World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY again!

Plops

Nathrezim

100. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 12:44:51 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

That's on a level 60 target dummy and not a moving player with cc and snare abilties.

DRW required that the dk use abilties for it to execute its own.

Situational at best and all you posted was what I did in my raids during s5 seeing as how I raided as blood then and do now.

Ah ha! Exactly.

You are saying that DRW had massively superior burst but it was situational and possible to CC the DK for the duration.

Exactly my point. It was other aspects of the hunter class (utility, mobility, healing debuff, old viper sting) that allowed it thrive in S5's arena environment.

The actual BURST potential of survival, was actually below or on par with most other DPS spec's burst potential in the game. Therefore it would be incorrect to say that burst was the main reason hunters did so well in s5.

[ Post edited by Plops ]

Plops

Nathrezim

102. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 12:52:30 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

Ah ha what? That's not a realistic arena event, seeing as how he also had pve gear on.

If you are not willing to admit that, ALL OTHER FACTORS ASIDE, DRW had far more burst potential than survival's ES than this discussion is over.

Now, I understand that Blood was not the best DK pvp spec. I understand that a blood DK could be CC'ed for the duration of his DRW.

I understand all of these things. However, they are irrelevant to the subject at hand. You claimed survival had "incredible" burst. I am saying that it actually had far weaker BURST than what was possible with other specs.

Now, survival's "burst" was FARRRRR easier to accomplish. Yes. Far harder to avoid. Yes. It would sometimes STUN the target being unloaded on. Yes.

On the sheer burst potential alone, however, survival's burst was sub-par or on par. That was my argument. It is not survival's burst that allowed hunters to thrive in S5. It was how difficult that burst was to avoid, how easy it was for the hunter to kite, to CC his opponents, and to maintain a healing debuff while doing this burst.

Cadet

< Ruination >

Doomhammer

103. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 12:54:27 PM PDT

I <3 Plops

Sleep late for a better tomorrow!

Galashin

< Now is the Time >

Laughing Skull

106. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 12:57:06 PM PDT

Arena PvP will never be balanced--because the game was originally designed around PvE, with PvP an afterthought, and mostly in terms of unequal forces or large-scale battles (i.e. BGs). Thus, no number of small tweaks and changes will alter the overall scheme. The most basic mechanics of the game--spellcasting, snares, stuns, healing styles--ensure that balance is impossible. The best blizzard can do--which they do get done--is making sure everyone is viable at mid-level play.

Just give up trying to get it to be balanced at high-level play. One class/spec/comp will always end up on top, for any guild build of the game. If you want a game balanced around small-team PvP, find one designed for that purpose. No other game will ever manage it. Thinking it's worth your time to ask Blizz to do so is ridiculous, the most general and basic game mechanics make it a complete impossibility.

EDIT:
I'll clarify--if blizz balanced arena PvP, that'd be awesome. But not matter what they do, it'll never happen. They could hire a staff of 20 experienced game designers and have them work on it 60 hours a week each, and in the end, the choice would come down to:
A) leave arena PvP unbalanced at high-end play, or
b) completely redesign world of warcraft.

[ Post edited by Galashin ]

Main: Galashin--ToL/balance
80 Alts: Galahearth (prot/ret), Galamea (ffb/frost)
70+: Galajaus, Galabeth, Galazhul, Galarok, Galavir, Galaknight, Galadrex--yes, one of each class.

Plops

Nathrezim

107. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 12:59:55 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

I'm still confused as to why you keep bringing DRW up when I compared it too icy touch, lets discuss that.

No. Let's go through the timeline again:

1.) You claimed hunters burst was "incredible" in Season 5

2.) I claimed "incredible" is a comparison term and you need to compare hunter's burst potential to that of other classes.

3.) You selected your DK class, then cherrypicked "Icy touch" for your comparison

4.) Survival's ES was hunter's BEST BURST ABILITY, Icy touch was not DK's BEST BURST ABILITY. Why would I compare these two?

