Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    Except wouldn't these high end players be pushing hard regardless of the legendary system?

    IMO poor design would mean pushing high end players to do content that they would not otherwise choose to do purely to try and get the legendaries. If someone is playing this game competitively (relative to other players) then it stands to reason that they're going to want to put more effort in than their competition. Surely then making mechanism which are more rewarding to groups that put more effort in makes sense?



    And therein lies the crux of the problem: This ridiculous fixation on getting BiS. It's not how the game was designed to be played, nor should it be. The goal should be to see how close one can get to BiS within one's personal constraints. Getting worked up when one doesn't achieve BiS though, is entirely a problem of the players' own making.

    Personally I think the system is well thought out, it achieves the objectives of rewarding power fairly. Where it fails (and some might argue that it's poor design) is the attitude people apply to the system. Many would argue that the system should compensate for the failure of the players. Personally I would say that such is an impossible goal. To me it's a bit of a travesty. The arguments levelled against the legendaries are about as valid as the arguments used historically to burn women for witchcraft. And the people making those arguments seem equally convinced of their convictions.
    BiS is a valid goal for people to strive for, but the real reason it matters is to push world/region/server firsts on mythic content. You know, competitive raiding. 1% makes a big difference, and unless I am mistaken good legendaries can give much more than 1% advantages. It's not a minor loot upgrade.

    I can't speak for what mythic raiders would or would not be doing as I do not raid mythic and would not be able to tolerate that kind of playstyle. That said, it's not a matter of "they'd be playing hard regardless" it's a matter of "they are being held back dramatically by legendaries they cannot obtain thanks to a cruel and merciless RNG". Stuff like this gets competent raiders benched and less competent raiders a spot on rosters just because they got lucky rolls.

    Now don't get me wrong, it's certainly not always like this, but it's a bad system that can potentially encourage bad behavior and nothing is more frustrating than being punished by the RNG.
    Last edited by therealbowser; 2017-07-19 at 11:01 AM.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Shot89 View Post
    Even if they were, there will always be Utility A better then Utility B (hell there are already utilty shitty legendary). You will never ever have perfect balance. And people wuold whine, as always.
    I kinda have a hard time seeing people complain about leech on mobs over 90% hp vs a 25% hp shield every 30 sec as non tanks. I mean yeah, people will always complain, but it wouldn't be as big of a deal if they didn't give more DPS than other legendaries (they'd still give better stats than normal gear).

  3. #83
    On some classes I would obliterate two or even three Legendaries to get a new one of my choice - that's how bad some legendaries are and how good some others.

  4. #84
    Scarab Lord
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    4,968
    Quote Originally Posted by therealbowser View Post
    BiS is a valid goal for people to strive for, but the real reason it matters is to push world/region/server firsts on mythic content. You know, competitive raiding. 1% makes a big difference, and unless I am mistaken good legendaries can give much more than 1% advantages. It's not a minor loot upgrade.
    You miss what I am saying. Yes, for competitive raiders, world first etc, they want to put in maximum effort to get the best stuff they can. Of course. This is obvious.

    But that doesn't mean they need BiS. That is a logical fallacy that people keep tauting.

    If two guilds are competing for the world first race, one puts in 100 hours a week, the other 95 hours a week, all other things being equal, the former will have better gear than the first. Whether that gear is "BiS" or not is irrelevant.

    Sure, you're going to have individuals within each guild who will have better or worse gear than the average in each guild, but that is normal.

    So, like I say, it is this ridiculous, crazy fixation on BiS which is the problem. People are so obsessed with whether having BiS that they have lost sight of the bigger picture, why BiS matters in the first place. And as I have just shown, if you have better gear than the next guild, then BiS itself is irrelevant.

    And by all means, people can set a theoretical goal of getting BiS. Just like you should be setting a goal of getting 100% for a test. But when you don't get 100%, don't go calling the test rubbish. It's working as intended, because if you do get 100% then it simply means the test isn't doing it's job properly. The trick, and this is where players having common sense comes into it, is to know when you have put in enough effort, regardless of whether you got BiS or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by therealbowser View Post
    it's not a matter of "they'd be playing hard regardless" it's a matter of "they are being held back dramatically by legendaries they cannot obtain thanks to a cruel and merciless RNG".
    No. What it is is that some people get luckier than others and as a result perform slightly better even though they put in the same effort as another player. I say again This has always been the case in WoW. It's not something new from legendaries. Now, when you aggregate this across an entire mythic guild, things tend to even out.

    Also, I expect that at this stage of the game, everyone in a guild like Method, with the amount of time they put into the game in order compete, will have every single legendary anyway. "Luck" has sweet nothing at all to do with it. At the start of the expansion, during Emerald Nightmare, sure luck was still a big factor in which legendaries everyone had, but still, all those top raiders will have had several to choose from, of which they would have been find able to find a decent combo, even if not the best combo.

    Quote Originally Posted by therealbowser View Post
    Stuff like this gets competent raiders benched and less competent raiders a spot on rosters just because they got lucky rolls.
    Firstly, I think you need to acknowledge that "benching" is a necessary part of mythic raiding. A mythic raiding guild is going to need a roster with enough people to fill 20 slots even if a few are unavailable. Which means realistically having between 24 and 30 odd players on your roster. And it's the raid leader's job to come up with a good benching policy. Typically this means ensuring a good rotation of players to make sure everyone gears up, and also that people don't leave the guild because they're being benched too much, while also trying to get your best setup for a possible progression kill.

