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 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 3 of 6)
Patyn Jan 18th 2008 1:22PM
Ugh. That should read "ONE more tidbit..."
I hate making typos.
spimmy Jan 18th 2008 1:24PM
wow what a lot of QQing GET OVER IT! its a game blizzard can do what ever they want
jr Jan 18th 2008 1:26PM
Not sure I care if they care what the community thinks, we pay them for their creativity, anyone can take and implement the ideas of public opinion polls and focus groups just sit infront of the televison, thats the entertainment of the mundane for the masses, I pay for something fairly unique.
X101 Jan 18th 2008 1:29PM
To me, none of the reasons given warrant a hotfix to remove the wolf. It couldn't have affected gameplay or else they'd have removed all of them. It seems to come down to blizzard not wanting hunters to have 'spirit' pets. (But if that is true then makes little sense to keep the ghost saber.) In any case, the 'spirit' name is just a name. Call it a crystal wolf say it's from outland. If they can have teleporting lizards and flying stingray things they can have a translucent wolf.
I just want a chance to get the wolf (or some other wolf with that same skin). I wasn't high enough to get the meta gem during the period the wolf was available.
Milktub Jan 18th 2008 1:29PM
This is the biggest complaint over the smallest issue I've ever seen. Maybe it's just my lack of interest in overall character vanity. I've never been one for vanity pets, weapon glows, or gear graphics.
Big f'n deal.
Yawn. I'll go back to not giving a crap about hunters except for weather or not they can trap things.
MartinC Jan 18th 2008 1:29PM
Geez, so much QQ. For the love of god, grow up. The original "bug" meant nothing, and the recent "fix" means nothing. Leaving it in or taking it out makes zero impact on gameplay.
Also love how people try to twist the original CM statement. They never said they wouldn't change it. Not to mention the CM has no authority over such matters.
Please, drop the multiple QQ articles about this. Wowinsider has been on a recent downhill trend when it comes to new articles, and this sure isn't helping.
Wulfhere Jan 18th 2008 1:54PM
Every single time some sees a post they don't like on this site, they say exactly what you just said about 'this site going downhill'. Since I started reading this site over a year ago, I've seen it again and again and again.
Since you hate the QQing so much, why not shut up?
Gharbad Jan 18th 2008 1:34PM
wow, what a surprise. Blizzard does something that people don't like, people complain about it.. then the chorus of 'four legs good, two legs bad' shows up to bleat them down.
Whats so hard to understand that this change wasn't necessary and the reasoning they gave was wholly inadequate after their initial statement?
Sure, this doesn't matter to you min/maxers out there, but it does matter to quite a few people who play this game for fun. And no, we won't quit, but we sure as hell are entitled to complain when the game we love is changed for no good reason.
jr Jan 18th 2008 1:40PM
you were warned, "Gameplay experience may change with on-line gameplay"
Gharbad Jan 18th 2008 1:49PM
Jr... you do understand that the comment 'experience may change during online play' refers to the government mandated ESRB rating right? meaning that a game company has to put that on an online multiplayer game to protect them from liability when somebody swears in front of your child. You wouldn't possibly be so uneducated as to think that refers to actual in game content provided by that game company do you? cause if you do, please stop posting right now, get an education, and them come back and talk with the adults.
jr Jan 18th 2008 2:53PM
@ Gharbad
Calling the kettle black, huh. I was using that phrase because its the truth, and if you think on-line play should stay the same perhaps you should invest in an arcade game. One last thing, if it makes you feel better name calling and throwing around insults go ahead and do it, but a word of advice. . . it makes you look like the idiotic uneducated nerf herder you're trying to label me as.
Gharbad Jan 18th 2008 3:00PM
@ jr
I am a nerf herder as a matter of fact. And you look like a chump for not refuting the point. I'm sorry I proved you wrong and you are upset about it. But that fact remains your post doesn't relate to the topic at hand.
