Any news on whether past archaeology items can be recovered for Toy Box collections since completion is logged in the journal?
1 day ago
one of our engineers produced some wizardry to make this happen.
23 hr 42 min ago
, Item Designer
am I correctly understanding that primary stats will no longer change when switching specs?
3 days ago
No, just adjusting tooltip formatting. No functional change.
3 days ago
, Technical Game Designer
to me, it's always in 2s. It either comes in at 2 minutes or not at all. This game didn't get that late.
3 days ago
It should always get applied at 5 minutes in 2s. Were you the only one without it?
3 days ago
, Senior PVP Designer
Word has it that the LFR Molten Core event has another battle pet for players, one you havent (offically) announced.
5 days ago
Repeat MC runners will have a chance to get Hatespark the Tiny and the Flames of Ragnaros enchant illusion :)
5 days ago
, Senior Game Designer
View All Blue Tweets
View All Blue Posts
Character Name Reclamation Coming, Beta Healing, Toy Box Update, Pickpocketing in Draenor
Guide to Garrison Followers: Missions, Building Perks, Bodyguards, Acquiring Them
Wowhead Weekly Episode 10, 100 Beta Key Comment Giveaway, Toybox, Blue Tweets, Fire Spirit Goes Out
Patch notes for Warlords of Draenor 6.0 PTR
Warlords UI Updates, Lords of War: Durotan, Complete Guide to Faction Hubs
Herbs, Pigments & Inks... Oh, my!
A Pet Battler's Guide to: Defeating the Pandaren Battle Pet Dailies
Obtainable Feats of Strength
BrekeMart: Your Cooking Achievements One Stop Shop!
View All Guides
News by Tags
Wowhead Weekly Ep 10
WoW 10th Anniversary
News Round Up: Patch 4.3.4 Live, Hotfixes and Customer Support Changes
on 2012/04/17 at 3:21 PM Pacific
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm patch 4.3.4 is now available on all realms. Below you'll find the official patch notes.
Notes for all World of Warcraft patches can be found
Ticket Submission UI Improvements
A new Submit Bug button has been added. Clicking this option will open a report dialog box, along with basic instructions on what to include in your bug report.
A new Submit Suggestion button has been added. Clicking this option will open a text dialog box, along with a description of what to include in your suggestion.
The Report Lag button has been removed.
The Report Abuse button is now called Report Player.
The Report Player function offers four categories: Spamming, Language, Name, and Cheating.
Reporting a player for Cheating now opens a text window in which a description of the occurrence can be written.
Reporting a Name opens a window with three categories: Player Name, Guild Name, and Arena Team Name. There is also a text field for optional information.
Report Player now includes text and visual instructions for how to submit a report.
Right-clicking a character’s portrait now offers additional reporting options.
no longer persists when the warlock changes to a spec that does not include the talent.
Fras Siabi's Barely Bigger Beer
is a now bit less big, and its effect no longer stacks.
Inactive guild leader replacement
now requires 90 days of absence, up from 30 days. Ascent to the rank of guild leader is now only available to guild members at Rank 2, 3, or 4.
Click the cut to read more about the customer support changes in 4.3.4, as well as the latest class beta feedback on Affliction warlocks and Mistweaver monks. There's also blue posts on the Pandaren models, the destruction of Theramore, balancing 10 and 25-player raids, and challenges for class designers in the beta.
Customer Support Changes
J!NX Spring Collection
We consider the pandaren models pretty much done: i.e. the distinctive longer tails for female red-coloured pandaren, that we like, are there to stay.
Let's say it like this: we don't want to repeat the female worgen on this one. We don't want to second-guess the design.
This may just be my interpretation and not our company's, but the way I see it is that with many things there's always going to be people that like it exactly how it is — as we do — and those that don't. If we change it, the people who didn't like it before the change might be satisfied by it changing, but there's also the chance they might not be. What's guaranteed, though, is that those who did like it just as it was (usually the silent majority) definitely won't like it being changed.
Theramore and Faction Imbalance
You act as though I don't think there's any disconnect at all, or that all complaints from Alliance players about perceived story imbalances between factions are baseless.
These are fallacies which, as with this one below from you, I was initially biting my thumb at in my post you quoted.
The frustrating thing, though, is that you haven’t just received criticism, but constructive criticism as well. Plenty of people have offered copious amounts of suggestions since even before the release of Cataclysm, and you’ve ignored every single one.
You do everyone on the forums, yourself included, a disservice by making the leap in logic that, because we didn't act upon feedback submitted to us, we ignored it. Many of the suggestions you referenced in your post would've been pretty massive undertakings toward further redesigning the 1-60 experience in Cataclysm. From your point of view, and given how you feel about Alliance design, it's probably a pretty easy call. The decision should've been to make those changes to better flesh out the Alliance and, in particular, worgen story.
