Poster: Etalen at 1/16/2006 8:25:10 AM PST
Subject: Tseric, the missing part of the equation |
| |
Tseric,
This is not a Tseric you are clueless thread. In fact, I think you are starting to get it. I am going to try to explain this without getting too esoteric. I have been reading your posts, listening to others and trying to reconcile them with my own experience. While I am starting to sense that you are getting a better picture of the problems that plague mages, I am not sure you have come to the right conclusion yet. The very basic problem Blizzard seems to have is that they view WoW as a mathematical problem and not a scientific problem. I.E. The math is telling them the sky is green and everyone else is seeing blue.
One thing that struck me was your response to population numbers (yours in the Blizzard sense.) I have stated this in a few posts, and unfortunately was tied up with work to directly reply, but someone at Blizzard needs to be called on this. The very basis for learning is based on inaccurate statistical observations. The first monkey that opened a coconut with a rock did so by making an inaccurate statistical observation. If that monkey decided that he shouldn't continue because he couldn't accurately calculate how many newton's of force he needed, or how many nuts he could open per hour, he would have died of starvation. The point of the observation wasn't the numbers it was "this is better." The point of the population statements isn't class "a" has n% more than class "b". The point is there are a lot more of class "b" than class "a". The numbers are ancillary to the conclusion and only relevant if you can show that the error is high enough to show it's invalid. The statement was scientifically ignorant.
Q u o t e:
They either work or don't. The math guys and number crunchers here are rather confident that damage scales quite evenly across the classes at the high end(lvl 60). I have been involved in some theorycraft in my time and it is difficult for me to refute them when they explained things in that fashion.
I bring this up again, because of this statement about balance. You talk about the mathematics, but make no mention of the science. MMO's are unique in the sense that the program is very much governed by human psychology specifically behavior and perception. If you don't take these into account then your conclusions are based on incomplete information and going to be far less accurate; possibly invalid.
Unfortunately, human psychology is so complex that it cannot be calculated mathematically. That's where scientific observation comes in. The first step is to figure out how people are actually reacting to the game. You do this by looking at population numbers, account cancellation, renewals, character creation, restarts and abandonment in addition to many other things. Then you come to the boards and look where you have identified problems and see what people are saying. You encourage discussion and compile the results. Then someone who specializes in human behavior needs to help tie your results to the "inaccurate statistical observations" you have made. Math is then used to adjust the formulas to match what you have discovered scientifically. Math if used correctly is the chisel to the statue. If math doesn't match reality, then regardless of its elegance or complexity, it's wrong.
Q u o t e:
Point being, I think PvP can be an issue for mages not because of a class issue, but because of the structure of BGs and player behavior in it. This is why I have never really had an issue with mages "survivability" per se, but rather a concern about group PvP in general.
You are beginning to understand the issue, but I would argue that player survivability is directly related to player behavior. You cannot separate the two. Player behavior is as integral a part to WoW as the mathematics. It's a crucial component when considering balance. Leaving out the psychology makes the math futile.
Q u o t e:
It has a different appearance when it does happen, but it is not something that mages are singularly afflicted with
Appearance or perception also affects human behavior. Why is it people will avoid a wasp yet approach a wild deer? The deer is far more dangerous. You made an excellent observation in another post. You stated that perhaps it was the abruptness that the mage died. I die with my druid, perhaps as much as my mage, however, I rarely feel out of control. Most of the time with my mage, I have no control of my death. I have no options. Control is one way or another taken from me. This is not, as you observed, singularly a mage issue. All casters suffer from this in one way or another, however, behavior exacerbates the problem when you add low survivability and little threat of retribution. This encourages attacks and discourages healing because it's perceived as futile. This perception has driven me to play a druid and abandon my mage. Mages are far too often the victim, a perception that adds a huge deterrent to the class.
Blizzard was successful, precisely because it had an intuitive understanding of human behavior. They understood what people were looking for and they were able to provide it. You cannot exclude or segregate human perception and behavior from your formulas. Without incorporating such an important variable, it is highly unlikely you will actually solve the problem.
