The Daily Blues

Greg, now that we have our pony, what about a moose?
Table of Contents
Ghostcrawler
I mean, in the end, isn't what they are doing essentially the same as downranking - lower cost mana spell that heals for less?
Yes. Actual downranking had two problems though. One, it was a pretty obtuse concept for new players. If you're super elite you might dismiss that concern, but it was something players had to figure out (typically be reading forums or something) and worked nothing else like anything in the game.
Even more of a concern, a lot of players downranked not only to conserve mana when they didn't need to heal much but because at some point in gear the coefficient starts to matter a lot more than the base points. They could essentially get a fairly powerful heal off at a lower cost.
We think the decision of when to use a big heal and when to use a small heal is a fun one -- it was fun for players for vanilla and BC. Healing might be too bland if you literally only had those spells, but nobody will.
The argument would be that a very weak but very efficient heal would result in that class always healing. I don't think that's a problem, or even counter to Blizz's intent. In fact, Blizzard has said that they do not want to go back to the model where healers spend half their time sitting there so that they can regen mana. Rather, they want us to be casting a lot; but they want the decision of what we cast and when we cast it to be more than "mash X button 50 million times".
We talked a lot about keeping the paladin model inverted, where the small heal is super efficient. There is probably a way it could still work. In the end we were just concerned that it would end up biting us in the rear. Somewhere along the way we'd have to make special rules to handle the paladin, who would risk being too mana efficient or too incapable of healing when forced to heal outside of their mana-efficient comfort zone. Could we have designed it? Probably. But frankly I'd rather spend our time on more interesting mechanics and spells. I'd rather the new AE heal really make paladins feel like they can AE heal rather than really making sure FoL felt small, cheap and fast. I agree it erodes a little bit of distinction among the classes, but only a little bit. There are far more interesting ways to make healers feel unique than in the relative mana efficiency of their small spell.
Yes. Actual downranking had two problems though. One, it was a pretty obtuse concept for new players. If you're super elite you might dismiss that concern, but it was something players had to figure out (typically be reading forums or something) and worked nothing else like anything in the game.
Even more of a concern, a lot of players downranked not only to conserve mana when they didn't need to heal much but because at some point in gear the coefficient starts to matter a lot more than the base points. They could essentially get a fairly powerful heal off at a lower cost.
We think the decision of when to use a big heal and when to use a small heal is a fun one -- it was fun for players for vanilla and BC. Healing might be too bland if you literally only had those spells, but nobody will.
The argument would be that a very weak but very efficient heal would result in that class always healing. I don't think that's a problem, or even counter to Blizz's intent. In fact, Blizzard has said that they do not want to go back to the model where healers spend half their time sitting there so that they can regen mana. Rather, they want us to be casting a lot; but they want the decision of what we cast and when we cast it to be more than "mash X button 50 million times".
We talked a lot about keeping the paladin model inverted, where the small heal is super efficient. There is probably a way it could still work. In the end we were just concerned that it would end up biting us in the rear. Somewhere along the way we'd have to make special rules to handle the paladin, who would risk being too mana efficient or too incapable of healing when forced to heal outside of their mana-efficient comfort zone. Could we have designed it? Probably. But frankly I'd rather spend our time on more interesting mechanics and spells. I'd rather the new AE heal really make paladins feel like they can AE heal rather than really making sure FoL felt small, cheap and fast. I agree it erodes a little bit of distinction among the classes, but only a little bit. There are far more interesting ways to make healers feel unique than in the relative mana efficiency of their small spell.
Divine Storm will get the Whirlwind treatment (less damage per target but unlimited targets).
The difference is that paladins fit their rotations around cooldowns while warriors do so around a limited resource. So it's entirely possible a paladin will still use DS when other attacks are on cooldown. (It will depend on what exactly the Ret rotation looks like, which we're still developing.) Divine Storm also provides a little healing too, so it's not exactly the same as Whirlwind. We probably wouldn't want to get to the point where Rets feel the need to have their single target spec without DS and the cleave spec with DS. (And without knowing the numbers, it's going to be difficult for any of you to insist that this will or will not happen.)
In general, we don't want buttons that are good against single targets to just be better against groups of targets. It makes rotations too static and makes numbers hard to balance since "cleavey" specs can do so much more damage against tight packs of enemies. Some higher damage is fine. It just too extreme right now.
These are previews, not patch notes. Just because we didn't mention anything doesn't mean there is no chance of it changing.
The difference is that paladins fit their rotations around cooldowns while warriors do so around a limited resource. So it's entirely possible a paladin will still use DS when other attacks are on cooldown. (It will depend on what exactly the Ret rotation looks like, which we're still developing.) Divine Storm also provides a little healing too, so it's not exactly the same as Whirlwind. We probably wouldn't want to get to the point where Rets feel the need to have their single target spec without DS and the cleave spec with DS. (And without knowing the numbers, it's going to be difficult for any of you to insist that this will or will not happen.)
In general, we don't want buttons that are good against single targets to just be better against groups of targets. It makes rotations too static and makes numbers hard to balance since "cleavey" specs can do so much more damage against tight packs of enemies. Some higher damage is fine. It just too extreme right now.