But we don't get to do this over, so we have to look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Regardless of what we know today, it still would've been an incredible risk back then to delay the expansion, just to further redo the 1-60 experience to ensure the Alliance portion cannot be seen as anything other than equivalent (at least) to the Horde portion, in terms of quality. This is not to mention that, to a sadly large extent, the revamp of the 1-60 experience went pretty unnoticed to the average player. The average player has been more concerned about a lack of content at level 85 than what zone story lines ended more in favor of the Horde than vice versa.
And since we weren't going to change the expansion's story partway through purely based on the concern that players didn't feel Thrall was a neutral enough character, we went ahead with our plan.
Now enter Mists development. For months now we've been listening to the Alliance concerns on all types of matters, from lore, to faction pride, to populations, to behavior at BlizzCon, etc. And so many of them are legitimate. We've taken a lot of this to heart while developing the next expansion, while also building upon the larger story that's sure to span many more expansions and even new games (hopefully) down the road.
But then these valid concerns get whittled away and almost lose their meaning as they're put on this tit-for-tat list, where they're used as emotional leverage. And suddenly every little piece of information that comes out regarding future content gets ripped apart to determine exactly where our true motivations and biases lay. It actually increases the social divide between players, inflames the loudest people on both sides of the aisle, and prevents us from getting any reasonable word in edgewise without being cut down for our perceived ignorance in all matters relating to Alliance player wants/needs, if not our malicious attempt to outright make the Horde the cooler faction by story and design.
While both sides have done some pretty great and pretty terrible things in the stories past, there's a reason we don't make one the definitively evil or definitely good side (don't point to a few moments on a recent timeline to refute this point -- I'm talking big picture). Playing with friends aside, it's still a goal of ours to make sure that you're playing whatever faction and race you think is coolest, or which one you identify with or enjoy most. To think we're actively designing the game any other way is to get caught up in this debate so much so that you lose sight of what the game is all about.
I'm proud to be all gnome when it's time to crawl dungeons with my Alliance friends. I'm excited to represent goblins when it's time to collect bounties with my Horde friends. That said, my ultimate affinity is for my gnome and the Alliance, if not purely because that's how I ultimately jumped on the Warcraft train. :)
And I'm sure plenty of you out there would spit on both of those races. And -- since these words have never come back to bite anyone in the past -- I say bring 'em on.
So I am not sure offhand if any of this information is new or not, but here it is anyhow just in case any of it is news to you.
These will be Jewelcrafter recipes and we're not actually completely decided on whether there will be a recipe for each colour, or whether the creation of one will produce one of the four colours at random.
As I think you already know, the black one will be a little different. It's a flying mount and it'll be created by combining the other four mount colours together.
We're estimating that the cost of creating these mounts will be very expensive. ;)
Paladin: Holy DPS
We don't want Holy to be a DPS spec, but we do want Holy paladins to be able to do reasonable damage when solo, to keep up pressure in PvP, or when grouped in moments when healing isn't critical. Holy Shock and Denounce are supposed to provide that damage, but their numbers are abysmally weak at the moment. We will fix.
The above is relevant to all healer specs mind you.
Monk: Mistweaver Feedback
We don't want to need Agility.
We don't want that either. Mistweavers should use Intellect leather. We just have to make sure that any of their damage-dealing abilities don't make Agi attractive.
Warlock: Affliction Feedback
We are discussing removing the limit one on Agony. We think Malefic Grasp already solves the same problem of wanting to make sure that focusing on a single target can be as effective as multi-dotting the room.
(As an aside, it's fine to multi-dot the room, but we want to avoid a situation where a dot class is either terrible with one target or doubles everyone else's damage when there are multiple targets.)
If we make the Agony change, then Soul Swap could move Agony and UA and feel worth doing (assuming Seeds already covers Corruption in an AE environment). It's also possible we could just bring down the Soul Swap cooldown as well.
10 vs 25s Player Raids
We'll continue making adjustments as necessary to keep 10- and 25-player raids within a relative alignment, in terms of time investment, difficulty and rewards. It may never be perfect, but we still see interest in both raid sizes for different reasons. And ultimately we'll continue designing 25-player raids as long as there are a decent number of guilds interested in the format. We've seen no evidence as of yet that such interest is waning to any degree that should cause us great concern.
We tend to begin raid design around 25 players anyway before tuning for the various sizes and difficulties. That, when combined with our intent to carry on with 25-player Raid Finder group sizes, makes it very much worth our time to continue designing 25-player raids.
Regardless of what players' personal preferences or opinions are regarding the varied raid formats in World of Warcraft, we don't see removing options as a smart choice in the foreseeable future.
