Dailies is just bad design.

11/06/2011 11:19 PMPosted by Manpuku

This is just a bad design. A game should not ask for daily commitment to enjoy what it has to offer.

They ask nothing - they merely reward a choice.

We typically provide some boundaries because, as you've illustrated, something that we allow, is something that can all too easily seem mandatory. That's not what we want, but we do want to provide a reason to come into the game, be in the world, and see what's happening on a frequent basis. It's nice to also be able to offer some rewards for doing that. Naturally, dailies shouldn't be the only way to accrue rewards, and they aren't. Dailies were, in part, a response to a World of Warcraft where there wasn't a lot of incentive to come play on non-raid days, since for many players, the only way to progress became dungeon runs and, for a few, raiding. We also wanted to provide another means of acquiring currency aside from professions, and new ways to acquire reputation with important factions too. They're designed to hit a lot of notes (I'm probably missing some), and I think that they're pretty successful. You don't have to hit your cap, (indeed, one of our fears about a raised daily cap is that players might feel compelled to hit the new, higher cap) but you can if you want to put in the time. Naturally, we also want to continue to add other means of progression to the end-game, and we're looking for ways to do so in a fun and compelling way.

I get concerned when I see players throwing out words like 'bad design'. Perhaps an individual dislikes a design choice, and that's fine. We do our best, but World of Warcraft can't be all things to all people, all the time. That said, making a value judgment about whether the design is 'bad' or not is not only un-constructive, but in the vast majority of the cases I've seen, such an assessment reveals that the design was not well understood to begin with.

These forums represent an opportunity to have a dialogue about the game. I think that choosing words that have context and meaning, and offering alternative solutions, makes for feedback which is more readily useful.

/roasted. Nice one Daxx.

The World of Warcraft forum community seems prone to 'fad' phrases, regrettably. 'Bad design' is, perhaps, my least favorite. It's right up there with 'lazy'.

11/07/2011 01:58 PMPosted by Rafiq

what is a proper description for rehashed content?

A response to many, many requests over the years from the community to revisit old dungeons and characters?

I have a question then: If the intent is to give players a choice, why is it that the Molten Front dailies award gear upgrades from tier 11? Unless you raided firelands, those dailies weren't a choice, they were a path to progression (which, in my opinion, was a wrong decision to make).

Daily quests like the Netherwing ones in Outland or the Argent Tournament in Northrend feel like a "choice" because ultimately the rewards involved have no bearing on your character's power (mounts and pets are cool to have, but aren't by any means mandatory). They feel optional. For non-rading characters, the Molten Front (and to a certain extent, Tol Barad) dailies don't "feel" optional at all, because opting out of them means you're giving up gear upgrades, which is never a cool thing to do.

Any comments on that?

There are plenty of other dailies where the rewards have been non-power related. The goal was different for Molten Front, and we deliberately wanted to offer a separate path to power for interested players. So, we wanted it to be compelling in that way. Still, it remains that there are alternative, non-raid, paths to power aside from Molten Front.

If the Time Lost protodrake, Poseidus, that drake in Deepholme, and the camel figurine in Uldum qualify as "enriching" then I'm going to suspend my account again. >.<

It could be argued that, by adding nuances to the zones they're in, they do enrich the game.

They add things to hunt for, to seek out, and achieve. They're not easy to get, and that's fine, because they weren't designed to be easy to get. It's a very particular kind of goal for a particular kind of player - we don't expect everyone to pursue them, and if it's not fun for you to do so, then hopefully there are fun goals for you to achieve that are suited to your playstyle.

11/07/2011 02:50 PMPosted by Tramadol

So are you saying that your employer has never implemented a "bad" design? By that logic, they'd never have to change anything, ever. Fact is, your employer makes bad design decisions all the time. The saving factor is their willingness to correct those flaws when presented.

I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that we haven't made mistakes. We've made them, and acknowledged them throughout the years. There are, however, differences between mistakes and bad design.

