Help
Regional FlagWhy doesn't Bliz release *full* patch notes? (Show MVP Posts)Source
avatar
Popegorgeous
Target Source
#1 - 2012/11/29 02:24:00 AM
Maybe I'm just ignorant of the reason here but is there any reason that the absolute full list of changes in a patch are not listed? For example, the stealth nerf to Spectral Guise, the change in pvp power as it relates to healing, etc. were not mentioned. Most of the times people have to find these out for themselves then wait for confirmation on their respective forums.

Any ideas?

avatar
Community Manager
Target Source
#13 - 2012/11/29 03:12:00 AM
Maybe I'm just ignorant of the reason here but is there any reason that the absolute full list of changes in a patch are not listed? For example, the stealth nerf to Spectral Guise, the change in pvp power as it relates to healing, etc. were not mentioned. Most of the times people have to find these out for themselves then wait for confirmation on their respective forums.

Any ideas?


I compile the notes, so I should probably explain a bit.

Essentially, the development of every World of Warcraft patch is a highly iterative creative process. Like most creative processes, there's a little bit of chaos involved, with discreet sub-teams working on individual projects, but also coordinating closely at the same time, so there's always a frenzy of activity going on at any given moment. With that in mind, there's not one comprehensive, monolithic source of information on what's being changed. Instead, information needs to be solicited, provided, re-phrased, confirmed, re-confirmed, edited, and revised as the patch is developed and I compile the notes. That also means that if there's an omission, you can be reasonably certain that it wasn't intentional. It's also worth noting that, as the code changes to resolve issues and implement new features, sometimes things go unexpectedly wonky with older parts of the game.

I'm careful to compile the notes as completely as possible, but it's not unlikely that some things will slip through the cracks from time to time. Perhaps an item didn't follow a typical development pipeline, or something was fixed at the last second. And of course, there will be rare occasions when I simply make an error and omit something that should have been included.

In all cases, we try to make the notes as informative and complete as possible, while also keeping them relevant for 99% of players.

Because if they detailed everything that went into a patch it'd be about ten pages long and everyone would whine about that. I agree that they could be a touch more extensive though.


That's not precisely the case, but we do try to keep things relatively concise. Admittedly, there are many changes that occur that wouldn't mean anything at all to 99% of players, and really crunchy notes of that sort have historically always been omitted.

They do not mention the ones which are apt to upset a large majority of the players.


That's not the case either; there are notes in virtually every update that we know will upset someone. We don't shy away from providing information that needs to be provided, and I'm afraid that you are ascribing a motivation to an event that is actually happenstance.

avatar
Community Manager
Target Source
#16 - 2012/11/29 03:22:00 AM
So it's just coincidence that almost all of the stuff that you "forgot" to put in the patch notes are things that negatively impact the game?


I have a question for you:

Do you really think that we believe that players are happier to find these things out on accident, with no warning? That somehow we think we can slip things by un-detected, when logic, history, and all evidence points to the contrary?

What's the advantage there?

avatar
Community Manager
Target Source
#18 - 2012/11/29 03:24:00 AM
11/28/2012 07:22 PMPosted by Taurok
This should most definitely been in the patch nots yet absolutely nothing has been said about it from Blizzards end.


Indeed, it should have been. The fact that completing a partially cleared instance should make it much more likely that the next Raid Finder queue to be a fresh instance should also have been noted as well.

I'll be adding both of those to the notes shortly, in fact.

Edit: The next instance won't always be fresh, but the queueing player will be given strong preference for a fresh instance.

avatar
Community Manager
Target Source
#29 - 2012/11/29 03:33:00 AM
The advantage is you can simply ignore addressing the issue like is almost always done with "stealth nerfs." Just change it and not say a word.


I still don't see how that's an advantage. We always have the option of discussing a topic or not. 'Hiding' something would just make people grumpier when it sneaks up on them, which makes it even harder to speak about it in a constructive atmosphere.

I'll be honest: I'm having a hard time picturing how you think things work around here. I admit to having a nice diabolic cackle now and then, but it's not like I'm sitting in front of a bank of monitors each filled with an angry forum thread, stroking a siamese cat and telling my henchmen that they've failed me for the last time.

avatar
Community Manager
Target Source
#35 - 2012/11/29 03:38:00 AM
But won't this just perpetuate the problem of people leaving during raids even more?

If I join a partially finished raid, then go to another raid to finish the bosses I haven't done I will then be leaving after completing the bosses I need. Blizz needs to find some way to keep people in the raid for the whole thing from boss 1 to until the end.


We're always working toward a better system. In the meantime, while the scenario you describe could happen, we should still see more consistent groups and lower queue times than we were seeing previously.

avatar
Community Manager
Target Source
#40 - 2012/11/29 03:45:00 AM
11/28/2012 07:42 PMPosted by Oldecrow
Solution: release a patch note addendum. "Official" additional notes will settle questions of if a change is an actual intended change, and so on.


I've been updating the notes as items are confirmed.