Class Changes in Mists
This is a really tricky space for class designers to navigate. We see a lot of "why won't you fix my issues?" pleas mixed in with "I don't want to relearn how to play." Neither opinion is right or wrong of course, and there is a lot of subjectivity about what each mean. "I only wanted you to change A and B, not C and D" is posted in the same thread as "Please don't change A!" Even the OP above had to add "don't change... except for...." :)
The talent changes do give us the opportunity to clean up (in our parlance) various rotations because we now have the concept of spec spells. Previously, we often had to jump through hoops to keep players from having to use awkward yet higher DPS rotations.
To use one example, we didn't want Fury warriors to have to "cast" Slams and most Fury warriors didn't want to either (meaning we weren't just smacking players' wrists for finding a way to play that we had not envisioned). But any time we needed to buff Slam for Arms, we risked Fury side effects unless we messed with the Bloodsurge proc for Fury to keep Slam the same for them. In Mists we can just make Slam an Arms spec spell to avoid that issue completely. There are many other comparisons, especially for rogues and warlocks who often incorporated many more buttons than they needed to do to execute a rotation just because those buttons were there.
Similarly, it gives us a chance to clean up action bars a little by doing things like streamlining the number of heals non-healers need. Shadow needs some heals to feel like a priest, but it doesn't need the repertoire that a Holy priest has.
But these changes, made with the best of intentions, still count as changes. Returning players, especially players returning from early Cataclysm or Lich King still have to learn them. I had a warrior player the other day ask me why he needed Heroic Throw and Heroic Leap because they were just extra buttons on his bars, yet I also imagined the outrage if we tried to prune them. :(
We really try not to make change for changes sake (and you are free to call us on it if you think you see it). Every change is to solve some problem, likely a problem that representatives of the various classes and specs have advocated at one point or another. (Here is where players will typically say "I have been an X for 8 years, and I never remember seeing someone ask for Y" - please don't turn the rest of this thread into that).
We have also been trying to limit large class changes to expansions and not patches, even though that policy frustrates players as well who don't want to wait many months for a more dynamic rotation or a quality of life improvement. It's a design philosophy challenge for sure.
The best advice I can give you (any of you) is to offer specifics. Generic "I don't like my guy anymore" doesn't give us much indication of what we would have to do to get you to want to play him again. If there is a change you don't like, let us know, but be prepared to defend that position against other players who may disagree with you. We're not actually looking for players to vote on changes, but it is helpful for us to see both sides of a debate.
Also remember that nearly every change at this stage is made for fun and not for balance. That means our hands aren't tied. But it also means we are making decisions based on something really subjective upon which players very possibly are not going to agree.
I find the discussion really interesting, especially when it sticks to the topic of "How much change is appropriate?" and doesn't try and discuss every single class in one thread.
I did want to clarify a few points just to make sure we are all on the same page.
But for the 2nd expansion in a row you have significant healing changes and added tanking changes on top of it. I think for the larger part of the player base, you have made that a huge frustration because 5 levels is not enough. You are going to be balancing a class around level 90 but leveling from 85 to 90 is going to bring frustration on to a lot of people.
We haven't changed healing. Healing should feel really similar to how it felt in Cataclysm, but a little more forgiving when you're still in greens and blues.
We do want to give tanks more control over their survivability, but that's because we've really toned down the effort it takes to maintain threat, so we want tanks to have something upon which to focus their attention.
We also spend a great deal of effort balancing at 85. As we have mentioned before, we want everyone who logs in when the expansion goes live to have about the same amount of damage and healing that they have today in Cataclysm. The sources of some of that damage and healing will change, but overall the numbers should be familiar.
2012 Arena Pass--Seven Days
Twitter and the Annual Pass
Why do people like Zarhym continue committing to this lie about beta access order. Why not just tell the truth?
We've stated in the past there are several ways by which candidates are invited to test Mists of Pandaria beta. All we've said with regard to Annual Pass holders is that they'll be invited before people who submitted through our opt-in process, and that they'll be invited in order of Annual Pass purchase date and total cumulative play time on the account.
So here are a few things I didn't feel like typing on Twitter to one person all but accusing us of a conspiracy:
1) You don't have access to enough information to determine with certainty the way in which each and every person flagged for beta access was invited.
2) Even if you were able to prove that one Annual Pass holder was invited a) in an Annual Pass invite wave, and b) before someone who purchased their Annual Pass earlier, has more cumulative play time on their account, and was also invited in an Annual Pass wave, that still doesn't prove there's a systemic flaw in the way in which all accounts are being flagged.
3) We're aware that the terminology we used when initially announcing the Annual Pass feature was misleading. We've already stated we regret the way that went down. That said, we had no reason to falsely claim we'd be distributing invites in a way we had no intention of actually following. There's just no good reason to lie about that and hope people wouldn't catch on.
News Round Up: Patch 4.3.4 Live, Hotfixes and Customer Support Changes
2012/04/17 at 3:21 PM
Continue Reading »
Post a Comment
© 2014 ZAM Network LLC
in your browser.