Conduits - A real problem or an exaggeration?

[Wuusah]

Right, nobody will test out their three swappable soulbinds full of multiple paths.

People will test soulbinds but they won't test conduits! That's the thing. Soulbinds are easily changeable. It's like talents these days. Easy to change, easy to test stuff out without a cost to it. Conduits is a different story. You won't test a conduit if it means you have to destroy another conduit. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE

They have ilvls. Hoarding them won't do a lot of good because of that.

THEY HAVE ILVLS! You won't test stuff out when it's difficult to get them in a good version. And if you get them in a good version then you don't want to destroy them

Soulbinds each have multiple paths dude. They aren't just "pick one".

Yes and the talk is about conduits, not soulbinds. The multiple paths in a soulbind isn't divided into tank/dps/heal and even if it were, there is still pve and pvp where you might need different powers.

I'm very excited for these choices. They look good and fun to me and not punishing at all.

They are definitely punishing if you want to play multiple specs in multiple types of content. All of Shadowlands is, honestly. The choice of your covenant means you have to decide what type of content you want to push the most. Then you have legendaries, where playing multiple specs is significantly more grind. And conduits is another layer that pushes a huge amount of extra grind if you want to play multiple specs. And choosing what type of content you want to push means you are choosing what type of content you want to be subpar.

[Kralljin]

Because the infinite grind didn't make things better for the 99%.

Do you actually believe that the "99%" are behind you on the covenants?

It wasn't bad or good.

That's your interpretation, not a fact.

[NineSpine]

People will test soulbinds but they won't test conduits! That's the thing. Soulbinds are easily changeable. It's like talents these days. Easy to change, easy to test stuff out without a cost to it. Conduits is a different story. You won't test a conduit if it means you have to destroy another conduit. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE



THEY HAVE ILVLS! You won't test stuff out when it's difficult to get them in a good version. And if you get them in a good version then you don't want to destroy them



Yes and the talk is about conduits, not soulbinds. The multiple paths in a soulbind isn't divided into tank/dps/heal and even if it were, there is still pve and pvp where you might need different powers.



They are definitely punishing if you want to play multiple specs in multiple types of content. All of Shadowlands is, honestly. The choice of your covenant means you have to decide what type of content you want to push the most. Then you have legendaries, where playing multiple specs is significantly more grind. And conduits is another layer that pushes a huge amount of extra grind if you want to play multiple specs. And choosing what type of content you want to push means you are choosing what type of content you want to be subpar.

The multiple paths allow for choosing different conduits.

What they are doing is getting away from the design of the game exclusively catering to some paranoid, delusional, obsessive-compulsive minority who believe that being even slightly suboptimal in some limited scenarios means the game is absolutely unplayable and broken. The fact that Blizzard is moving away from catering to people suffering from this mental disorder is a great thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you actually believe that the "99%" are behind you on the covenants?

That's your interpretation, not a fact.

It is a fact as far as how it affected players. The average player just gets on and plays the game. The average person didn't sit around calculating how to maximize infinite grinds.

I think that if you think that the whiny, entitled psychopaths on this forum are indicative of the general population, I have bad news for you. Even the polls done here, a forum full of narcissistic, elitist lunatic, show that people are largely going to pick covenant based on aesthetics and extra features, not cynical power choices.

[FlubberPuddy]

Yup, you can be sure people will voice their opinions over something that will affect their gameplay.

It doesnt make it any less valid though.

The validity isn't what's in contention here. It's that it should be understandable the development and design of the game will be based around the vast majority, not the minor few.

Like, I want to be able to play any race/class combo, and that's valid for me to feel that way. It doesn't change the reality that this is a minority opinion and Blizzard most likely won't do that.

I can then decide to accept that, or I can keep shouting to the 'heavens' (Blizzard) that they change their entire game design direction based on my and a few others minority opinion.

What sounds more reasonable?

[NineSpine]

The validity isn't what's in contention here. It's that it should be understandable the development and design of the game will be based around the vast majority, not the minor few.

Like, I want to be able to play any race/class combo, and that's valid for me to feel that way. It doesn't change the reality that this is a minority opinion and Blizzard most likely won't do that.

I can then decide to accept that, or I can keep shouting to the 'heavens' (Blizzard) that they change their entire game design direction based on my and a few others minority opinion.

What sounds more reasonable?

Even better example: I would like if all difficulty tiers were removed entirely and there was only one raid difficulty and it was built with the intention that it should be do-able by the average player.

I can accept that that is not what the majority of people want. I'd also like a game with way more leveling. That's not what most people want. As an adult, I accept these things and move on.

[Kralljin]

It is a fact as far as how it affected players.

Since it affected their character's power, i'd say it affected them quite a bit.

The only fact is that those "1%" jumped through the hoops to get it all, that doesn't mean that rest of it liked it or didn't care about it.
All you know that rest didn't bother to commit to these grinds, rest is interpretation.

I think that if you think that the whiny, entitled psychopaths on this forum are indicative of the general population, I have bad news for you. Even the polls done here, a forum full of narcissistic, elitist lunatic, show that people are largely going to pick covenant based on aesthetics and extra features, not cynical power choices.

Okay, also check the posts on discussion of the corruption system, how these "insane" people (because that's what you actually call them) already predicted that the Corruption system will be a nightmare, whereas quite a few of these more "outspoken" casuals went like "nah it'll be fine, those elitists are just whiners, it will be amazing!".

And here we are.

And as a side note, i also find this post utterly hilarious because it debunks that the "elitist" people on this forum are the toxic ones.

[FlubberPuddy]

At the same time he also (rightfully) points out that those "99%" can just skip content such as IE because they don't need the powergains.

Like, that's the conundrum here, why did Island expedition become a source of infinite AP (or why does anything award infinite AP) when most players don't even need those powergains or even engage in it that the removal of said infinite power source would be relevant to them?

And that also turns this into a very black and white argument.
The difference between those 1% and 99% are that the 1% will be the ones who will "workaround" the system, the remaining 99% aren't automatically happy because of it.

Some of those "99%" might just be pissed off by the system as well but don't consider the hoops to jump through to "fix it".

Like, take the infinite power grinds of AP in Legion and BfA, were just the "1%" unhappy over it?
The 1% were the ones who committed to grinding it, but i doubt that just those hardcore players are happy to see it gone.

Simply because a system is bad for hardcore players, doesn't make it automatically good for more casual players.

It's not black and white and all.

If you don't want to push competitively to try and be one of the first to achieve something (like Preach details about being able to do the content at the difficulty it's meant for, disregarding the nerfs that come/overgearing that happens) then you work within what the system allows.

The issue isn't that 99% didn't have to do islands because they didn't care to grind for infinite AP, the issue is islands gave infinite AP (aka power gain) in the first place. Putting caps on power gains like that completely avoids that. Which I believe they do in Shadowlands, therefore it's moot to continue discussing islands, as there is no infinite grind for power gains like that.

Preach can also decide that he doesn't want to do all the grindy things to stay competitive, and take a more relaxed approach of completing that content later. Something a LOT of Mythic guilds do.

Again, the power is left in the hands of the player, and it all depends on how competitive they want to be. If you're trying to be world first/top 100-300 you will do what's always been required to achieve that as effectively as possible, you're already going above and beyond what 99% of players ever want to do.

Because that's what required, just like to the average player it's not required at all to have more than 1 character or to even be a specific class. But obviously that's NEVER been true for 1% of players who min-max as much as they possibly can for competitiveness. That's been true since Vanilla, and that's been true now, and that'll always be true.

It's nothing new.

[Kralljin]

It's not black and white and all.

It is, because assuming that a system which is bad for hardcore players, results in a better experience for the remaining players is false.
"Fun" is not a piece of cake where other players get more because someone else gets less.

The Legion legendary system is a prime example, a lot of hardcore players had serious issues with the system, because it led to hardcore grinding dungeons for new / better legendaries, that didn't mean the system was good for anyone who didn't engange in these grind sessions.

Again, the power is left in the hands of the player, and it all depends on how competitive they want to be.

Ion himself admitted that a "trickle down" from the hardcore players to the lower levels is a legit concern, so yeah, that's not entirely true.

Because that's what required, just like to the average player it's not required at all to have more than 1 character or to even be a specific class.

The irony is that most people within the hardcore community are basically looking at maintaining multiple characters OF THE SAME CLASS to bypass the issues of the covenant system.

It's nothing new.

Having a system that severely punishes you for a certain choice is new in WoW, people tryharding isn't something new, but rate of the "Mythic tax" (as Preach called it) reaches a new level in SL.

[FlubberPuddy]

Ion himself admitted that a "trickle down" from the hardcore players to the lower levels is a legit concern, so yeah, that's not entirely true.

You should go check wowhead for the most recent discussion between Preach and Ion.

Ion stated that ironically allowing more flexible choice is what would be more limiting to the lower levels and greater playerbase community.

[Kralljin]

You should go check wowhead for the most recent discussion between Preach and Ion.

Ion stated that ironically allowing more flexible choice is what would be more limiting to the lower levels and greater playerbase community.

That's true under the assumption that all covenants are balanced, not if they're imbalanced.
If they're imbalanced, having the wrong covenant is still a red flag and you have no decent excuses to not swap, because swapping is easy, going back is difficult.

I could also ask Ion on his example: So why is Frost so much worse than Fire?

[Wuusah]

The multiple paths allow for choosing different conduits.

What they are doing is getting away from the design of the game exclusively catering to some paranoid, delusional, obsessive-compulsive minority who believe that being even slightly suboptimal in some limited scenarios means the game is absolutely unplayable and broken. The fact that Blizzard is moving away from catering to people suffering from this mental disorder is a great thing.

Well, Ion said Conduits are a problem the way they are now and won't be destroyed every time you replace them in the live game, because that's just bad design which would lead to a ton of problems and just be a nightmare in general. Seems like you were wrong.

The fact that you think it's about obsessive compulsion just shows how little foresight you have...

[FlubberPuddy]

That's true under the assumption that all covenants are balanced, not if they're imbalanced.
If they're imbalanced, having the wrong covenant is still a red flag and you have no decent excuses to not swap, because swapping is easy, going back is difficult.

I could also ask Ion on his example: So why is Frost so much worse than Fire?

What? It's true under the IMBALANCED reality. If you allow people to switch freely and there's one better for m+/raid then the entire community is pressured into picking that covenant because there's no difficulty into switching to it.

When there is difficulty attached to it, then people don't pressure others into it.

You don't sound like you read or watched the conversation that just happened an hour ago.

Under Ion's example, you can freely switch between Frost or Fire spec so you'd get a lot of assumptions about 'not caring about optimization' if you played Frost when Fire is good. Because it's so easy to swtch.

Do people ask others to switch their races to NE (if on Alliance) for m+? No, because it takes a heavy cost to do (real money). That's Ion's point.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, Ion said Conduits are a problem the way they are now and won't be destroyed every time you replace them in the live game, because that's just bad design which would lead to a ton of problems and just be a nightmare in general. Seems like you were wrong.

The fact that you think it's about obsessive compulsion just shows how little foresight you have...

He did not say the bolded. In fact, he said they don't want it to simply be like Essences, but there's a middle-ground they're trying to find between destroyable conduits and Essence like conduits, because they do agree consumable ones are bad.

I can see why people start raging when they clearly don't understand what's said.

[Kralljin]

When there is difficulty attached to it, then people don't pressure others into it.

That's hardly true.

In the pug scene, people don't care that much about other people, if someone with a terrible covenant choice / spec queues up, you'd think a person that cares about performance invites them?
No, especially if they're dps, you just invite someone else who made a better choice.

Same goes if you apply to a guild, if you wanted to play a Resto Druid in Ny'alotha and applied to a Mythic guild, they most likely only took you if they were desperate for healers and you were the only option.

We can also turn that example around, if someone who doesn't care about performance has the choice to invite someone who hasn't made the optimal choice, they wouldn't decline them based on that.
They're not going "please go Fire".

Like, remember all those "I play X and can't get into M+" threads?
Rerolling is much easier than 10 years ago, but still not something you just do just to get into a pug.

That's the issue, you're being judged by your choices, if you made a slightly worse choice, then not everybody will lose their shit.
If you made a really poor choice and don't fix it...well then that becomes a problem.

The gap (=balance) is the crucial factor and as bigger as the gap gets, the more people will care about the choice you've made.