These are previews, not patch notes. Just because we didn't mention anything doesn't mean there is no chance of it changing.
Other
All other blue posts today (that we haven't posted elsewhere on the site) are about quelling the inappropriate behavior linked to people complaining about the Celestial Steed.Blizzard
Filed under: The Daily Blues






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
devilsei Apr 16th 2010 12:19AM
"All other blue posts today (that we haven't posted elsewhere on the site) are about quelling the inappropriate behavior linked to people complaining about the Celestial Steed."
Heh, I don't blame those people though, $25 is pretty much half the cost of the game, and its for a mount, much less a mount that looked like it was designed as something special you'd get from Alganon, then was canned for this reason...
Murmel Apr 16th 2010 12:23AM
Well, it's not like they're forcing people to buy it, it's purely cosmetic. If you don't like the price, don't buy it, it's as simple as that. Also, if it was dirt-cheap, then everyone would have one and it wouldn't be special and what would be the point of making people pay real-world money for it then?
Al Apr 16th 2010 12:29AM
"Everyone would have one, and it wouldn't be special."
Have you seen the number of Steeds sold already?
Phix Apr 16th 2010 12:30AM
@murmel: What? are you blind? everyone practically has one. Dalaran is flooded with them and last i checked there was a 100,000 people/10 hour queue at the store.
The novelty factor wore off within the first 5 minutes.
Bosstone Apr 16th 2010 12:31AM
It is a hefty cost, but you basically never have to buy another mount on your entire account ever again if you don't want to. Mounts are dirt cheap these days, but it does add up over time. Plus non-Druid Hordies can finally choose something other than wyverns until 70 or 80.
Kaphik Apr 16th 2010 12:35AM
Firstly, when Blizzard merged with Activision, did people not realize the some sort of DLC was coming?
Secondly, why does the mount bother people so much? If people want and are able to spend $25 for an ACCOUNT WIDE mount, let them! If you don't want to spend the money, then don't do it. It's simple.
Phix Apr 16th 2010 12:45AM
@Kaphik: While I have my own opinion on the people who do buy this steed I stopped being bothered by the vanity stuff a while ago.
But, the majority of arguements I'm seeing are of the slippery slope variety. This store is just starting. People are worried that they'll soon be dipping into the realm of non-cosmetic stuff... stuff like heirlooms maybe? After all, it doesn't affect the end game, does it?
But that's just idle bullshit(?) speculation. The potential is there, naturally, with the infrastructure of the store. I'm done arguing and done yelling from my perspective.
It's just a 'wait-and-see' sort of game. Who knows... maybe now that Activision's second cash cow (Infinity Ward) is pretty much gone they're going to start putting pressure on Blizz to pick up the lost revenue. Yeah, yeah, Blizzard as a company is autonomous but they still have to answer to someone.
Cyanea Apr 16th 2010 12:48AM
What's so annoying about the Steed?
All I know is that Lil' XT annoys the crap out of me, but I haven't seen enough of the steeds yet to see what they do.
(And if I had 25 bucks, I'd totally waste it on the mount. Never having to buy an in-game mount again, nor having to deal with the HIDEOUS Wyvern unless I feel like shelling out 5k gold? I'm on my fourth char. I'm not down with that anymore.)
Bosstone Apr 16th 2010 12:56AM
@Cyanea:
It has a (albeit minor) effect on gameplay, unlike the vanity pets, and although I haven't been in Dal yet, reports are that a ton of people are riding around in them. So the cynics and grouchy people are all offended.
To which I say:
FOR SPARKLEPONY!
maxanda7 Apr 16th 2010 1:07AM
Maybe (wishful thinking here) there "might" have been a chance of Blizzard lowering the price a little bit in the near future IF the queue for the mount wasn't so huge. I see no chance of that happening now, though we could be surprised. That being said, I am one of those crazy people who will eventually get the Celestial Steed and Lil' XT. Besides, it's still not as bad as many free MMOs out there that run on micro transactions.
Joka Apr 16th 2010 1:09AM
"and what would be the point of making people pay real-world money for it then?"
...To make money?
Dragoniel Apr 16th 2010 2:53AM
It's a game. Visuals are very important part of the game. Now, anyone at any given moment can get the most beautiful mount in game while investing no effort to obtain it. So, in this point of view, the mount is the same as epic endgame weapon or armor set.
It's okay when for real money you can buy something that doesn't affect the game. However, it's not okay when for real money you can buy very best items in the game, because it does affect it.
It's not the end of the game and many people don't care about visuals at all - most of the people care only about numbers.
I'm not one of those people. And I seriously don't like things like this mount being for sale. This is wrong.
Ricohardt Apr 16th 2010 6:19AM
The best thing about this mount is its convenience. Having only one mount on my bars means one more easy to reach button.
MusedMoose Apr 16th 2010 7:53AM
@ Dragoniel:
"It's a game. Visuals are very important part of the game. Now, anyone at any given moment can get the most beautiful mount in game while investing no effort to obtain it. So, in this point of view, the mount is the same as epic endgame weapon or armor set.