Again, if you don't know what you are talking about, maybe you should study up before commenting. hmm?
jr Jan 18th 2008 3:08PM
Really, you posted a QQ, trying to argue that this changed wasn't necesary. I responded addressing the issue head on and said basically quit crying Blizzard told everyone that the game will change over time. . . get over it. you try telling me that the exact phrase I used had nothing to do with warning people that the game will change over time but with ERSB ratings (which has nothing to do with the message I was sending you by the way, I.E. the game evolves, you should know that, now got somewhere else). Also, you threw in some silly insults. How exactly did I not address the point? You may wanna talk insults and name calling, I think I'll stick to the issue, and my original view of it. Game changes->get over it.
jr Jan 18th 2008 3:20PM
Also, one last thing. The ESRB rating is NOT government mandated, it is voluntary. You may play a lawyer on TV, but I am one. Learn facts before you post with this crap trying to impress people, or risk being called out again.
Gharbad Jan 18th 2008 3:28PM
@Jr
Rawr! I r Jr! I R insulted MRWWARW@@!
get over yourself. Lots of people find this issue important, we outlined our reasons for that. We also pointed out that this change wasn't necessary, hurt the fun of the game, and that blizz's stated reasons were bunk.
you came in here all macho internet warrior spouting phrases you don't understand, and finished up with QQ it doesn't affect me so you must be crying.
But sure, lets look at your points hmm? we should just get over it right? Blizz can do whatever they want. It doesn't matter that we like the game, it doesn't matter that we simply want blizz to explain themselves better and not take away fun little things like this, no that doesn't matter at all. We should all be like you, just towing the blizz party line, never complaining about anything they do. Its their game right? they can do whatever? ok, well if you're life creed it to blindly accept all authority decisions, have fun with that. The rest of us will continue to try to make this game better and point out when blizzard makes mistakes so they can fix them and not make more in the future.
Seriously, you need gain some understanding before you comment. ok? thats all I've asked of you so far.
Gharbad Jan 18th 2008 3:28PM
Oh yes, excuse me it is 'voluntary' in the same way the drinking age was moved to 21 in all the states was voluntary. you should remember that one from Con law, 1st year. I do.
'being called out' right, you still haven't addressed the points we've made. you still haven't shown how this was a necessary change. all you can seem to do is bleat that blizz is always right. way to be
jr Jan 18th 2008 3:59PM
um . . . this change really doesn't change anything meaningful to the game or how its played. It does not take away all that is fun. The reasons they gave where thier reasons whether you like them or not. I am sorry you're a hunter and didn't get your wolf before they removed it. Also, you can complain all you want Blizzards history suggests they do what they think is right not what they think will be popular. Also, because I agree with what Blizzard has done here does not mean I follow some party line, I simply agree with them on this one issue this one time. Not sure what else there is to say about it, but if you wanna make the game better, become a developer or quit one less whiner is certainly an improvement.
jr Jan 18th 2008 4:09PM
Whether a change is necessary or not isn't really relevent at all, this is THIER game. That's all that needs to be said. Your argument about "necessary" change is silly, it would be like Piccaso removing the apple from the bowl of fruit and then people cry about it saying, "thats unnecessary!" When we all know Piccaso's painting is still a masterpiece and no amount of crying is going to make him put the apple back.
Also, no it isn't the same, ESRB is voluntary, the industry self regulates there is no Government penatly associated with not using the ESRB only a marketing one imposed by the industry. Also using the ESRB subjects one to special marketing regulation and protection. Not raising the drinking age results in Government action not using ESRB does not.
Gharbad Jan 18th 2008 4:17PM
Alright better arguments there.
I'll simply say that I value the fun aspect of this game more than I do the functionality, because it is supposed to be a game. Since the wolf didn't hurt the game, there was not a reason for the change. I'm also one of those people who complained when Lucas changed the original star wars (greedo shoots first). So yes, I maybe just have a problem with changing things that aren't broken.
The comparison with ESRB and Drinking age stems from the history of these two arrangements. ESRB was formed in response to pressure from congress that the industry would be severely regulated by congress if no action was taken. See the legislative history of Sen Joe Lieberman.
For how this corresponds to the drinking age, read S.D. v Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
jr Jan 18th 2008 4:37PM
On Star Wars, you get no argument from me there, original was better, though I have to admit there is something to be said for the additions in that the setting was a bit more lively and its a testament to the money that franchise has made, but original was definetly better in that with a limited budget Lucas made an awesome story and in the original it was the STORY that was the center piece not the surrondings.
I see your point on ESRB and drinking age but the fact remains with ESRB Congress used a carrot, with drinking age they used a stick.
So, lets agree to disagree about the wolf and know that at least we have Star Wars.