What Blizzard can learn from the Ghost Wolf debacle
Make no mistake about it-- Blizzard screwed up the issue of ghost wolf taming. A few months ago, when patch 2.3 was introduced with the new Dustwallow content, players found that by quickening Hunters' spellcast time, they were able to tame an animal that was never meant to be tamed-- the ghost wolves summoned by Grimtotem shamans there. Players thought it was awesome, and so did we. And despite the expectation that Blizzard would fix the problem and ruin our fun, we were surprised to hear that even though Blizzard admitted the taming was not intended, they would let it go. Those who wanted to put in the extra effort and cost to get a neat pet model would get one.Cut to earlier this week, when Drysc posted exactly the opposite on the forums.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has flipped on players, and odds are that it won't be the last. They screwed this up, and players deserve to either keep having the ability to go out of their way to tame these wolves, or get a good reason why they shouldn't be able to.
Before I go any further, a few assumptions. Yes, I know what they say about assumptions, but seeing as Blizzard hasn't shed any other light on the behind the scenes of this one, I am assuming that the following things are true:
- That the ghost wolf change doesn't affect gameplay at all. This is what it seems like, and Blizzard hasn't said otherwise.
- That the original ghost wolf taming was a mistake-- Blizzard never meant to let hunters tame these pets.
- And that there is no difference at all between the ghost wolf and other pets besides the skin itself. If the ghost wolf is labeled "undead" or "summoned" in some unchangeable way in the code that we don't know about, then obviously, there'd be problems with letting players have it. But even though Drysc says the guide has "undead status," (see below) he doesn't elaborate on this enough to convince me that the code is an obstacle here.
The removal of the spirit guide has been debated within design discussions for a while now as to what impact the pet and its precedent has on the game.
The unintended nature of the taming, the undead status of the guide, appearance of the wolf in relation to the feel of the hunter class, and the complex processes of taming were all issues touched upon and discussed.
So he gives us four reasons for undoing the taming: the unintended nature, the undead status of the guide, the appearance of the wolf in relation to hunters, and the complexity of taming.
The undead status of the guide is easy to argue against-- Hunters can already tame plagued bears and vampiric bats. The suggestion that the ghost of a wolf is less than a wolf itself doesn't hold water. Likewise, the appearance of the wolf in relation to the class is a cop-out (maybe some Hunters are more in tune with the spirit world than others), and the complex processes of taming are one of the reasons why the experience appealed to some Hunters in the first place. It was costly and expensive to get this thing, sure, but that's exactly what balanced out the special appearance for most.
So of the arguments given by Drysc, only "the unintended nature of the taming" holds any water. It seems that the "precedent" Blizzard didn't want to set was that they didn't want players enjoying developer mistakes. During creation of this wolf, some developer mistakenly labeled it "tameable." And thinking about it afterwards, the developers then decided they didn't want players reveling in the fact that they messed up. If players are going to enjoy the game, it seems, then it's going to be because of developers, not in spite of.
And of course, that's not a good idea at all. Leaving aside the fact that "precedent" doesn't even exist for Blizzard (it's their game, and they'll do what they want, so there should be no problem with them leaving in a mistake that doesn't affect gameplay and in the future, fixing one that does), even the best developers can stumble across mistakes that turn out to be great easter eggs for players to find. In short, none of the reasons Drysc gave are reason enough to take this taming out of the game. If there is a good reason to do this, we haven't heard it.
And that's the real problem here-- not so much that Blizzard no longer allows Hunters to tame ghost wolves (because hey, it's just a game), but that Blizzard's left hand never seems to know what its right hand is doing. When this news first broke, we posted here and many people posted on other sites that this "feature" was hidden in the game, and we all expected that it would get fixed (we wished it wouldn't, but we expected that it would). But no-- Blizzard's EU CMs told us clearly that ghost wolves would stay (these are the same CMs who admitted they screwed that up). And then a month later, Drysc told us exactly the opposite.
This has happened before. And before that. And any other time when we were promised one thing, but got another. Blizzard's CMs have a heck of a job to do, but whether the devs are giving them bad information or they're just not sharing that info with each other, players are hearing one thing, and then the complete opposite later on.
There are two ways to fix this, and I sincerely hope Blizzard chooses the second. Because the first is to do what they're doing now: go into a mode where they don't speak unless they are completely sure about what they're saying. "When it's done" is a result of this-- tired of being pestered about release dates, they refuse to give them out completely. And one fix for this would have been for Issuntril to never have posted about ghost wolves in the first place. If he'd never promised us they'd stay, then we wouldn't have been surprised when Drysc said they were getting fixed. If the CMs never give out any information, we can't ever accuse them of lying.