5.) Since you want to compare to a DK, I chose DK's BEST BURST ABILITY in season 5 as Dancing Rune Weapon

6.) You said this is not a fair comparison, because DRW was "easy to avoid", "you could CC the DK for the duration", and that "Blood was not DK's best pvp spec"

7.) I reply with "I don't care about these things. You wanted to look at burst, and so we are looking at sheer burst potential alone"

Now, if you'd like the discussion to incorporate things such "let's only look at burst from the best arena specs", or "Let's use burst that is more difficult to avoid when we compare", then it's an entirely different discussion, isn't it?

[ Post edited by Plops ]

Tailyen

< Forlorn Legacy >

Windrunner

109. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:04:40 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
GC, you and I have had some brawls on these forums before, always when things were really bad. I have come back in an attempt to shed some light towards your most recent voyage into public PvP communications, regarding "burst".

First off, bravo to you, my friend, for constructing such a clever strategy regarding your response to "burst" arguments. Saying that you don't agree that the "vast majority" of the WoW community thinks burst is a problem right now is brilliant. You know as well as anyone that such a stance cannot be DISPROVEN by the playerbase, unlike previous stances that were attacked with hard data.

For example, we can toss statistics at you to illustrate melee's stranglehold on 2v2 and 3v3 DPS roles currently. That's easy enough to do, and you cannot deny them. However, how do we statistically or empirically present data to you to reflect the common opinion of the WoW pvp community?

This feels like some hypocrisy, to me:

1.) You deny that the "vast majority" of the WoW community believes burst to be a problem

2.) You ban/delete/lock threads with the repeating theme of arguing against your stance regarding burst, and claim it is to prevent spam.

How are we to reflect the "vast majority" of opinions when an overriding negative theme is censored by moderators?

I understand your intention to consolidate ideas/threads, so let's run with that a second, shall we?:

-- Consider the post regarding "burst" that you blue flagged earlier today. It's already going on 16+ "CONSOLIDATED" pages. Have you attempted to compare how many posts within that very thread are saying burst IS a problem compared to those claiming it is fine? What is the ratio like? Crunch some numbers, GC!

What I also dislike is you sarcastically remark about the "cool kids" opinion (normally I do appreciate your humor, just not this time). I'm going to guess that you mean "cool kids" as people currently successful at arenas. Well, as you can see on AJ there are already quite a few Gladiators completely ripping you, your opinions, and your stance on S6 pvp apart. Here's 3 threads:

http://www.arenajunkies.com/showthread.php?t=87448 (14 posts by almost all Gladiators)

http://www.arenajunkies.com/showthread.php?t=87489 (45 posts by almost all Gladiators)

http://www.arenajunkies.com/showthread.php?t=87653 (56 posts by almost all Gladiators)

The first 2 of those threads was locked. I'm assuming the reason being is that they were not seen as productive. It is truly a sad day when AJ moderators recognize that Gladiators coming together and saying "WHAT THE HELL GC, YOU ARE WRONG. WE DO NOT AGREE" over and over is a waste of bandwidth in regards to productivity.

Sure you can say such simple disagreement posts aren't productive because they do not offer suggestions. Well, WAIT A SECOND GC. You are not even willing to acknowledge that the majority of the WoW population believes there is a PROBLEM.

Dude, last time I checked the Scientific Method has PROBLEM RECOGNITION ahead of Hypothesis creation, doesn't it? What good is proposing solutions when you are actively and publicly denying the problem?

----------------- Fun Facts by Plops ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GC's other stance is that burst was bad in S5 but they somehow curbed it for S6. What significant changes did they make in S5 that "curbed all problematic burst?"

1.) Slammed Survival, Affliction, Arcane, and Blood specs with a sledgehammer and knocked them straight to gimp status.

-- Survival and affliction weren't even good burst compared to most DPS specs. Arcane and Blood had far from top representation amongst DPS specs at the time.

2.) Um...........that it?

--------------- End of Fun Facts by Plops ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not look instead at WoW's population in TBC and WotLK, and compare the % difference. Then look at overall arena participation figures from TBC to WotLK.

