I like Ghostcrawler. It's too bad people don't really understand what is so hard about balancing this game.Interesting read.
I read a number of the comments over on MMO Champion, as well as the article itself.For the most part, the only 'anti-GC' comment I really agree with is this: The "What we did wrong" section is really more of a "We're sorry for this, but we did nothing wrong - or these things were already broken before" section.But overall I think the new talent trees are good, if still a bit bloated in some classes/specs.While it's only indirectly related to the talent trees, and more to choosing a particular tree, I think that some Masteries could still use a more 'active' approach to their effects - even if it's just an easily-recognized graphic effect that comes up when the mastery procs.
There are two ways to think about Talent Trees, I feel:1) A way to slowly give the player access to more skills, spells and abilities as they level up. This prevents them from being overwhelmed early on in their playing careers.2) A way to customize your character to your play style and enjoyment.The way Ghostcrawler describes the developer's point of view seems to be heavily in the first category. By design (paraphrasing) there should only be a couple hard decisions in your talent tree, while the majority of points are practically predetermined through "what is best" perceptions or numbers from other players. This is disappointing in a sense that you're getting a lot of very similar characters.I don't have a solution to fix it, and I trust Blizzard, but I'd love to see more ways to individualize the character abilities rather than be ridiculed and shunned for not having certain things or putting points in 'worthless' things, as perceived by others.
An interesting read. I agree with Dementia.
What I dont like is that there are less interesting talents for example rogue than were back in wotlk ... also i dont like that there are only 41 at 85 ... I was hoping for 51 at 85 as in Vanilla at 60.With this system you are forced to spend in some talents because if you will not, you will sucks ... also not many builds are possible with this system ... still hoping for 51 talents trees lol
I enjoy is posts. No reason to stop posting them. They are exactly what players talk about. I think Mastery is a success, I think lvl 10 is a HUGE success (it is nice to play your spec while leveling!). I think balance is as good as it has ever been. The only negative I have is with choices. There was never any real choice back before Cata, which is similar to what we have now. I think they failed to increase the choices, which is a failure overall. They just need to go back and add 3-6 more talent points to each spec.
Well there's still some talents like that at the moment.Fortunately, there's only a few.
http://ptr.wowhead.com/talent#fcIZcGcfRc0RGo0oThis is only reasonable build for PvE combat rogue
I think ghostcrawler writes like a pretty defensive engineer (but admittedly it is a REALLY tough audience). He often seems reluctant to help us understand WHY something didn''t work out but, instead, falls back to the trap of "We know it isn't working but we will fix it, trust us"). I get that from a marketing perspective. You are trying to tell the paying audience to be patient because help is on the way (or that a bug is actually a feature so they need to adjust).But it strikes me that this is missing a more mature (and dare I say couragous) way to engage the player base that actually would build greater, not less, customer loyalty. The ONE thing that Blizzard has that the customer base does not is DATA - obtained from millions of toons likely playing for BILLIONS of hours. They have the option of observing individual play - to see what is and isn't working. I would be much more interesting to hear from the designers as to WHY they were thinking something and how the data suprised them and forced some rethinking of that original hypothesis. It would give us insight into how THEY thought about the game.To pick his relatively unexciting example) why 33/66/100 would be OK and why, given the data, they are finding it isn't.? Is it that everyone picks 100? That there hope for a tradeoff didn't materialize because the theory crafter ran the numbers and derived a min max solution? Why?Or even more interesting, I would love to hear from him about data on various specs that seem to "not work" in PVP. Worldwide - for example - how do prot warriors playing pvp fair? What does such data suggest about their goal of making every one of the three specs viable. What are they learning from the data? And what could they share to make us more engaged or better players.GC needs to understand that the market has spoken. He and his team built a great mousetrap. But real maturity isn't capturing radioactive gators. It is admitting that complex systems (of which WOW is one) are very difficult to understand and predict and the process of trail (and yes often error) is inherent in how we learn as a species. Lifting up that curtain would make for more interesting and engaging reading. Otherwise, go back to designing and step away from the blue posts - of which your marketing department can handle just fine.