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mage&t=645318&p=#post645318 | | | Poster: Tseric at 1/21/2006 4:32:25 PM PST
Subject: Re: Tseric, the missing part of the equation |
| |
This has been quite a good read and I have seen a lot of important ideas and notions presented and mulled over. This is good, because it is better sometimes that the community makes points rather than having it come from me.
Perception, appearance, behavior and psychology are something I deal with on a fairly regular basis on these boards, so to address the main point of the OP, we observe player behavior in many situations and gather information from various sources. This game was designed very much with the player and their behavior in mind. The questing system is steeped in the adjustment and direction of play and a smooth experience from one zone to the next.
I have mentioned player behavior before. In fact, I mention it more often than I do mathmatical terms or topics. In that regard, I'm not sure I understand where the impression is coming from that the devs are basing this game solely around mathmatical formulas. The quotes you used from me are just a tad bit out of context.
However, when I mention player behavior or touch on it as a point, many players have a simple (possibly involuntary) reaction.
"Hey look everybody, Tseric is telling us to Learn to Play."
Even suggesting something may be affected by differing player responses, somehow conveys the idea that I am telling someone to learn to play. So, in this respect, dealing with behavior and perception is something I am quite familiar with.
For example:
When I first showed up on the mage forums several months back, there was an issue which was considered far more game-breaking and detrimental to the mage class than PvP survivability.
Fire resistance.
The boards were chock full of posts about how resistances are not only caster biased, but particularly unfair to mages. When I started to talk about why this was more of a general caster issue and certainly not a "game-breaking" issue as they claimed it to be, I gave the impression of "not taking it seriously". I had, as you have previously mentioned, collected data then tried to correlate it with player reaction.
Suffice to say, the 2 didn't really reflect each other well. On the internal-side, I was given the perception of a slight mathmatical imbalance coupled with a situation which could affect perception. This situation was the fact that, at the time, most raid dungeons involved fire resistance in fair quantity (Blackrock Spire). The devs were already aware of the basic concerns and already had several measures planned which would pretty much negate the issue.
At face value, it seemed reasonable that players geared up with MC armor would probably have more fire-resist in a BG and fire-spec'd mages might be affected. However, the degree to which this reasonable idea was then extended is something which can contribute to a perceived urgency in a situation. This makes the difference between "fire-resistance may be mitigating too much damage" as opposed to "fire-resistance is ruining the mage class"
At any rate, I don't see a lot of talk about fire-resistance anymore. I tend to think it was more because of the discussion that occurred, as opposed to any one change. I think player perception can shift more quickly in a game environment than in other situations. A lot of times, I think players really just need to hash it out amongst themselves, as that is where conventional wisdom generally comes from.
Which really brings us to the main point. A common consensus is not going to be dramatically shifted by a singular game change.
The devs are not unaware of this situation, but addressing a matter of "who gets targetted first in BGs" is rather complicated, as you no doubt agree. The big issue is, once you start making design changes attempting to encourage players to target something else, there is no going back. As much as mages are convinced there is a disadvantage for them in BGs, the real matter is isolating the issue and finding a viable solution that is not going to dramatically effect the balance of the class and/or game.
Because, if the real issue is player behavior or perception, those matters have to be measured in majorities and groups as to how that is going to affect a game. Making class or ability changes to affect player perception and behavior towards the class is shaky ground. In the end, somebody has to be the "easiest" target. There is no way to eliminate that notion through game design. It will be a player behavior that persists no matter how you try to change the target.
EDIT- rather serendipitous that a really old thread is getting bumped. Check the timestamps. Another point to keep in mind, fire and shadow are the most common resistances on creatures and items in the game. This would work particularly against the warlock, whose two spell schools are fire and shadow.
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mage&t=457439&s=blizzard&tmp=1#blizzard[ post edited by Tseric ]
Bob is my co-pilot.
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mage&t=645318&p=#post657790 |
View all recent official Blue Posts
|