When you begin theorycrafting as to why WoW's population could have maintained (or even rose) from TBC to WotLK but arena participation significantly DROPPED, maybe you might start to look into complaints about "burst" in a new light. It's not the entire problem by far, but it's a significant part of it, STILL in season 6.

11/10

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9395/charselect.jpg

You will remember me, GC. My words are sharp, and I am always right.

Plops

Nathrezim

110. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:07:40 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

All you're doing is cherry picking an ability you wish so that you can try and make your moot point and make yourself look better when I chose an ability which was the most comparable

You claimed hunters had "incredible" burst. I showed that DK's could in fact achieve much better burst. I can do this for nearly every class in the game, IF WE ARE LOOKING AT SHEER BURST POTENTIAL ALONE.

I'm going to repeat that:

IF WE ARE LOOKING AT SHEER BURST POTENTIAL ALONE

Once more:

IF WE ARE LOOKING AT SHEER BURST POTENTIAL ALONE

Now, you clearly don't want to look at SHEER BURST POTENTIAL anymore. Because clearly you will lose that argument every time.

So my suggestion is to modify what you are claiming. Instead of saying "Hunters had incredible burst in S5"..........

.....say "Hunters had incredible burst in S5 when compared only to the most popular PvP specs of classes and not looking at these classes' 'situational' abilities that I personally consider being too easy to avoid to be included in this comparison, such as DRW."

Tailyen

< Forlorn Legacy >

Windrunner

111. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:10:34 PM PDT

Original poster:

Welcome to the club. We are club of people with words that haunt GC in his sleep. I applaud you, good sir, for excellent, organized writing skills that cut deep enough to keep GC behind his smoke and mirrors.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/9395/charselect.jpg

You will remember me, GC. My words are sharp, and I am always right.

Snusnu

< My Other Mount is Ta… >

Aerie Peak

113. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:15:45 PM PDT

The attitudes of players in this thread are amusing.

You point, I punch!

-Minsc, Baldur's Gate

Yes we can!

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

114. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:16:18 PM PDT

Well, I must admit that Plops' threads are always entertaining. I say that without mocking -- I'm pretty sure he is trying to be. :)

Q u o t e:
For example, we can toss statistics at you to illustrate melee's stranglehold on 2v2 and 3v3 DPS roles currently.

We have said we think certain melee classes are too good in 2s and 3s right now. "Certain melee classes are too good in 2s and 3s right now" does not equal "burst is too high." Let's try and be precise. When players go around posting "burst is too high" then you get a lot of less-informed players also chanting "burst is too high," when I really think that doesn't contribute much to the discussion.

Q u o t e:
This feels like some hypocrisy, to me:

1.) You deny that the "vast majority" of the WoW community believes burst to be a problem

2.) You ban/delete/lock threads with the repeating theme of arguing against your stance regarding burst, and claim it is to prevent spam.

Those aren't really "hypocrisy" though. I have no idea what the "vast majority" of the wow community believes, and neither does anyone posting on these forums who claims to. As I say below though, it's irrelevant anyway.

We don't ban, delete or lock threads that disagree with us. I think this forum would have about two threads if that was the case. Because players like to launch new threads so vigorously though, we sometimes lock some of them if we think the same topic is being started over and over at the expense of other topics which are still important to some players.

Q u o t e:
What I also dislike is you sarcastically remark about the "cool kids" opinion (normally I do appreciate your humor, just not this time). I'm going to guess that you mean "cool kids" as people currently successful at arenas. Well, as you can see on AJ there are already quite a few Gladiators completely ripping you, your opinions, and your stance on S6 pvp apart. Here's 3 threads:

We read AJ. So do many WoW players who are interested in Arenas. You don't need to cross link the threads here. I still don't believe burst is out of control like it was early last season. Many players agree with me, but they tend to get shouted down by the folks who are equating "burst is too high" with "I get beat sometimes" or "Arena isn't perfectly balanced yet."

