Hopefully I can explain myself clearly and persuasively. And suggest some alternatives to asking for multidotting.
But first I need to be clear about something: this is not at all an attack or rebuke of how any of you imagine this would be implemented. The issue is how I think Blizzard would interpret this suggestion based on what they've done in the past.
Blizzard implements feedback based on how they perceive the feedback, they kind of take the path of least resistance, and in the case of Warlocks the changes tend to translate to somewhat clunky and sluggish gameplay. So we could end up with an Affliction which has awful single target and is really only good at multiple target scenarios (and we did end up with this at launch as you may recall)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is worth keeping in mind that Affliction right now is fine at multidotting and will remain fine. Moreover it doesnt look like many Tomb fights would even highly reward multidotting. So this is really not a pressing issue, that alone suggests pursuing an alternative
First my misgivings with multidotting as thought of by Blizzard
1) They tried that with Legion already. And had a lot more development time to get it right. Affliction was garbage until they basically reneged on that design.
2) it would mean Effigy would probably never go away as it's the way Blizzard tried to balance multitarget and single target. So they'd just hold onto the ability rather than rethink it. They only would rethink Effigy if it stops being used. The fact it was widely used at launch is how they justified not changing it as I recall.
3) Destro, with Havoc, is already pretty powerful at multitarget scenarios, as is Affliction, so the Warlock class as a whole would not gain that much from this change.
4) the kind of fights with prolonged periods of targeting multiple enemies that Affliction would shine on simply arent common enough and Blizzard would certainly gimp ST damage to accommodate this change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it stands there is no reason to expect anything different from Blizzard than what we've already gotten when they had more time, and I think two better alternatives exist.
The first is simply reducing RNG reliance for shard/soul generation. Blizzard likes consistency so they could easily be persuaded by this. And it would be a nice quality of life change.
But if you still want to be better at multidotting I suggest you ask for Affliction to be better at handling adds
Why? Well because I think tackling this problem would incentivize better design by Blizzard and would be good for all of the warlock specs as I will explain at the end. Moreover I also think it's closer to what a lot of you have in mind when you ask for multidotting.
1) Being better at Adds would carry over to multidotting because council fights are just long lived Adds.
2) Single target would not have to be gimped as badly (again, think of Affliction at launch)
3) adds are in almost every fight so this would be generally more used as an upgrade
and lastly
4) The reason Blizzard does not buff Destruction's single target damage is because Destro is already extremely versatile so if it did not have lower ST damage it would edge out Aff and Demo too often. But if Aff and Demo were to become more well rounded, this pressure would not exist.
The most obvious manner in which to assist Affliction with this would be changing the DoTs to be quicker in their damage or having them trigger effects on the Warlock which would assist him in other ways so he'd benefit from throwing them out (think like Wrath of Consumption and Reap Soul do this). The latter would not improve damage to Adds but it would still make Adds something Affliction could handle and be in keeping with the current design philosophy/class fantasy. Or maybe just make UA do some upfront damage like Shadow Priest DoTs, and Compounding Horror adds to that damage (would actually make it compounding too)
I hope this is clear. Thank you for reading. Consider it.