Thread: What's next for World of warcraft.

I was reading this article and thought to share it with you.

Meet greg in charge of system design at World of Warcraft talking on the fascinating subject of the pace of the game and changes that address various specific cases that may lead to these changes.


Much of the design of a game is to find a good balance, and when I use that term, I do not just talk about the balance between the different classes but also because it is very easy to going from one extreme to another. It is such a good balance in the amount of changes we can make. On the one hand, if we do nothing, the game will appear bland and players will be frustrated that bugs or gameplay issues are not resolved. On the other hand, too much change can produce what is called the effect "roller coaster", which gives the impression of a haphazard and game design that might confuse some players, especially those who play occasionally. That's why I want to talk today about the changes our philosophy when we believe that change is needed and when we decide it is best not to overdo it.


First, some technical information
World of Warcraft is a game of client-server. Servers (which are the machines located on our side) manage all the important aspects related to rules of the game, as the calculation of the fighting and the determination of loot. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that it is easier to share information as well. When a thief stabs your priest, it is essential that your computer and that the thief will know when and where the blow was delivered and how much damage was done (and what effect random trigger was tripped, etc.).. Then it is easier to trust a server to private or public computers.
Over time, as our team of programmers has become more experienced and we were able to recruit new talented engineers, we were able to make changes to larger and more ambitious on servers without the need to update the client to change the gambling game client (the game is installed on your computer), you must deploy an update. This update can be major, such as 4.2, which introduced the area of ​​the Front quests and raids Molten land of Fire, or minor, such as 4.2.2, which has just fixed some bugs. Updates the customer are more complex to manage. They are time consuming to create and test, and the risk is more important because if we make a mistake, we are forced to deploy a new update to correct it.
Modify the game code on the server has become much easier for us. The risk still exists of course, but if we make a mistake, it is much easier to solve. We call these changes on the server patch and we are mostly able to implement hot, even while you are playing. If we decide to do a fix on Mortal Strike, you may find yourself doing more or less damage in the middle of a fight. Players sometimes refer to these changes or improvements impairments discrete if we have not yet announced the patch (or in the rare event that we decide not to announce it at all). In general, it is not possible to fix (for now at least) on elements such as graphics, sounds or text, so we can not add a new boss or change the graphics of a weapon without doing the update of the client (but we can activate a boss who was discreetly added in a previous update).
I'm talking about all this to explain that one reason why you see more and more patches of late, it's just because we can. That does not mean that there are more bugs in the game, more risky design decisions or more problems balancing classes before. This simply means that we can now fix these problems quickly, while in the past, we had to wait for months until the next big update (and you too). Frankly, we do not think it's nice to wait for the players for things that are fast enough to correct on our side. The reaction of the players respond to these changes depends largely on the nature of the change. When we fix a bug in the operation of a technique class, players who play this class will usually thank us, unless the patch reduces the damage they inflicted or forced to change their gems and enchantments for enjoy.
Imply great power ...
Herein lies the difficulty of the problem. If your fighter's performance is slightly above normal, you will ask: where is the urgency? Many players and we ask the question. But keep in mind that other players will be upset because the raid leader will prefer to leave out a warlock to take a third hunter (because they inflict great damage) or they will find themselves frustrated because they will lose more easily against your hunter in PvP. The need for change may vary depending on your point of view.
We try to collect as much information as volunteers of the players, when they cancel their subscription, for example, the reasons that drive them to do so. Over time, we receive fewer complaints about game balance and more and more about the constant changes. There is therefore a real risk of discouraging the players by making changes too frequently. This is the roller coaster effect: too many changes to the community is tired, even if each change is done to improve the player experience. We must balance our desire to offer solutions when we think there is a problem with the reaction of fatigue of the players who feel they have to constantly relearn how the game We talk constantly about whether a change should be done immediately or if we can live with a problem during a period of time or longer.
There are no absolute rules to answer this question, so I thought it would be easier to give you some examples of things we are tempted to fix in a patch, an update or a future extension and things we probably leave the state.


