would quickly spread and be the standard for people tired of actually BG'ing to get their gear.
I find it a little weird that nobody thought it through or that the people who did suggest that it could be abused weren't heard. (player, developer, I'm sure SOMEONE raised the question and was squashed in the name of efficiency and progress rather than delaying things to be done "right", instead of "just done).
It's not just BG's too though, it's a persistent problem in a lot of aspects of the game.
There's a very very small development group compared to the amount of players in the game. Lots of the players know this game better than the developers who may only know their specific area of coding and not necessarily how the rest of the game meshes. But, for whatever reason... PTR feedback is almost universally ignored until it's a real problem. It gets addressed, but often a loooooong time after it's been a serious issue in the game. (if ever).
So, I've gotta believe it stems from management decisions. The same sort of decisions that frustrate the majority of people in a non-authoritary position at their jobs, and probably a lot of managerial types will recognize "hey, people piss me off all the time with their stupid suggestions, but I know what I'm doing!" as well. Nothing surprising, except that for a game that relies on the customer so much, you'd figure they'd be much more receptive to real feedback.
MartinC Jan 14th 2008 10:50PM
LOL, you have no idea how software development works, do you?
Hmm, let's listen to the 10 million customers, all with different opinions on what should be done, many ill-informed about game mechanics and play balance. Yeah, right.
It still amazes me how many people try to bash Blizzard. You guys really have no idea how well this game is designed, implemented, and maintained. No other development house even comes close to the polish and design of WoW when compared to other MMOs. There is a reason it's so popular. Hint: it's not because it's a bad game.
Sure, nothing is perfect, but many of these issues are around "human nature" exploits. People doing things that go against the true nature of the game, or otherwise trying to screw over other players. There is no way to totally remove that. If you remove all choices and force all players to do the same thing, nobody would play the game.
Zechleton Jan 14th 2008 11:23PM
"Remove all pvp and arena pieces from the game."
And let the 4-5 guilds that run BT on most servers dominate everyone else? This is exactly what blizzard is rightly moving away from ever since the honour system overhaul. Why should PvE'ers dominate PvP? Ridiculous idea.
"Remove all marks of honor and honor from the game."
I'll go with that. I can't stand EOTS. But i can't see any real reason for this other than personal preference.
"Allow players to loot (proof of kill) from enemy players and npcs.
Allow players to turn in x (proof of kill) for heroic badges."
Fun, but doesn't really solve the problem. If every PvP encounter was 1v1 this would be a good idea but that is almost never the case. Moreover, how would you loot a corpse in arenas, especially in 2s where their teammate will usually leave straight after his mate dies.
"Consider some of the other leadership options (eg Battlefield 2's 'Commander' mode) for battlegrounds, including the ability for the raid leader to mute players/players to demote the commander"
A good idea on the surface but when you think about the problems with PvP already this becomes stupid. Who decides the raid leader? If it's random it'll be great fun when the 12 year old starts demoting everyone for fun won't it?
Personally, i think the solution is to just remove people from the game if they go inactive, but lengthen the 60 second debuff for people who get unlucky when they go to the toilet or something (it happens, trust me).
Sky_Paladin Jan 14th 2008 11:50PM
"And let the 4-5 guilds that run BT on most servers dominate everyone else? This is exactly what blizzard is rightly moving away from ever since the honour system overhaul. Why should PvE'ers dominate PvP? Ridiculous idea."
Actually I addressed this in my post. The suggestions were inclusive, not exclusive. Heroic badge shards (ie the proof of kill) looted from bodies become the battleground mark/honor/arena rating/personal rating all rolled in to one currency. Blizzard can then control the entire armor kit range from the heroic badge system.
The main advantage of this is that it is significantly less overhead for the developers, and players can fine tune their gear while pursuing whichever content they want to - pvp or pve. This means that player x who spends 10 hours a week can get the same awards as player y who spends 50 hours a week playing, it will just take them 5 times longer - but the content that was previously unavailable to them now becomes unlocked. This is 'progressive content'.
"Fun, but doesn't really solve the problem. If every PvP encounter was 1v1 this would be a good idea but that is almost never the case. Moreover, how would you loot a corpse in arenas, especially in 2s where their teammate will usually leave straight after his mate dies."
Neither of those examples occur in battlegrounds. Can you please restate what you mean? I don't understand.
"A good idea on the surface but when you think about the problems with PvP already this becomes stupid. Who decides the raid leader? If it's random it'll be great fun when the 12 year old starts demoting everyone for fun won't it?"
Who decides the raid leader: In battlefield 2, you apply for it. If the leader is an idiot, the players can vote to kick them. I am not saying that this is the only model that must be used, only SOME model SHOULD be implemented.
"If you remove all choices and force all players to do the same thing, nobody would play the game."
Isn't that what I said the current state of the game is?
Verit Jan 15th 2008 10:58AM
@Sky_Paladin
The problem with looting badges from kills is it discourages bg healing. Kinda like when the first bg's came out a long time ago - more damage = more honor. You may not be able to kill that holy pally, holy priest or resto druid - but they can't kill anything either.
Not to mention as a might warlock - a good chunk of my kills were assists, or happened after I died.
Charlie Jan 14th 2008 11:29PM
Blizzard is constantly making tweaks and changes to the system, saving major changes for expansions.
More than likely they are working on what relmstein is talking about. You just cant implement changes like that without an expansion. Seeing how this is blizzard's first expansion with Arena (and mass AFKers) they will make significant changes to it with WotLK, just like they did with the All parts of the original game (Honor System*, Raids, 5-man, and Solo content).
*Although it didnt come with BC, it was in the 2.0 patch, so its still part of the BC category of stuff.
turkeyspit Jan 14th 2008 11:39PM
I don't know how to address the problems with Arenas, but the AFK situation is very easy to deal with.
I realize that someone might have a personal emergency that causes them to be AFK during a BG. Thats fine. But by the time someone has been reported AFK multiple times, on multiple days, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is an Honor leacher. So, that individual gets a ban from BGs and Arena. The length of time could be short to start (1 day, 3 days) but would increase based on further infractions. I could even seen a year long ban for recurring infractions.
People always try to beat the system, be it by buying in-game gold and loot with real money, leveling services, or other tricks. But the AFK problem could be so easily dealt with, and yet it's not. Only Blizzard knows why...
Mindstrike Jan 15th 2008 11:05AM
OMG wanted to write that clause.. Had 2 Constant AFkerz join my EotS last night.. they walked around.. but didnt fight the horde..(Have a feeling they were in Cahoots with hordes via Vent or something), but Yes they were flagged afk, but the lack of help prevented us from winning.. (we only lost by 200 ~ 300 points)
So if they get AFK tagged 3 times.. Ban them indeed from any pvp battleground for more than 1 day.... or Remove Honor points equal to the win. (doesn help the above issue with padding the other team by being still born but it is a start)
*Even made a toon on the AFK leecher server and sent a "kind" tell.
Zechleton Jan 14th 2008 11:51PM
"Neither of those examples occur in battlegrounds. Can you please restate what you mean? I don't understand. "
Ok, i'm saying there is a big flaw in this looting of corpses. You said remove arena and PvP rewards so firstly, what would the point of arenas be, other than fun of course? You don't have time to loot corpses as i explained so are you suggesting blizzard ignore arena-specific rewards entirely?
Secondly, there is the problem of who actually kills x target in a BG. As the system is now you get honour based on how many people are around x (so you get honour even if you're running past on your mount). I'm assuming these medals work in the same way as boss loot so there's one for everyone who killed x but there are ways of exploiting that, such as the bots we're already seeing in BG's that run round to look like they aren't AFK. Moreover, stopping to loot a corpse in a BG takes time. If there's a choice between stopping a flag carrier in WSG, f.e, or looting your badge which would you pick? On top of that, what happens when you kill someone right at the end of the game? If the badges aren't looted, and automatically appear in your bag that's only aestehtically different to the way it works now but if you have to loot them then people are going to be losing medals they worked for. Either way, this actually hurts the non-botter more than it hurts the botter.
Sky_Paladin Jan 15th 2008 1:32AM
"Ok, i'm saying there is a big flaw in this looting of corpses."
Thanks for explaining, I can see where you are coming from now.
My idea would be it is the same as party loot - that is, you have to have counted as 'in combat' to have a right to loot the body (healing somebody already in combat, taking/giving damage). Only one person can loot. Bots and afkers can't pick loot a body unless they got involved in the combat, and then they aren't afkers :)
"You said remove arena and PvP rewards so firstly, what would the point of arenas be, other than fun of course?"
Blizzard's argument is that people should already be playing these things for fun, but they're not - they are playing for gear. The best rewards from the arena are not upgrades, they are the armoured mount and the title. That is what people should be playing for - the prestige.
Arena was probably designed to allow WoW to enter venues such as the World Cyber Games (with other games such as Dawn of War, Counterstrike, etc already there) with the intent of sportslike following and additional coverage of the game. However, WCG would never allow such an inherently unbalanced PVP game to enter the tournament.
"If the badges aren't looted, and automatically appear in your bag that's only aestehtically different to the way it works now but if you have to loot them then people are going to be losing medals they worked for."
Medals that are lost/not picked up are instead turned in to bonus rep for your closest-to-exalted faction, or gold. The return rate does not have to be very good. You could choose not to loot if rep/gold was more important to you than heroic badges.
If you choose to loot instead of attacking the flag carrier, you risk losing the game, and whatever associated bonus you get from a win (eg double the tokens/rep/gold). That's up to the individual to make that decision.
Justus Jan 15th 2008 12:25AM
Battlefield 1942 (a pvp game) had many many "arenas/battlegrounds".
WoW has 4 bgs & 3 arenas.
Anyone ever consider THIS is why people are bored with pvp and would rather afk grind?
awa64 Jan 15th 2008 7:13AM
Not to mention, if there's a major team skill/gear/leadership/whatever imbalance, in games like BF you have the option of jumping over to a new server (or having the server auto-balance the teams), and in WoW you just have the options of giving up or slogging through defeat after defeat.
I haven't hit L70 yet, so I'm not working on PVP gear sets yet, but... if it's going to take me thirty Warsong Gulch or Arathai Basin marks for a piece of a set, my options are "go AFK" or "give up," considering I've never been in a winning round of either one.