Arcilite_I posted:

---

What a douchebag.

---

Ghostcrawler posted:

---

That is recognizing how math works."

---

Ghostcrawler posted:

---

6."The talents are all PvP choices."

We see this response from players who say “I don’t care about PvP,” or “raid bosses can’t be snared,” or even “I am a solo player, so I don’t need a defensive cooldown.”

First, a lot of players do care about PvP, and almost every choice in the new talent model will be interesting for them. We are also taking some steps with Mists to encourage more crossover between PvP and PvE as the game once had, so even if you don’t care for PvP now, maybe we can get you interested in the future.

---

Arunne posted:

---

Ghostcrawler posted:

---

6."The talents are all PvP choices."

We see this response from players who say “I don’t care about PvP,” or “raid bosses can’t be snared,” or even “I am a solo player, so I don’t need a defensive cooldown.”

First, a lot of players do care about PvP, and almost every choice in the new talent model will be interesting for them. We are also taking some steps with Mists to encourage more crossover between PvP and PvE as the game once had, so even if you don’t care for PvP now, maybe we can get you interested in the future.

---

What this really says is that since we are still trying to make WOW into a super huge E-Sport. It hasnt caught on for years but this time dammit we will get it!

---

MinionX-DW posted:

---

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/4055148?page=1#page-comments

"We can't do what Trion has done with Rift, because we're bad"

Trions design philosophy consists of throwing a billion choices at you, and if something is overpowered, throw in a counter somewhere and watch people take advantage of it, and if that doesn't work, just Nerf it, you have a Billion other things to choose from.

Blizzard designs philosophy consists of "It's to hard... lets do something else"

---

Arcilite_I posted:

---

What a douchebag.

---

_Taebo_ posted:

---

I don't like GC or agree with his statement, but can you really say Rift is balanced? I saw some of the problems GC is talking about in Rift. Many useless filler talents or +5 to crit 3/3 or 5/5 type talents. That's what happens in these open talent type systems, people find a way to maximize on certain builds. Then it gets nerfed and then everyone gets pissed.

AC2 had the same problem. They weakened you if you started spending points in other trees. This crap has been going on for years.

---

Rill_of_WE posted:

---

I thought my hubby was paraphrasing when he told me GC said "You're wrong. Next." Then I read it for myself. He ACTUALLY said it. Twice. You just can't say things like that and expect people to still respect you. Despite some things he's said in other posts I still respected the guy for holding a difficult job. He's lost my respect now and I find it saddening. You don't kill the golden goose in order to get more golden eggs. That's what they're doing.

---

MinionX-DW posted:

---

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/4055148?page=1#page-comments

My personal favorite part.

"Look, we tried the talent tree model for seven years. We think it’s fundamentally flawed and unfixable. We know some of you have faith in us that someday we’ll eventually replace all of the boring +5% crit talents with interesting talents and give you 80 talent points that you can spend wherever, and that the game will still remain relatively balanced and fun. We greatly appreciate your faith, but we fear it is misplaced. It’s not a matter of coming up with enough fun mechanics, which is challenging but ultimately doable. The problem is the extreme number of combinations. When you have such a gigantic matrix, the chances of having unbeatable synergies, or combinations of talents that just don’t work together is really high. That’s not lazy design. That is recognizing how math works."

In other words

"We can't do what Trion has done with Rift, because we're bad"

Trions design philosophy consists of throwing a billion choices at you, and if something is overpowered, throw in a counter somewhere and watch people take advantage of it, and if that doesn't work, just Nerf it, you have a Billion other things to choose from.

Blizzard designs philosophy consists of "It's to hard... lets do something else"

---

_Taebo_ posted:

---

MinionX-DW posted:

---

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/4055148?page=1#page-comments

"We can't do what Trion has done with Rift, because we're bad"

Trions design philosophy consists of throwing a billion choices at you, and if something is overpowered, throw in a counter somewhere and watch people take advantage of it, and if that doesn't work, just Nerf it, you have a Billion other things to choose from.