But there is the second solution, and it's the one I hope for. It's one where both the devs and the CMs are open and honest with us, and actually pay attention to what's been said before. Issuntril's message made it clear not only that he was posting that the ghost wolves would stay, but that the devs themselves had agreed they would. And now the devs flip back on that without even realizing what they'd decided before? That's unacceptable. If you give your word like that, or you make a decision in that way, no matter what business you're in, you make sure it stays made, or give a good reason why it must change, and neither the devs or the CMs seems to respect players enough to make either one of those things happen. Drysc's little "whoops, that was fixed-- didn't you know?" doesn't cut it.
I'm not saying "quit the game"-- I love World of Warcraft, and Blizzard is still one of my favorite developers. But they've got to get it together-- if they make a decision, they need to stand by it or make sure they have an excellent, known reason not to. This is game now played by nine million people around the world, which means the CMs oversee a community the size of Sweden. The least they could do is get their stories straight.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Bugs, Blizzard, Forums
Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 news





Reader Comments (Page 2 of 6)
Wulfhere Jan 18th 2008 12:52PM
This actually IS a gameplay issue for people who are interested in taming new and unique pets. You're not, I understand that, but I live with a woman who has gone out of her way to tame every unique skin she can find: she enjoys it, and she's not alone. It doesn't make you do more damage, but that doesn't make it not a gameplay issue.
Should we ignore it if rogues lose 5% damage to their attacks? After all, I don't play a rogue, so it hardly effects me.
Tim Jan 18th 2008 12:56PM
Here's the thing... there IS a precedent for this.
In Auberdine there is a quest that allows you to spawn a ghost saber. That ghost saber is tameable. It has the same appearance as the ghost wolf, other than being a cat of course. Blizz has not threatened to take that out, to the best of my knowledge.
I'd like to hear Drysc explain how the ghost saber is different from the ghost wolf.
jr Jan 18th 2008 12:56PM
I suppose, you never said X on monday only to change your view of Y on Wednesday? I really don't wee the issue, sure blizz could have announced it was fixing this problem before they actually did it, but that isn't what your complaining about. You are upset that they changed their mind and frankly I don't see why your upset, they are not taking the pets away from those that earned them so no one is losing anything. blizz is free to change its mind, remember that "Gameplay experience ay change during on-line play!"
Ktok Jan 18th 2008 12:59PM
Being told one thing, but being delivered the exact opposite is not acceptable. It may be a minor thing to most people, but in principle, it’s sloppy customer service.
To put it into terms everyone should be able to understand…
McDonalds: “We have no intention of serving you anything but beef.”
One month later.
Customer: “Hey, this burger tastes… different.”
McDonalds: “Oh, yeah, it’s horse meat now. Didn’t you know? We changed it this morning.”
Unacceptable…
Then you get a bunch of people running around saying “Stop QQing! It’s their burger! They can make it out of whatever they want!”
Therizo Jan 18th 2008 2:51PM
This is a little closer to people arguing over the print on the wrapper then the content of the burger. Or maybe changing a sign on the door when the guy behind the register said it would stay there for a while.
Sedna Jan 18th 2008 1:01PM
Very nice writeup. I'm a Hunter (don't have a Ghost Wolf, thank God), and what disturbed me about this whole thing was less the loss of a cool Easter egg and more the way in which it was addressed- particularly the stealth hotfix. I'd mind less if they'd said in the 2.3 notes- or just any notes- "hey, we're making this change, don't slap down cash for that taming gem" instead of waiting for someone to stumble across it. Blizz is generally solid on this stuff- maybe they need some more people enhancing communication between devs and CMs.
...Come to think of it, that'd be a pretty cool job. What's their healthcare plan like? :)
Rob Jan 19th 2008 2:36PM
Yup, stealth hotfixes are bad. Someone (the blogger) has already quit the game, this is one of his reasons. Don't piss off the customer blizz. The majorijty of your customers are hunters (or very close to the majority). Anyway this issue isn't worth getting excited over. Yes, they lied to us. They screwed up. Let it go.
Buuty Jan 18th 2008 1:01PM
I'm glad to see all the arguments here that agree with Blizzard either completely miss the point are are just stupid.
Makes it even more valid that the nerk was wrong...
Comments like: you should have got it earlier, or assumptions about people having lives are rife with ignorance. You know NOTHING about people who post here, further showing you stupidity.
jr Jan 18th 2008 1:03PM
You where not told you would get anything, Blizz said, "they had no plans to addrees this in the future". Weeks passed. . . they, then made plans to address this. you where given exactly what you where told, at time A, they had no plans, LATER thay made plans and implemented them. Honestly, blizz did nothing wrong or "unacceptable".
Ircasha Jan 18th 2008 2:21PM
Which is all fine and good. Blizz has the right to make changes based on a changing understanding of their game's mechanics.
To then not announce that this policy was being changed and allow those who were making the effort to tame the animal to not bother doing so (or to hurry up and finish it) is the problem here.
The nature in how the change was implemented is at issue more than the change itself.
Pzychotix Jan 18th 2008 2:48PM
Announcing it beforehand would completely defeat the purpose of making it untamable.
Blizzard: "Hey, we're going to make it untamable."
Hunters: "Oh ok. We're going to flood DMW for the next couple days so we all get the thing before you make it untamable."
...
Blizzard: "@#$@"
Smurk Jan 18th 2008 1:05PM
By all means, continue harping on this as Blizzard "betraying" you, and enjoy the result of getting even less information from Blizzard forum posters as they realize that blue text is interpreted as eternal law.
jr Jan 18th 2008 1:05PM
Name Calling is the point I suppose. Obvious troll is obvious.
Buuty Jan 18th 2008 1:09PM
Saying one thing publically, then secretly changing your mind later, after the action has been taken, is not acceptable...no matter how much you read into the semantics of the wording....
the ALSO said this....why cherry pick one comment and not the other? "it will still be possible in future for everyone who wishes to tame this NPC to do so. :) "
That doesn't say "should" or "might" is says WILL.
jr Jan 18th 2008 1:11PM
and for a while it was, no lie there, no stealth there either. I will say they could have said something since they only recently stated they where not going to change it. However, they never promised it was there forever, and that isn't semantics, its a fact.
Smurk Jan 18th 2008 1:18PM
It's not about the wording. It's about the fact that the source is not authoritative. You can argue that it should be, but you have regular evidence that it is not, so why trust it in any case?
It's like when your boss tells you you'll get a raise, then at salary review time says that HER boss decided no one's getting a raise. If it's a truly "unacceptable" situation then you'll quit - just as I assume those of you calling this "unacceptable" will quit or stop playing a hunter - otherwise you understand that sometimes things change and deal with it.
jr Jan 18th 2008 1:23PM
I am not sure this is the same thing. I believe it was a change of mind not really a matter of CM not knowing whats going on. The CM is authoritative and it is part of his job to know whats going on. fact is blizz changed its mind and didn't do it in a way that might have blunted the whining given the "hot topic" status of this issue.
Could this have been handled better? Sure, but seriously so could've the war, and I think thats a bit more important.
Patyn Jan 18th 2008 1:20PM
I guess my perspective is this...and I'm taking time away from refreshing BRK's 1,000,000 visitor contest, so this is going to be quick :)
I'm a hunter, and I have no problem with what Blizzard has done. Did I consider getting the ghost wolf? For about two seconds. And then I determined that it wasn't worth it...and by it I mean the time and the gold investment. For me, at any rate. Obviously others thought it was worth it.
People are making a lot of assumptions and jumping down Blizzard's throat without knowing a lot of the details. We have a European forum GM who made a statement about what he thought was going to happen based on a conversation he had with a developer. We don't know what the context of the conversation was or whether or not he had the authority to go public with that statement. Nor was the statement finite and the decision unchangeable.
Blizzard then applied a hotfix to change something they did not want to be part of the game. For whatever reason, that is their right. We, as players, are not entitled to dictate how the game operates. Sure, we pay our subscription fees and use our time playing, but Blizzard is under no obligation to change the game to our specifications. This is their art, they get to create it. Our options are to either play...or not.
On more tidbit to think on, in regards to the lore of the game, aren't ghost wolves a shammy thing anyway?
Angael Jan 18th 2008 1:28PM
Agreed.
In the words of Southpark
"If you don't like it... you can get out."
Sundart Jan 18th 2008 1:19PM
The real issue is not the ghost wolf itself. It is the apparent lack of care or concern of what the community thinks. First, they should have informed the community that this change was happening. Because they did not do that, they look foolish and Blizzard has just lost some of the trust they have earned. Now, we are still waiting to hear the reasons, because this topic will never die unless good answers are given. If this was an exploit that Blizzard did not want exploited, then the should tell us instead of ignoring the community. They have PR people for just this reason. They should use them.