Q u o t e:
Dude, last time I checked the Scientific Method has PROBLEM RECOGNITION ahead of Hypothesis creation, doesn't it? What good is proposing solutions when you are actively and publicly denying the problem?

If you really want to invoke the scientific method (which I'm not sure is the best way to design games anyway), the "problem" you are talking about is really asking a question. In this case you would say "We want to understand if burst dps is too dominant in Arena matches." Then you form a hypothesis, which might be "Burst damage is too high." Then you attempt to disprove that hypothesis. That's not a very testable hypothesis though, which is why I would leave that process for testing something more objective.

Q u o t e:
Well, Plops makes a good point here. These forums are referred to as a "community," but it is taboo to refer to any silent majority. Polls are heavily censored, the only people who can create a poll are the blues and generally are about "safe" topics.

GC does ask us to consolidate posts, but then dismisses the "consolidated" posts as QQ. See the Warlock Arena Thread and GC's subsequent posts dismissing it as a collection of "joiners" who don't believe there's a problem, they just want to be heard and seen.

There are mixed messages being sent out. Players do want to be heard, but are under the constraints of a backwards and frustrating system to speak out in. This isn't the first "HEY GC WTF" thread I've ever seen, and it won't be the last.

So then GC ran with the "vast majority" approach so he can't be proven wrong.

Actually, what I am invariably trying to say with "vast majority" comments is that it is silly to try and invoke some kind of "most WoW players feel this way" as any kind of logical argument. 1) You have no idea what most WoW player feel. 2) You have no way to conduct a reasonably scientific assesment of such -- forum polls won't cut it. 3) Typically when we see "vast majority" arguments, they are immediately followed by players who disagree -- but those players are typically considered bads whose opinions don't count. 4) You don't need to invoke a majority anyway. We don't design by vote, and a single player is capable of making a compelling argument. Go for quality not quantity.

[ Post edited by Ghostcrawler ]

Ghostcrawler
Lead Systems Designer

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

115. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:16:25 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
Intentional deceitful better suits what you describe. I can say this without fear of ban because he's at home sleeping and wont ever read this. I doubt he actually read the "vast majority" of the forums anyway.

Prepare for meaningless multi-syllabic drivel. Of which none directly or indirectly answers anything referred to in this thread. Also, for fun, pay attention to how his future wording in posts changes.

I like to come onto Blizzard's own forums and insult them because I think that makes them more likely to take me seriously! Or something.

Q u o t e:
The funny thing is that GC always lays the burden of proof at our feet. And when we bring it, hes never convinced.

The burden of proof certainly isn't at our feet. You're wrong about our never being convinced though. I suspect you just want us to do what you want more than we do.

Q u o t e:
GC, despite the hundreds of posts and parses detailing the issue, refuses to acknowledge it. Again, not exactly new or unexpected. Rather, its par for his course.

My job here is not to flit from post to post "acknowledging" things. If you've made a compelling argument, then you've done your job. You don't need me to post somewhere to make it true.

I will again admit a bit of surprise that so many players seem more interested in discussing the process of making design changes than they actually are in discussing the WoW classes. You'd think this was a game design theory forum at times.

Q u o t e:
The vast majority of the WoW community does not post on these forums. The vast majority of the WoW community does not post on any forum. Nobody anywhere at all is speaking for the vast majority of the WoW community.

Any attempt to use the number of threads spawned on a topic as evidence to draw conclusions from is ultimately going to run up against the fact that a dozen people with some free time on their hands can elevate an issue to an arbitrary number of posts you want.

Yep. Quality >> quantity.

Ghostcrawler
Lead Systems Designer

Plops

Nathrezim

116. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:17:06 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

Comparing it too a pve ability is frankly pointless, and irrelevant.

Lol you call it a "PvE ability" but Senoj was holding DEEP rank 1 with a Blood spec last season, bro. And I promise you, he used DRW every fight =)

It had pvp potential as well.