Blizzard designs philosophy consists of "It's to hard... lets do something else"

---

I don't like GC or agree with his statement, but can you really say Rift is balanced? I saw some of the problems GC is talking about in Rift. Many useless filler talents or +5 to crit 3/3 or 5/5 type talents. That's what happens in these open talent type systems, people find a way to maximize on certain builds. Then it gets nerfed and then everyone gets pissed.

AC2 had the same problem. They weakened you if you started spending points in other trees. This crap has been going on for years.

---

Rill_of_WE posted:

---

I thought my hubby was paraphrasing when he told me GC said "You're wrong. Next." Then I read it for myself. He ACTUALLY said it. Twice. You just can't say things like that and expect people to still respect you. Despite some things he's said in other posts I still respected the guy for holding a difficult job. He's lost my respect now and I find it saddening. You don't kill the golden goose in order to get more golden eggs. That's what they're doing.

---

Auenwing posted:

---

PS:

Ghostcrawler says: You're going to love our next expansion!

You're wrong. Next!

---

Rill_of_WE posted:

---

Auenwing posted:

---

PS:

Ghostcrawler says: You're going to love our next expansion!

You're wrong. Next!

---

lol

---

Auenwing posted:

---

PS:

Ghostcrawler says: You're going to love our next expansion!

You're wrong. Next!

---

TruthyID posted:

---

I think the GC quote from the OP is an attempt at humility. Somehow the guy just always seems to come across as a giant douche though. If they insist on keeping GC around they really ought to hire a PR person to communicate on his behalf. All GC seems to do is antagonize the playerbase every time he makes a public statement.

Honestly, what kind of douche says "You're wrong. Next!" in business correspondence? That kind of rudeness and arrogance just isn't socially acceptable and certainly isn't professional. Reading this kind of nonsense makes me think that Blizzard is keeping GC around as part of the most elaborate display of trolling in history. Otherwise, I can't think of a single reason why they haven't canned this guy yet.

---

Kriegprojekt posted:

---

Like Ive said before, regardless of how HE wants to come across, its how hes perceived by the CUSTOMERS that is the most important thing.

---

Quazimortal posted:

---

Kriegprojekt posted:

---

Like Ive said before, regardless of how HE wants to come across, its how hes perceived by the CUSTOMERS that is the most important thing.

---

Haha! This is hilarious to me because I pretty much said the same thing to a moderator here on VN not long ago. Something like 'Intent is meaningless in the face of perception' or close to that. When you are representing a company in any fashion you can't just spew out whatever crap you want to since you aren't speaking for just yourself.

I wonder how many subscribers would return to WoW if Blizzard fired Ghostcrawler? I betcha it would be measurable.

---

Rill_of_WE posted:

---

The guy they replace him with would have to fix a lot of stuff before a noticeable amount of peeps would come back to wow IMO.

---

bewhatever posted:

---

whoever set the basic objectives for Ghostcrawler's team to meet didn't have a clue who his (won't be a her) customers are, and what they want.

---

Quazimortal posted:

---

bewhatever posted:

---

whoever set the basic objectives for Ghostcrawler's team to meet didn't have a clue who his (won't be a her) customers are, and what they want.

---

Awwwwwww, isn't the sexist cuuuuuuuute.

Hate to break it to ya but women aren't perfect either so it is 100% possible that the person you are describing could have been a woman.

Sexists are so fun to laugh at...

---

Rill_of_WE posted:

---

Quazimortal posted:

---

Kriegprojekt posted:

---

Like Ive said before, regardless of how HE wants to come across, its how hes perceived by the CUSTOMERS that is the most important thing.

---

Haha! This is hilarious to me because I pretty much said the same thing to a moderator here on VN not long ago. Something like 'Intent is meaningless in the face of perception' or close to that. When you are representing a company in any fashion you can't just spew out whatever crap you want to since you aren't speaking for just yourself.

I wonder how many subscribers would return to WoW if Blizzard fired Ghostcrawler? I betcha it would be measurable.

---

The guy they replace him with would have to fix a lot of stuff before a noticeable amount of peeps would come back to wow IMO.

---

Quazimortal posted:

---

bewhatever posted:

---

whoever set the basic objectives for Ghostcrawler's team to meet didn't have a clue who his (won't be a her) customers are, and what they want.

---

Awwwwwww, isn't the sexist cuuuuuuuute.

Hate to break it to ya but women aren't perfect either so it is 100% possible that the person you are describing could have been a woman.

Sexists are so fun to laugh at...

---

Quazimortal posted:

---

Stupidity is not a requirement for making a mistake.

---

Quazimortal posted:

---

Stupidity is not a requirement for making a mistake.

---

Sociop posted:

---

So in other words GC is saying that there are a lot of variables in the game (which there have bee since it weas release) but instead of doing his job dealing with them, which he can, he is instead going to take them away( which he has been systematically doing since BC)to make it easier on himself.

Greg Street is by definition a product of the "ME" generation of that there is no doubt.

---

-Peo- posted:

---

Actually, Quazi is spot on. Your posts are sexist. You are attributing qualities to a person or persons based on their gender, not their actual intelligence, competence or qualifications.

That is, by definition, sexist. But then, many woman complain about a man's superior attitude out of one side of their mouths, while extolling their own virtues out of the other. It is called double standard, and your posts are textbook double standard.

---

-Peo- posted:

---

Actually, Quazi is spot on. Your posts are sexist. You are attributing qualities to a person or persons based on their gender, not their actual intelligence, competence or qualifications.

That is, by definition, sexist. But then, many woman complain about a man's superior attitude out of one side of their mouths, while extolling their own virtues out of the other. It is called double standard, and your posts are textbook double standard.

---

Auenwing posted:

---

And as far as You are attributing qualities to a person or persons based on their gender, not their actual intelligence, competence or qualifications, no we are not. We are saying a female can't be seen as even remotely incompetent and continue to maintain her position.

---

-Peo- posted:

---

First, get over yourself. You assume, incorrectly, that everyone is foolish, young and idealistic. We are not. You were fresh out of school in the 80's? Good for you, class of 87 here. I understand the way the world works just fine. My beef is with the double standard presented by woman. You do not get to demand to be treated like equals then get cutsie, bat eyelashes and simper about being feminine.

I have nothing but respect for people (not gender specific) that maintain their integrity and are true to themselves. Honestly, though I am fairly certain you aren't trying to, you are coming across as holier than thou and hypocritical.

Second, your perception and conclusions are not the end all be all of reality. The reality of the situation is, there are times when woman have a legitimate beef. There are also times when they play the victim card. I am sad about the former, but I abhor the latter.

---

-Peo- posted:

---

Auenwing posted:

---

And as far as You are attributing qualities to a person or persons based on their gender, not their actual intelligence, competence or qualifications, no we are not. We are saying a female can't be seen as even remotely incompetent and continue to maintain her position.

---

Yes, you are.


But it is useless to argue the point. Since you are obviously going to spin it the way you want to maintain your stance.

---

-Peo- posted:

---

First, get over yourself. You assume, incorrectly, that everyone is foolish, young and idealistic. We are not. You were fresh out of school in the 80's? Good for you, class of 87 here. I understand the way the world works just fine. My beef is with the double standard presented by woman. You do not get to demand to be treated like equals then get cutsie, bat eyelashes and simper about being feminine.

I have nothing but respect for people (not gender specific) that maintain their integrity and are true to themselves. Honestly, though I am fairly certain you aren't trying to, you are coming across as holier than thou and hypocritical.

Second, your perception and conclusions are not the end all be all of reality. The reality of the situation is, there are times when woman have a legitimate beef. There are also times when they play the victim card. I am sad about the former, but I abhor the latter.

---