    If a raid leader is going to dump a long-standing, highly competent raider, in favour of a less competent raider on the basis of "lucky" rolls, then they're being idiotic. Now that being said, if a guild has two equal players to choose from, both having been in the guild for a long time, both having similar levels of experience and skill etc, and they're looking for a possible new boss kill, then it makes sense that the player who got luckier with his legendaries will be picked. But one of those two players would have had to be benched regardless. Blaming the bad luck with the legendary really misses the bigger picture. If the legendaries weren't a factor, then it would still actually, as it always has, come down to a question of luck, whether it be who got luckier with a trinket, or a piece of titanforged gear, or maybe just a simple coin toss made by the raid leader.

  5. #85
    The best solution imo would be so that there's only 1 pair of legendary boots and they are either useable by all specs or change when you change specs. Part of the reason I hate the system is because blizzard absolutely guts and overbuffs specs and you have to change specs. This would cut down the amount of bloat in the system

  6. #86
    I might not be popular, but I think that rerolling should have a hefty time requirement attached to it. Legendaries do that at the moment.

    There are not that many valid reasons for a reroll and I would dare say that 90% of all rerolls is because of number tuning. Of course all rerollers will now chip in here that it's because their old class just wasn't fun any more and their new class is just so much more fun. That this new class happens to be FOTM ranked in dps is just coincidence

    Anyway. There is enough catch-up mechanics in place. Legendaries are fine as they are now. With enough effort, you get 1 every week. If you're serious about rerolling then you should be willing to put in the time required to do so.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    Stuff
    Not going to quote the entire massive post here, but I want to cover a few things.

    Benching is necessary, but it's pushed harder because you are missing a vital legendary that you cant' get to drop. Raiders whined for years about 'legendary quest chains' and the items involved being required for raiding, but you would absolutely get the item after a few dedicated months of casual raiding. This system was replaced by the RNG legendary system where on top of that some legendaries are trash and others are incredibly powerful and massive damage boosts.

    This is, quite frankly, a bad system. Whether or not players will 'inevitably' be benched is irrelevant because this intensifies the issue and make it worse. Again, nothing sucks more than be held back by a shitty RNG system. I know this all too well, even if not in this particular instance.

    This isn't about raid leaders dumping long term guildies, either, but taking the person who can contribute more when pushing content. There seems to be this odd idea that for guilds like this nothing matters anyways, presumably since we are not a part of one, but it doesn't mean the system is good or that the situation is acceptable.

    Furthermore, even guilds that are not pushing server firsts get these ideas in their head. "Find a better guild" is a great solution when you have better guilds to choose from, but that's not always an option on smaller servers for instance. These simple work arounds where you can call something 'well they are bad anyways' just don't fly. It's an excuse, and it doesn't mean the situation is acceptable.

    Take it for what you will. If it's any consolation, I find the whole idea of BiS to be ridiculous as well, but I am open minded enough to understand why people strive for it and obsess over it.

  8. #88
    Keyboard Turner Alphablitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Burning Path
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Radaney View Post
    How to fix legendaries: Make them utility only.
    Exactly. Best option atm.

  9. #89
    Scarab Lord
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    4,968
    Quote Originally Posted by therealbowser View Post
    Not going to quote the entire massive post here, but I want to cover a few things.
    I hear what you are saying, but I fundamentally disagree over where the problem lies. I cannot conceive of a plausible (as opposed to theoretically possible but highly unlikely) scenario in which a raider is going to be benched more than is fair purely on the basis of bad luck with RNG.

    For serious world first contenders and the like, if a raider has put in the requisite amount of effort required to compete at that level, he/she will have all the legendaries by now. So it shouldn't be an issue. Even in previous tiers where there was a real possibility that some raiders will have been missing one of their BiS legendaries, they would still have had other decent legendaries to choose from (not just the "trash"), so what they would be missing is a relatively small delta. Certainly not a big enough issue that any rational raid leader would bench them regularly.

    For more casual guilds....it shouldn't matter. Every guild has requirements of what they expect from their raiders, and provided you are putting in that effort, the lack of BiS legendaries shouldn't be an issue unless the raid leaders are being unreasonable.

    Which leads to the obvious conclusion: The only time legendaries ever become a real issue is when people choose to respond in an irrational manner. That is not a problem with the system. It's a problem with people. And while you might want to argue "then make a better system" that is an entirely unreasonable expectation. You cannot stop people from behaving like morons, they are not part of the system, therefore not something within the system designer's ability to control.

    Think about this: The sorts of "problems" that people have with legendaries have always existed in WoW. As I already mentioned, people would be benched because they lacked a trinket, or the BiS weapon, or were missing a tier piece - all things that come down essentially to luck. Take away legendaries and nothing will change, because the real problem, the people, will still be here, being stupid, and blaming the system. Because that is what people do.

  10. #90
    The proper way to fix legendaries is to replace them with 900 ilvl epics with corresponding stats and forget about it as a spectacularly failed experiment.

  11. #91
    Bloodsail Admiral Berthier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    1,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Radaney View Post
    That happens already, at least th egame will be more balanced for it.
    prydaz say hello i use prydaz and the mail shaladrasil legy because survival is better on progress then dps or hps and yes utility legy is a better solution

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by vsb View Post
    The proper way to fix legendaries is to replace them with 900 ilvl epics with corresponding stats and forget about it as a spectacularly failed experiment.
    The colors of the pixels has never been the issue.

    If you're suggesting to have the special effects removed, sure, that could work, but it would piss off a lot of people.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •