World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> GC: How do you prioritize your to do lists?

Exf

< Colombian Necktie >

Stormrage

0. GC: How do you prioritize your to do lists? 12/12/2008 09:28:54 AM PST

I am really curious about this, because I know every class out there has their own set of problems, but I just can't seem to find the logic in the order you announce changes.

To me, if I flat out admitted that one classes entire tree was unfinished, and it's staple abilities are currently filled by place holders, that would be on the top of my list to work on for the next patch.

Fallaron

< House of Rooke >

Cenarion Circle

1. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:35:25 AM PST

Q u o t e:
I am really curious about this, because I know every class out there has their own set of problems, but I just can't seem to find the logic in the order you announce changes.

To me, if I flat out admitted that one classes entire tree was unfinished, and it's staple abilities are currently filled by place holders, that would be on the top of my list to work on for the next patch.

The order of announcing them is simple. He announces them when they are ready. For example, I am sure they are working on fixing the HAT bug, but they probably won't announce it until either they know the fix will be added to the PTR or they know they will be hotfixing it soon. Announcing it any earlier will just cause problems.

As for class priorities, they do it by what a relatively impartial group thinks the order should be. Some things that literally require no thought and changing only a lines (fixing a tooltip for example) will be included with things that really are game breaking problems. A bad tree is not game braking if you have two others. Even if you don't like the other two trees you still have the option of using them. Some issues also are very high priority but are not mentioned because there is still a month's worth of discussion and recoding left before they can announce anything.

"All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything."
~ Principal Seymore Skinner on Class Balance....

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

2. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:41:08 AM PST

There's not much logic to it, at least in the sense that we have some kind of Standard Operating Procedure that we follow.

Some changes are very simple and a designer can just go to their desk and make a change in a few seconds. We try to hit lots of these rather than let them all get bottled up behind the big, complex issues we are wrestling with.

Other changes are almost as easy. A designer feels like nobody will really object to a change and that it's pretty low risk. At most they might bounce it off one or two more people as a santiy check.

Other changes require a lot more discussion. We might not all agree. We might need to run some tests or calculate some numbers to see what the effects of changes might be.

Sometimes we don't know how to fix a problem. A great example of this would be a case where a spec is doing too little damage in PvE and too much in PvP. You can't just juice talents or coefficients without making them too good in PvP. These kind of changes require a lot of brainstorming and creative solutions.

Controversial changes require a lot of research. We read the forums. We ask our friends or thought-leaders in the community what their opinions are.

Some changes are risky from a bug standpoint. These require a lot of testing to make sure they work. Having a spell just fail is bad. Having a spell cause an exploit where players can get loot they haven't earned or win an Arena fight they should not have won is worst. Crashing the servers is about the worst thing you can do (but most of us have done it at least once.)

Some changes are hard to make and require programmer support. Maybe we need new tech to implement a feature (this was the case for a lot of death knight abilities).

Some changes require buy-off from a large number of people. Changing a talent is a relatively minor fix. Making big changes (say changing how arena works, or major class mechanics) are the kind of thing we want to run by just about every senior person on the team to get thier feedback.

I get the sense sometimes that players expect (or at least want) us to attack problems based on which is the most pressing problem. That is definitely an important consideration. But it is all about triage. Sometimes even a pressing problem isn't worth handling right away if that means 30 minor problems can't get fixed. Developing games is a pretty chaotic process. There are a lot of interruptions. There are a lot of considerations that have nothing to do with the actual product going on the shelves. In a game as large as WoW it can be easy to get demoralized because you just don't have enough hours in the week to get to everything you want to do. Features get bumped to subsequent patches or expansions all the time. (But for all the chaos, it is still a lot of fun).

Also, when you say that an entire tree was unfinished, you have to understand from our point of view that we feel that way about every tree. Blizzard is it's own worst critic. If you asked us which tree was the closest to being perfect, we would be very hard-pressed to answer that. We aways think we can improve on the game, down to individual talents. We are never going to stand back and say "That's it. We nailed the Survival tree. It's done."

Adventureguy

< SALMON >

Tortheldrin

3. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:43:03 AM PST

>.>

Exf

< Colombian Necktie >

Stormrage

4. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:43:59 AM PST

Yes, but it has been blatantly obvious from the order of which things have been fixed recently that they are more okay with a class or talent spec being underpowered, than overpowered.

If something is doing too much damage, or is too viable in PvP then it is going to get nerfed waaay before something that is not doing enough damage, or does not have enough PvP viability.

And before anyone says anything, please remember it's a double edged sword... if they make something better than it was, it's just as close to achieving the equilibrium of class balance as going in the opposite direction.

[ Post edited by Exf ]

Reficulo

< Martha Stewart >

Boulderfist

5. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:44:12 AM PST

Q u o t e:
Other changes require a lot more discussion. We might not all agree.

So....names....? :)

Cinnamon

< Night Shift >

Destromath

6. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:45:01 AM PST

Q u o t e:

Sometimes we don't know how to fix a problem. A great example of this would be a case where a spec is doing too little damage in PvE and too much in PvP. You can't just juice talents or coefficients without making them too good in PvP. These kind of changes require a lot of brainstorming and creative solutions.

Who might that be? :-P

Ret Paladin - http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Destromath&n=Cinnamon
Death Knight - http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Destromath&n=Cinn%C3%A5mon

Atherakhia

< Vigil >

Mal'Ganis

7. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:45:18 AM PST

And which category does Shadow Embrace fall under? You've kind of limited Warlocks to raiding as Affliction (especially early on due to itemization) and yet we can't bring more then one Affliction Warlock at a time because this bug makes it impossible for the others to compete. As if Affliction didn't already have enough working against it.

This talent can't be nearly as complex to solve as the Ebon Plague one. Simply break the spell into 2 sections. The mortal strike debuff (that you should change to a healing redirect/coversion to damage just for stylistic reasons) and the +10% damage buff.

Akumen

Sargeras

8. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:45:20 AM PST

Q: GC, what's going on with hunters in PvP ?

Q u o t e:
Sometimes we don't know how to fix a problem.

Sorry, it was too easy.

Exf

< Colombian Necktie >

Stormrage

10. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:47:31 AM PST

Well, thanks for your response GC -- provided some insight into how things get done in the crazy world behind the world of warcraft :)

Erinthea

< Intrigue >

Gurubashi

11. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:50:54 AM PST

Q u o t e:
There's not much logic to it, at least in the sense that we have some kind of Standard Operating Procedure that we follow.

Some changes are very simple and a designer can just go to their desk and make a change in a few seconds. We try to hit lots of these rather than let them all get bottled up behind the big, complex issues we are wrestling with.

Other changes are almost as easy. A designer feels like nobody will really object to a change and that it's pretty low risk. At most they might bounce it off one or two more people as a santiy check.

Other changes require a lot more discussion. We might not all agree. We might need to run some tests or calculate some numbers to see what the effects of changes might be.

Sometimes we don't know how to fix a problem. A great example of this would be a case where a spec is doing too little damage in PvE and too much in PvP. You can't just juice talents or coefficients without making them too good in PvP. These kind of changes require a lot of brainstorming and creative solutions.

Controversial changes require a lot of research. We read the forums. We ask our friends or thought-leaders in the community what their opinions are.

Some changes are risky from a bug standpoint. These require a lot of testing to make sure they work. Having a spell just fail is bad. Having a spell cause an exploit where players can get loot they haven't earned or win an Arena fight they should not have won is worst. Crashing the servers is about the worst thing you can do (but most of us have done it at least once.)

Some changes are hard to make and require programmer support. Maybe we need new tech to implement a feature (this was the case for a lot of death knight abilities).

Some changes require buy-off from a large number of people. Changing a talent is a relatively minor fix. Making big changes (say changing how arena works, or major class mechanics) are the kind of thing we want to run by just about every senior person on the team to get thier feedback.

I get the sense sometimes that players expect (or at least want) us to attack problems based on which is the most pressing problem. That is definitely an important consideration. But it is all about triage. Sometimes even a pressing problem isn't worth handling right away if that means 30 minor problems can't get fixed. Developing games is a pretty chaotic process. There are a lot of interruptions. There are a lot of considerations that have nothing to do with the actual product going on the shelves. In a game as large as WoW it can be easy to get demoralized because you just don't have enough hours in the week to get to everything you want to do. Features get bumped to subsequent patches or expansions all the time. (But for all the chaos, it is still a lot of fun).

Also, when you say that an entire tree was unfinished, you have to understand from our point of view that we feel that way about every tree. Blizzard is it's own worst critic. If you asked us which tree was the closest to being perfect, we would be very hard-pressed to answer that. We aways think we can improve on the game, down to individual talents. We are never going to stand back and say "That's it. We nailed the Survival tree. It's done."

This triage reference looks alot like my emergency room reference regarding arcane mage changes and lack of warlock changes:)

Just remember that the guy with the headache can survive until morning the guy with the gunshot wound probably won't.

Akumen

Sargeras

12. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:51:16 AM PST

Q u o t e:
Changing a talent is a relatively minor fix. Making big changes (say changing how arena works, or major class mechanics) are the kind of thing we want to run by just about every senior person on the team to get thier feedback.

Can we assume that if no significant buff were made to arena hunters in the past 2years despite them being dead last in every bracket, it's because you're still brainstorming with your bosses about a mechanic overhaul ?

Kratia

< Unseen University >

Spinebreaker

13. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:52:11 AM PST

Wait, you mean devs don't just wave a magic wand and fix stuff?

Seriously people, I work with game developers. The process is nowhere near as simple as most of you make it out to be.