"It's okay when for real money you can buy something that doesn't affect the game. However, it's not okay when for real money you can buy very best items in the game, because it does affect it."
I strongly disagree, and I think your perspective is skewed. A nifty-looking mount is not the same as endgame weapons or armor, because the mount does not give you an advantage over other mounts - aside from the fact that it works as both ground and flying mount, which is a function shared by other in-game mounts and one that hardly counts as an advantage.
As the game is now, a character with endgame-level weapons and armor is at a significant advantage over those without. They will have more health and mana, hit harder, heal for more, and so on. This mount does not give its owner any of those advantages. It just looks pretty.
I understand the point of view you're putting forth here, but I honestly think that point of view is largely invalid. It's like saying people playing a draenei or blood elf are at an advantage because those character models are better-designed than the original ones. It's also a matter of perspective, since not everyone likes the same things, graphically-speaking.
In other words, there's nothing wrong at all with Blizzard selling this. Oi.
Dragoniel Apr 16th 2010 8:18AM
@ MusedMoose:
"I strongly disagree, and I think your perspective is skewed. A nifty-looking mount is not the same as endgame weapons or armor, because the mount does not give you an advantage over other mounts - aside from the fact that it works as both ground and flying mount, which is a function shared by other in-game mounts and one that hardly counts as an advantage.
As the game is now, a character with endgame-level weapons and armor is at a significant advantage over those without. They will have more health and mana, hit harder, heal for more, and so on. This mount does not give its owner any of those advantages. It just looks pretty.
I understand the point of view you're putting forth here, but I honestly think that point of view is largely invalid. It's like saying people playing a draenei or blood elf are at an advantage because those character models are better-designed than the original ones. It's also a matter of perspective, since not everyone likes the same things, graphically-speaking.
In other words, there's nothing wrong at all with Blizzard selling this. Oi."
___________________
Mana, health, damage or healing is only one part of the game. Essentially it's just the numbers which you bid against other players numbers in order to show off.
And if you don't want to show off these numbers, then that means the numbers are irrelevant to you.
That's where another part(s) of the game comes in - mounts, pets, vanity items and achievements.
Common sense tells us, that the better the item is, the harder it should be to get it. If it holds true in a game, then that creates incenitive to seek the item, to obtain it and to show off, because it marks kind of achievement and allows you to display other people your style, the effort you've put in it and your general awesomeness.
But now, suddenly the best looking (and thus in this case THE best) item is obtainable for currency that does not have anything to do with the game and it suddenly appears in staggering quantities.
It essentially ruins a large part of fun player can have, because no matter what effort he will put to obtain raven lord, phoenix or some other super-rare and cool-looking mount, any scrub can just pay up and get better mount instantly, without any effort at all.
It doesn't ruin the game and it doesn't affect any numbers. It just makes the game less fun. That's why I don't like it.
adder Apr 16th 2010 10:08AM
@cyanea: "And if I had 25 bucks, I'd totally waste it on the mount." I think we figured out why you don't have 25 bucks...
@Dragoniel: You are completely correct that looks are a large part of this game (for some people). Why do you think the paladins complained when they looked like pink power rangers? Whether or not the CS is unfair/bad boils down to how important you think looks are to your character and how much fun you derive from it. In other words, *it's a matter of opinion*. People should probably stop trying to convince others that their opinions are wrong.
As for me? If this keeps Blizzard and their corporate overlords from raising the subscription cost, I'll accept it as the lesser of two things I don't like.
Darky Apr 16th 2010 12:39PM
spriests on a celestial mount = so many levels of awesome...
Quartza Apr 16th 2010 12:39PM
Imagine if this was for the 360 and for a console game. Spending 25 bucks may not be such a hot-button issue, in that case. So, I guess it's all relative--if you're willing to pony up the dough (ya like that?) then go for it, but make no mistake the official climate of MMO politics and the advent of online stores: that whole paradigm has shifted, or is starting to shift. To what direction, that's unclear atm. But what I do know, is that the drakes (not the ones of the proto-persuasion) ARE but ugly and I wish for them to get a makeover.
As far as the argument in which we as players should participate in such a venue as online loot stores, the numbers speak for themselves I think. People want it, so Blizz will inevitably give upon. Personally, I'm still waiting for my Time-Lost drake and the one that could have been my breakfast. 3 days left!
Snuzzle Apr 16th 2010 6:16PM
@Bosstone
"Plus non-Druid Hordies can finally choose something other than wyverns until 70 or 80."
You know, I didn't want one of these before, but now I kind of do. I really, really hate the wyvern. But I've already gotten most of my toons something else... my main is a druid, my pally has the roflcopter, mage has the carpet and shaman has a welfare drake. But still, I do have other alts coming up on flight time. Hmmm.
If only I liked the look more and it was less common!
Gothia Apr 18th 2010 4:47AM
This is exactly one of the reasons why I was concerned when Blizzard started selling vanity pets. Once the greed bug bites you it won't stop biting and I'm afraid that it won't be long until you see them providing instant levels, gold, and reputation for a price. I am enjoying the evolution of gameplay, but since Activision took over things have been a touch less than ethical.