“The Forum Mindset” is the biggest problem with the WoW Forums and class balance discussions in general. Most people would probably say that the biggest problem is the inherent bias of the participants. While there is some overlap with The Forum Mindset, bias ultimately can be sifted out by taking in a discussion as a whole, including the thoughts of different classes on the same subject (like the Damage Dealing Forums). The Forum Mindset precludes even that solution. I’ll define The Forum Mindset in the following way, using two explanations and two examples.

First, that you can take any reasonably-powerful ability in the game, pretend it was not currently implemented, then propose it on the WoW forums, and there would be an uproar. For example, Shatter. If Mages didn't have Shatter, and you proposed "Mages, that are already extremely mobile, have high-critting nukes and multiple snares, should be able to nearly guarantee critical strikes on targets that already can't move", you would be laughed off the forums. Why? In practice Mages using Shatter isn't making the class overpowered. It's a mindset that anything that isn't extremely minor and isn't currently in the game must be overpowered.

Second, that there is a tacit acceptance of things that have been in the game a long time. To be clear, I am not suggesting people don't complain about things (obviously 99% of posts, including mine, do just that). But there are things in the game that were introduced a very long time ago that seem, inexplicably, to get a free pass under the microscope of competitive PVP. For example, Mind-Numbing Poison. Rogues are the best anti-caster class in the game. Well-played Rogues can shut down casters for an obscene period of time, all the while doing tremendous damage. If they did NOT have Mind-Numbing, and you proposed on the forums that the anti-caster class get a cast speed debuff TOO, you would be laughed off the forums. But since they do have it, now it's laughable to suggest it be removed.

Don’t get hung up on the specific examples I chose, as even if you disagree with my thought-process on Mages or Rogues specifically, surely you can think of a proper substitute for the context that would still convey the point.

The Mindset could be attributed to a lack of imagination, or perhaps that we let Blizzard’s collection of patch notes and tooltips define the range of our thinking. Ultimately discussions of class balance and changes would be better served if people could overcome this Mindset and, for lack of a better phrase, “think outside the box”. Some things would be ridiculous additions, but others only seem that way from the inside, but they wouldn’t be given a second thought if they had been implemented a year ago. Some things would be ridiculous to remove, but others only seem that way from the inside because we’re used to them, and perhaps we should entertain their removal.




I suppose the best analogy for The Forum Mindset is the one I’ll leave you with. My family had a German Shepherd a long time ago that would behave very curiously with respect to visitors in the house. If she saw a man walk through the door into the house, she would try to attack him, thinking she was protecting the home. If she came across a new man already in the house, she would treat him like he always belonged there, and would be sad to see him leave.

It’s this phenomenon that forum-goers need to overcome if they want to maximize their contribution to balancing discussions.

k

Good post.

IMO the biggest problem was when the developers gave us all the idea that player input would be able to change the game mechanics. Now everyone has the idea that the game is won or lost by playing the metagame of screaming for buffs on the forums - the notion that whoever cheep cheep cheeps like a baby bird for more buffs longer or louder will have a better position in the next patch.

Honestly, how many other competition-type venues do you see where people who lose try to get the rules changed so they win instead? "Omg that guy scored a touchdown on me, hail mary passes need a nerf! Make it so that they are illegal, refs!"

You're right but it's TL;DR and anyone who reads it won't remember it. People define themselves through conflict, and that is why they come here and argue over nothing. It's easy to do it here because there's really no consequences to our actions. Human nature will never change. Embrace it and join in the troll chorus.

---

Q u o t e:
IMO the biggest problem was when the developers gave us all the idea that player input would be able to change the game mechanics. Now everyone has the idea that the game is won or lost by playing the metagame of screaming for buffs on the forums - the notion that whoever cheep cheep cheeps like a baby bird for more buffs longer or louder will have a better position in the next patch.

Honestly, how many other competition-type venues do you see where people who lose try to get the rules changed so they win instead? "Omg that guy scored a touchdown on me, hail mary passes need a nerf! Make it so that they are illegal, refs!"

---

It's a fair point, but as there is no way to promote discussion in the absence of the assumption that good thoughts will matter somehow, you can't call that the biggest problem. For me, that's akin to saying voting is the most problematic path to Democracy. Some people might think it's pithy, but you can't have it any other way.

---

Q u o t e:
. Embrace it and join in the troll chorus.

---

Trolls be singin' well mon! It be true

---

Q u o t e:
You're right but it's TL;DR and anyone who reads it won't remember it. People define themselves through conflict, and that is why they come here and argue over nothing. It's easy to do it here because there's really no consequences to our actions. Human nature will never change. Embrace it and join in the troll chorus.

---

The need for an adversary, or the desire for simultaneous acceptance and anonymity, and the ability to extend those adversarial discussions to a wider range of thoughts and ideas are not mutually exclusive.

---

Q u o t e:
Honestly, how many other competition-type venues do you see where people who lose try to get the rules changed so they win instead? "Omg that guy scored a touchdown on me, hail mary passes need a nerf! Make it so that they are illegal, refs!"

---

Actually the NFL updates its rules almost every season often based on inequities of the previous year. Furthermore, in this game the rules apply to each class differently.