First example: the gender specialization
Following several raids that we have analyzed, we come to the conclusion that the damage of Arcane mages now routinely exceed those of the Fire Mages (I go here a lot of elements that could intervene in the discussion to stay focused on the topic decisions to change). For example, if the light is better than specialization specialization Arcana in battle where the use of AoE is intensive, it is necessary that this factor comes into account in our decision. If the special light is more difficult to play or if, by nature, it is more subject to chance, then it is a factor that must also be considered. Even ignoring all these complex problems, this remains a difficult decision. Ideally, we would like players who enjoy playing the specialization Fire can do so without feeling they have that they will slow the progression of their peers.
For this, it is necessary that the branch does not get light of the results below a certain threshold, to keep it "viable" when compared to the branch Arcane. For some players, a 10% difference between the specializations is acceptable. Others prefer to change their specialization to a theoretical gain (that is to say not even proven empirically) of 1%. If we could tweak the numbers of the branch Fire and be almost sure that this would reduce the level of the branch Arcane, then this is something we should do out of respect for the players.
However, this decision is not without any risk. We must be cautious about the improvements we make, otherwise we could for example make the most dangerous Fire Mage PvP. We must also be careful if mages would spend more to special light, making improvements to raid or practical tools provided by the Arcane mages more difficult to obtain. But from our point of view, the worst mistake would be to improve the specialization too light. Because in this case, the players attached to the branch Arcane might feel forced to respec fire in the industry to increase their performance, which would imply for them to review all their equipment in terms of gems, enchants and retouching, and regret having wanted an object that is no longer appropriate to their new expertise in their raid last week. That would put players in uncomfortable positions.
That's why the players talk about a roller coaster effect when they wish to qualify this design philosophy. Last week, we had to play special Arcana, the week before, was the special Frost, and the next week, god knows how special will be featured. This is something on which we sometimes missed our time, it must be admitted. We thought to create more parity between the different specializations of hunters or warriors or death knights for example, when in fact it has inspired players to respec. With enough time, we can become very precise in our balance, but the patches and even changes of updates can not always be adequately tested.
It is of course not to compare the damage done by Fire mages and Arcane mages against models of training. What matters to the players (and us), it is the real damage done during meetings, taking into account the different levels of players, the compositions of the raid, the constant modulations of equipment, the compositions of group PvP etc.. The risks are especially important as the playing styles of different specializations distinguish themselves from each other. It is more difficult to ask a shaman to move the school improvement at the elementary school to ask a warlock to go from school to school Demonology Destruction. This may seem unfair to players who love Demonology, but we must weigh the pros and cons regarding risks for the game and the players together, even for changes that seem completely harmless at first.


Second example: the creative use of game mechanics
The development team of World of Warcraft may well be composed of bright people, we do not measure up compared to the intelligence and creativity combined millions of players who rack their head. Despite our best efforts, the players are incredibly skilled at devising creative solutions that we would have never crossed my mind. Many examples prove this: a player who discovers that an old jewel set bonus or random effect of a weapon works particularly well to tackle the new content, a raid that develops a strategy making it easier than a fight we expected, an arena team that finds a way of linking the techniques of crowd control or to inflict damage burst with such virtuosity that their opponents can virtually do anything.
Much of the fun experienced in World of Warcraft is to solve problems. It is our philosophy not to punish players for making creative. We try wherever possible to give the group the benefit of the doubt. If a boss is ultimately easier to overcome because the players decide to come together as we had anticipated they depart, or the monsters that they control reinforcements arrive much better than we do believe in able, well, we just, without saying a word, to take our hats off to these players for their talent. But if a boss is much easier to overcome than expected, we can always intervene (in general, when we introduce patches or updates, but rather to weaken the boss than to strengthen them).
It is more likely that we intervene when players are forced to engage in conduct that comes out of the ordinary too, especially if it does them no fun. We may intervene if the raids feel compelled to obtain a particular piece of jewelry to go loop through the old content, or if they decide to leave six players always on the side and replace them with characters whose specialization can make it too easy a fight in particular. Changes of this type are highly subjective and involve lengthy debates internally. Remember that our ultimate test is the question "The players play it? "And not" Are they something that we have not planned? "


Third example: the difficulty of meeting
As for the meetings, the decision comes down to wondering whether to apply a patch or not. Until the release of the update 4.3 to make significant changes to the meetings of 4.2, while all players will now focus on the new content of 4.3, would mean losing valuable development time. When we launch new dungeons or new raids, our philosophy is simply to put all the nails on the board at the same level, which means to catch some to do more shows, and press the heads of those who are not deep enough. After a period of one week and dust, it is rare that we make a meeting more difficult. We tend to group several changes to the operation, which often takes place early this week, looks like a mini update, rather than a continuous flow of impairments boss.
For raids, we monitor statistics curves showing the number of new players who manage to defeat a boss every week. Initially, these curves are very steep while the guild's most talented travel the new content, and then gradually as the other players are progressing, it slows down. The time has come for us to take the stage when the curves flatten out and no new raid arrives at the end of the new content. It's a bit easier for players to five dungeons, since we do not want the players facing too many difficulties to the finish. Nobody wants to return week after week to the throne of oil just to finally beat Naz'jar lady.
The statistics that we consult the most are the number of attempts to defeat a dungeon boss, the number of player characters who die during the encounter and the time required for a group to complete the said dungeon. The launch of Cataclysm, as Ozruk bosses at the Heart of Stone, were too formidable opponents. Sometimes we can address some situations by making some adjustments (reducing the damage done by the boss, for example). But in other cases, we must change the mechanics unique to combat, as far as possible, via patches, which opens up huge possibilities enough for almost all data of the creatures are on the server.


Fourth example: the changes of rotation class
They have two sub-categories: voluntary and involuntary changes. Most of the time, we make adjustments to make class more fun to play. When we allowed the armed warriors refresh Rend without having to constantly reapply this weakening, we have improved their game experience by changing the rotation a little to make this class a little more enjoyable to play. And at the same time, the damage they inflict enjoyed a slight increase. While the armed warriors had rearranged their rotation a bit, but overall it was an improvement and very few players have complained.


Fifth example: specializations too powerful
In this case, which is one of the most controversial, we face what might seem obvious. Indeed, the community will never agree on the specializations it considers too powerful and when developers should intervene. Nobody likes to be "nerves". Point bar.
In general, the players would prefer that we improve all the other classes, rather they modify their own specializations, although in the end it is the same. It's human nature to want developers reduce the other specs as soon as possible, but where your character is in sight, you wonder: why is it such a hurry? Again, the question is not whether developers are monsters without a heart (even if it's true, we admit), but whether or not the players play. It's fun to take control of a character as strong as an army by himself. But it's less funny when you get run over by a character of this type. It's fun to blow up the counters. But it is less so when you know you will never be able to consistently beat the one who comes first.
It should also keep in mind that if we make adjustments classes via patches, we prefer that patches are as simple as possible to minimize the risk of causing other problems and avoid having to go through phases of testing too laborious before being able to deploy them. This is the main reason why we are more likely to reduce the power of a single specialization via a patch rather than increasing the power of all other specialties: there is less work to do (and yes, if we increase the power of all, we must also increase the power of the creatures you fight to keep the game content becomes too easy to complete, which adds even more food on our plates).
I also want to clarify that we almost never diminish the power of a class without announcing it before, at least not intentionally. This would make players paranoid to think that their damage may change without warning. At worst, it happens that our programmers are making a change before the team community has had time to publish a post dedicated to this fix, but this situation lasts more than a few hours.


Sixth example: the exploitation of bugs
There is a gray area between the situation where a player knows he gets to do something he should not be able to do, and one where a player is not sure that the developers consider it manages to return to cross the yellow line. As I said above, generally we give players the benefit of the doubt. If they find a very clever to get their way and it does not give them an unfair advantage, or that other players do not find it unfair, in general we do not, in any case , in the short term.
Unfortunately, there are also players who like to take advantage of bugs in their own interest. We believe it is our duty to punish such abuses when they occur, out of respect for all players. Of course, we do not want to inform all other players in these changes. If someone manages to find a way to defeat a boss without help to recover large sums of money, we want to avoid giving ideas to thousands of other players by explaining what vulnerabilities he exploited and how we have corrected . Moreover, it is not the kind of changes we're making a lot of time. We must develop as quickly as possible.
I wanted to say because sometimes players are wondering about certain elements in the notes to update implemented in order to prevent or discourage such behavior. Here is a typical reaction we get: "Were there really people who enjoyed themselves to that? ". It should be understood that, by their very nature, this type of change will always remain as discreet as possible, for the good of all.


Seventh example extensions
We usually reserve the big design changes to the. We know that even so, some changes are too deep for some of the players, who do not want to have to relearn the rotation of their character, let alone to get used to the new operating glyphs or to inquire the philosophy that we have chosen to take on the difficulty of PvE progression. However, it is necessary that we deal with the problems we see in the game if we want the players continue to play. In this case, we consider acceptable having to bring a healthy dose of change.
We sometimes hear players say that their character has not changed for years, they want something, anything, that gives them a new perspective on their characters. Of course, we do not have the will to deal with things that do not need to change, however, we hope that an extension gives a new aspect to the game These are an opportunity to consolidate our player base and stimulating game play. That's why you should never consider the redesign of a class as a sign that your character was worthless or that designers, through ignorance and apathy, were dropped. We probably will never be perfect with respect to a particular class, and we will always have something to contribute to concept. Change is healthy as it is practiced in moderation.



For this kind of thing that I say that designing a game is an art, not a science. If the opportunity presented itself, there is no doubt that many of you would make different choices for some of our own design elements, and in some cases, there is no doubt that you would have made better decisions. We'd love to have debates about it. How to make changes? Cases in which a problem can persist for a few months and in what cases should be addressed immediately? What risks do we need to make small changes that should ultimately improve the gaming experience for players? Are we on track? Or have we lost our minds?

next addon : World of Warcraft: Mists of Panderia and if the websites are correct wow will be free2play in this addon so lets keep waiting... 4.3 will be the last cata patch cause blizzards has seen that cataclysm is a big fail. thats why they will add than 3 new dungeons and the deathwingraid...