Kuzuryu

< RoE >

Khaz'goroth

14. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:52:52 AM PST

Q u o t e:

Who might that be? :-P

Actually id say Rogues are probably the most likely candidate for this.

Beating up a clothy in a stun lock must be very difficult to balance with a high armour/AOE boss.

Kromidus

< Oblivion >

Tichondrius

15. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:53:13 AM PST

Q u o t e:
There's not much logic to it, at least in the sense that we have some kind of Standard Operating Procedure that we follow.

Some changes are very simple and a designer can just go to their desk and make a change in a few seconds. We try to hit lots of these rather than let them all get bottled up behind the big, complex issues we are wrestling with.

Other changes are almost as easy. A designer feels like nobody will really object to a change and that it's pretty low risk. At most they might bounce it off one or two more people as a santiy check.

Other changes require a lot more discussion. We might not all agree. We might need to run some tests or calculate some numbers to see what the effects of changes might be.

Sometimes we don't know how to fix a problem. A great example of this would be a case where a spec is doing too little damage in PvE and too much in PvP. You can't just juice talents or coefficients without making them too good in PvP. These kind of changes require a lot of brainstorming and creative solutions.

Controversial changes require a lot of research. We read the forums. We ask our friends or thought-leaders in the community what their opinions are.

Some changes are risky from a bug standpoint. These require a lot of testing to make sure they work. Having a spell just fail is bad. Having a spell cause an exploit where players can get loot they haven't earned or win an Arena fight they should not have won is worst. Crashing the servers is about the worst thing you can do (but most of us have done it at least once.)

Some changes are hard to make and require programmer support. Maybe we need new tech to implement a feature (this was the case for a lot of death knight abilities).

Some changes require buy-off from a large number of people. Changing a talent is a relatively minor fix. Making big changes (say changing how arena works, or major class mechanics) are the kind of thing we want to run by just about every senior person on the team to get thier feedback.

I get the sense sometimes that players expect (or at least want) us to attack problems based on which is the most pressing problem. That is definitely an important consideration. But it is all about triage. Sometimes even a pressing problem isn't worth handling right away if that means 30 minor problems can't get fixed. Developing games is a pretty chaotic process. There are a lot of interruptions. There are a lot of considerations that have nothing to do with the actual product going on the shelves. In a game as large as WoW it can be easy to get demoralized because you just don't have enough hours in the week to get to everything you want to do. Features get bumped to subsequent patches or expansions all the time. (But for all the chaos, it is still a lot of fun).

Also, when you say that an entire tree was unfinished, you have to understand from our point of view that we feel that way about every tree. Blizzard is it's own worst critic. If you asked us which tree was the closest to being perfect, we would be very hard-pressed to answer that. We aways think we can improve on the game, down to individual talents. We are never going to stand back and say "That's it. We nailed the Survival tree. It's done."

With 11 Million subscribers, and many other ways generating millions of $$'s each month, resulting in over a billion $$'s in revenue each year, you'd think you could AT LEAST BUY your way into fixing issues that need to fixed. BUY the smart and creative people to help design this game better. And don't tell me money can't fix everything b/c it can. You just haven't BOUGHT the right people to do it.

Atherakhia

< Vigil >

Mal'Ganis

17. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:53:24 AM PST

Q u o t e:

Can we assume that if no significant buff were made to arena hunters in the past 2years despite them being dead last in every bracket, it's because you're still brainstorming with your bosses about a mechanic overhaul ?

Just thinking that's the case is a bit disheartening. Wouldn't you agree? Half of that time Warlocks saw a massive die off in arena representation too and you see all the hard work that went into fixing our class. Shamans too.

Bevelton

Spinebreaker

18. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:55:55 AM PST

Q u o t e:
Yes, but it has been blatantly obvious from the order of which things have been fixed recently that they are more okay with a class or talent spec being underpowered, than overpowered.

If a class/spec is underpowered, it only affects that class spec (and so only that class/spec is dissatisfied and/or complaining). If it's overpowered, (at least where PvP is concerned) it affects everyone (and so the entire community is dissatisfied and/or complaining).

Of course, I can't speak on behalf of Blizzard personnel, but that kind of reasoning would make sense to me.

Akumen

Sargeras

19. Re: GC: How do you prioritize your to do list 12/12/2008 09:56:08 AM PST

Q u o t e:
Some changes are very simple and a designer can just go to their desk and make a change in a few seconds. We try to hit lots of these rather than let them all get bottled up behind the big, complex issues we are wrestling with.

What I really want to know is how nerfing Trap Mastery when no single hunter ever uses fire traps can get higher on your priority list than the bazillions of simple quickfixes you could do on hunter skills (like removing the cooldown and reducing the mana cost of Tranq Shot or making it remove two buffs) to make then viable for the season following 3.0.8.

Forum > CLASS ROLES > DAMAGE DEALING