That said, those mistakes haven't typically aligned with the criticisms of 'bad design' I was referring to. Like I said, in just about every post where I've personally seen the words 'bad design' used, there was also a fundamental lack of understanding about design in general.

Usually, it boils down to just another way for people to try to enforce their vision of what World of Warcraft should be. I'm just pointing out that using that tactic in one's feedback is a good way to start off on the wrong foot.

11/07/2011 03:46 PMPosted by Clovyn

To hope that our feedback is given, we resort to strong emotional impact to attract bumps to keep them afloat (because agreeable topics are usually left unreplied too).

We love constructive threads, and we often don't intervene so as to avoid derailing them. We do intentionally seek them out and read them though.

11/07/2011 03:46 PMPosted by Clovyn

Is there an email listing that still works? For suggestions or general input for the CMs? Or would you prefer the forum method of delivery?

Specifically for feedback on CM performance on the forums, you can email [email protected].

That being said, why are you harping on the OP's use of the term "bad design"?

Because language is important, and also, because it's often used in the phrase, "That's just bad design." to justify why a mechanic or feature is undesirable to the poster in question. It presupposes the correctness of an opinion which may not, in fact, be correct. It also tells me nothing useful, except "I don't like it", but it makes, "I don't like it." sound more erudite, knowledgeable and sophisticated. It still boils down to, "I don't like it.", which isn't particularly useful without a context.

We still appreciate the feedback we receive, but when it comes to feedback, details are important. That's one of the reasons we solicit thoughtful, constructive feedback: because it's more useful than blanket naysaying.

11/07/2011 04:32 PMPosted by Marathel

This is generally something I can agree with and my question. What do you guys see this content as?

If you define content as 'stuff to do', then it's its own kind of content. It's designed to provide a sense of progression and building something, as well as offer some decent rewards in the process.

11/07/2011 04:32 PMPosted by Marathel

WOW is the only game where I found myself generally doing the exact same thing I was doing over a year ago.

Forgive me for saying so, but that seems like a strange statement to me because most games I've played don't change much from year to year, if they change at all. Actually, I'm not doing the same thing in World of Warcraft now, that I was a year ago. The same general gist of things, sure. Games don't tend to radically change their core gameplay in a year's time. Most never change their gameplay at all. In that context, World of Warcraft changes quite a bit more than most games.

Honestly why when you guys announced MOP I was wildly excited for PVE Scenarios. That seems the PERFECT answer to what a lot of raiders that I know personally want. They want to have fun outside of cities and raids, to play heroes and do cool things in a dynamic setting instead of going AFK.

To add the pet battle system also seems amazing. These are the things I mean as by diversity and I honestly can't wait for them. They seem the invigoration a lot of people want.

Don't want to raid? Hey lets have a pet battle! Don't want to do that? Hey I hear that Razor Hill is on fire! Lets go save it! Don't want to do that? Lets go Ashenvale to do something for the war effort.

Oh, well, in that case we're largely on the same page. We also want to make improvements to the end game questing experience, including dailies. We want it to be more than just finding 25 blue exclamation points a day.

11/07/2011 06:19 PMPosted by Eulethuria

Technically speaking, if you design something so complex that it is often misunderstood, wouldn't that actually be proof that it was poorly designed?

If that were the thought I was expressing, I might be inclined to agree. That's not what I was getting at.

It's easy for a critic to make the mistake of confusing their opinion on a system--solely in the context of their own preferred playstyle--for whether or not the system in question is well or poorly designed. Often the assessment is levied without any argument for why a given item isn't well designed, it "just is" and the rest of the argument flows from that assumption.

Merely because one dislikes something, does not necessarily mean that it is also poorly designed. It could be, certainly, but starting a discussion by stating an assumption as though it were fact isn't gauged to have an open discussion where an actual exchange of ideas takes place.

Have you thought about an end game quest zone like silithus used to be ? I do agree about dailies though the LFG was changed to not feel so mandatory it would be nice to see some of the dailies made the same.

Can you explain what you mean further when you say like 'silithus used to be'? In what fashion?