Q u o t e:

Potential burst means absolutely nothing in an arena environment if the ability and/or spec was not good in the situation

Once again, Blood increased in popularity in late S5. It had potential to get to top ranks in 2v2, and especially 3v3 and 5v5, even though it never passed the popularity of unholy/frost.

Hadeys

< Reckoning >

Runetotem

117. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:22:35 PM PDT

thanks mr hunt i love when GC gets owned

it doesnt even matter what the vast majority of wow players believes to be a problem, the vast majority of wow players are retarded sorry to say...

Kurdtparn

< Tainted Morals >

Hakkar

118. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:27:02 PM PDT

Ghostcrawler you have to admit you need help with the forums. If you're the only one person posting reply's these kind of threads, then you'll need more then just rum in your coffee.

Plops

Nathrezim

119. Re: Sad day...I must battle GC'S HYPOCRISY ag 05/25/2009 01:29:02 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
Well, I must admit that Plops' threads are always entertaining. I say that without mocking -- I'm pretty sure he is trying to be. :)

I try. It almost always gives me a headache.

Q u o t e:

We have said we think certain melee classes are too good in 2s and 3s right now. "Certain melee classes are too good in 2s and 3s right now" does not equal "burst is too high." Let's try and be precise. When players go around posting "burst is too high" then you get a lot of less-informed players also chanting "burst is too high," when I really think that doesn't contribute much to the discussion.

This would be true if these same sentiments weren't being proposed by Gladiators on Arenajunkies as well (and whereever else the l33t people post).

Did the masses embrace the views of the Gladiators or did the Gladiators get sucked into the masses groupthink?

Or does the order even matter? :)

Q u o t e:

Those aren't really "hypocrisy" though. I have no idea what the "vast majority" of the wow community believes, and neither does anyone posting on these forums who claims to. As I say below though, it's irrelevant anyway

You claimed in a different thread that you didn't believe the "vast majority" of the community believed burst is a problem. I can try to drudge up the post.

I agree that none of us really know what the "vast majority" thinks. How about from here on out I won't use the expression anymore in an argument if you won't also.

Q u o t e:

We read AJ. So do many WoW players who are interested in Arenas. You don't need to cross link the threads here. I still don't believe burst is out of control like it was early last season. Many players agree with me, but they tend to get shouted down by the folks who are equating "burst is too high" with "I get beat sometimes" or "Arena isn't perfectly balanced yet."

Dude, I'm seeing like almost NO posts to the contrary on AJ, honestly.

I mean I can see the minority feeling timid about expressing themselves but it just seems like the minority simply doesn't EXIST =)

Q u o t e:

If you really want to invoke the scientific method (which I'm not sure is the best way to design games anyway), the "problem" you are talking about is really asking a question. In this case you would say "We want to understand if burst dps is too dominant in Arena matches." Then you form a hypothesis, which might be "Burst damage is too high." Then you attempt to disprove that hypothsis. That's not a very testable hypothesis though, which is why I would leave that process for testing something more objective.

It's more difficult to test because the new arena metagame has been ingrained into EVERYTHING arena-related in WotLK.

Healers have more survivability than ever in smaller environments(2v2) due to trying to be given the tools to survive better in larger environments (3v3, 5v5)........DPS specs that were not as 2v2 viable were given that viability through sheer burst potential, but without anticipating how this would translate to the 3v3 and 5v5 environments.

You're right, saying "burst damage is too high" can be similar to saying "I don't like the path the WotLK arena metagame has taken". Testing this is impossible shy of a multi-class/spec overhaul.

Without the tools to test this, we really cannot propose many solutions. Sadly some most "viable" of these solutions are ideas like a blanket % damage and % healing reduction when stepping into an arena....

....but even that would be bias towards certain classes/specs.

It is a bold move to say "burst is too high". However, it is also a bold move to say "arena participation is lower in WotLK than TBC, Why?"

The PR argument doesn't completely cover it either, as PR was introduced in S3 (TBC).

[ Post edited by Plops ]

Forum > CLASS ROLES > DAMAGE DEALING