---

Q u o t e:


The need for an adversary, or the desire for simultaneous acceptance and anonymity, and the ability to extend those adversarial discussions to a wider range of thoughts and ideas are not mutually exclusive.

---

Straw man. No one claimed or thinks they are mutually exclusive. You've misunderstood.

I would like to add (as a tangent) that for all intents and purposes this forum is a simacrulum; it is not reality. That is why arguing on it is safe. We can emulate real conflict by partaking in a virtual one - but we still learn like it's real. That is why it is attractive and that is why people will always continue to do it.


It may come off patronizing but you should read this. You'll make more sense when creating counter points.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

---

Q u o t e:


Actually the NFL updates its rules almost every season often based on inequities of the previous year. Furthermore, in this game the rules apply to each class differently.

---

owned

---

Q u o t e:


Straw man. No one claimed or thinks they are mutually exclusive. You've misunderstood.

I would like to add (as a tangent) that for all intents and purposes this forum is a simacrulum; it is not reality. That is why arguing on it is safe. We can emulate real conflict by partaking in a virtual one - but we still learn like it's real. That is why it is attractive and that is why people will always continue to do it.


It may come off patronizing but you should read this. You'll make more sense when creating counter points.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

---

Actually what it comes off as is ignorant. To view something as patronizing I usually require that it have merit.

This is what you said:

---

Q u o t e:
People define themselves through conflict, and that is why they come here and argue over nothing.

---

I short-handed that as "the need for an adversary", which is perfectly fair. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise if you can.

Then you said:

---

Q u o t e:
It's easy to do it here because there's really no consequences to our actions.

---

I short-handed that phenomenon/sentiment with "the desire for simultaneous acceptance and anonymity", which is equally fair; if anything, I made your statement more sophisticated for you.

Finally, I said that those two things you mentioned ("defining through conflict" and using anonymity to escape consequences) and stated that I didn't think they precluded thinking outside the box at the same time. The structure of your paragraph indicated that you felt the points in question were somehow in contrast with mine. If you did NOT feel that way, then the structure of your paragraph makes no logical sense, and is nothing but inane rambling; you might as well have told me what you ate for breakfast this morning while you were at it.


Attempts at arrogance and condescension require that you have something going for you. You didn't. Go follow your code and troll elsewhere, you're not advancing this topic.

---

Q u o t e:
owned

---

Yes, I'm quite sure that the NFL invites all their players to sit around in a big room and tell them exactly what changes need to happen, after every game happens. And how the press / public / players generally consider any team's victory invalid since the plays they used are clearly illegal by the fact that they won. *snort*

---

Q u o t e:
IMO the biggest problem was when the developers gave us all the idea that player input would be able to change the game mechanics. Now everyone has the idea that the game is won or lost by playing the metagame of screaming for buffs on the forums - the notion that whoever cheep cheep cheeps like a baby bird for more buffs longer or louder will have a better position in the next patch.

Honestly, how many other competition-type venues do you see where people who lose try to get the rules changed so they win instead? "Omg that guy scored a touchdown on me, hail mary passes need a nerf! Make it so that they are illegal, refs!"

---

Kind of a fair point, and some people do do this.

Other cases are more along the lines of "why were the NY giants allowed to play in this high school league as equals"

Some QQ is well founded eg ret is UP in PvE
Some QQ is instinctive eg nerf ret
Some QQ is very short sighted eg ret is OP in arena, while none of us have any resilience to counter their burst
Some QQ is probably spot on eg ret is OP in BGs

And the same could probably be said in some way of most other classes and specs.

orc female warlock uni brows.

---

Q u o t e:


Straw man. No one claimed or thinks they are mutually exclusive. You've misunderstood.

I would like to add (as a tangent) that for all intents and purposes this forum is a simacrulum; it is not reality. That is why arguing on it is safe. We can emulate real conflict by partaking in a virtual one - but we still learn like it's real. That is why it is attractive and that is why people will always continue to do it.

---

Don't forget the other attractive quality, which is personal experience means global issue.

---

Q u o t e:


Yes, I'm quite sure that the NFL invites all their players to sit around in a big room and tell them exactly what changes need to happen, after every game happens. And how the press / public / players generally consider any team's victory invalid since the plays they used are clearly illegal by the fact that they won. *snort*

---

It's pretty uninformed to think that public opinion, often roused by the efforts of specific teams, has no effect on the actions of national sports leagues.

---

Q u o t e:


It's pretty uninformed to think that public opinion, often roused by the efforts of specific teams, has no effect on the actions of national sports leagues.

---

You're honestly taking the position that the NFL operates on the same scheme as wow as far as players crying for changes after every match? Holy cow. And seasoning it with an insult to boot - what happened to the sentiments expressed in the top post about not leaping to attack all the time, made, ironically, by you?

Reficulo I think you make a very interesting point, but I believe that mindset goes well beyond the forums. Very few people have imagination AND the ability to rationally predict the outcome of really dyanmic change. A lot of people don't have either one of those, so all they can do is fear all change, or embrace all change, or else look at things only in a very short sighted and selfish context of "how will this help me right now?"