This entire arguments ignores one thing: I can just invite someone else.

Do people ask others to switch their races to NE (if on Alliance) for m+? No, because it takes a heavy cost to do (real money). That's Ion's point.

Do people refuse to invite certain people based on their class? Yes, despite that you cannot reroll by pressing a button. That's my point.

If you don't play Nightelf and want to push highkeys, you're out of luck, that's the reality.

[FlubberPuddy]

That's hardly true.

In the pug scene, people don't care that much about other people, if someone with a terrible covenant choice / spec queues up, you'd think a person that cares about performance invites them?
No, especially if they're dps, you just invite someone else who made a better choice.

Same goes if you apply to a guild, if you wanted to play a Resto Druid in Ny'alotha and applied to a Mythic guild, they most likely only took you if they were desperate for healers and you were the only option.

We can also turn that example around, if someone who doesn't care about performance has the choice to invite someone who hasn't made the optimal choice, they wouldn't decline them based on that.
They're not going "please go Fire".

Like, remember all those "I play X and can't get into M+" threads?
Rerolling is much easier than 10 years ago, but still not something you just do just to get into a pug.

That's the issue, you're being judged by your choices, if you made a slightly worse choice, then not everybody will lose their shit.
If you made a really poor choice and don't fix it...well then that becomes a problem.

The gap (=balance) is the crucial factor and as bigger as the gap gets, the more people will care about the choice you've made.

And like in the vein of this thread's title. What you're describing is an exaggeration.

I play as an off-meta spec: Ret Paladin. For M+, I've never been declined based on my corruption/essences/the fact I'm playing a Ret Paladin. I simply apply and some groups accept me and others don't. I'm a DPS, I'm a dime-a-dozen. Most of it is based of a raider.io score, which is class/spec/essences/corruption/talents agnostic.

Likewise, when I make groups for M+ I base it off r.io score as well, I'd rather take someone with a high iO (better indicator of player ability) than someone who plays some meta class at lower io.

And under that reality I have achieved KSM and am in the top 1% of Ret for M+ assuming 1mill playerbase.

The people who go to forums to complain are a very vocal minority, because the reality of the situation is that when you apply for M+ groups and are DPS there's a shit ton of DPS applying compared to tanks/healers, so no shit you're more likely to not get picked.

But nobody spends time to ask what setup you're running because there's a buffet of DPS players and the good ones have the iO to back up their skill/increase chances for success in PUGs.

This entire arguments ignores one thing: I can just invite someone else.

Do people refuse to invite certain people based on their class? Yes, despite that you cannot reroll by pressing a button. That's my point.

If you don't play Nightelf and want to push highkeys, you're out of luck, that's the reality.

As I just explained above, I achieved KSM on a Ret Paladin, can't be a Night Elf and I'm not a meta class. No one cares if a class can't push 25+ keystones, not even Blizzard. They don't give extra rewards or recognition for that and Ion said they don't plan to because they prefer balance to be around where they know every class can excel and complete the content (aka +15 keys).

That's the reality.

As for your question, again sure there is, but it's an exaggeration. It's not as if people who play Shadow Priests/Sub Rogues literally don't achieve KSM because "no one ever picks us for high keys!". Asking a question like that is silly because the entire context of this conversation relies on how many are being affected. Not simply that "it has an effect".

This is another reality. Your arguments suck.

[TigTone]

I don't think the issue it’s really about performance of classes or how good they feel.

The real issues here is people’s obsession of getting the content done in fastest way possible.

Speed obsession is ruining this game

[FlubberPuddy]

Literally on the front page of MMO-C: https://twitter.com/WatcherDev/statu...86596758048769

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the issue it’s really about performance of classes or how good they feel.

The real issues here is people’s obsession of getting the content done in fastest way possible.

Speed obsession is ruining this game

Exactly, and it's only a very small vocal minority who have that obsession but are wanting to affect the very vast majority for their own obsessive behavior.

[Kralljin]

And like in the vein of this thread's title. What you're describing is an exaggeration.

Ion also said that not being invited based on that is a valid concern which doesn't affect just the 1%.

Likewise, when I make groups for M+ I base it off r.io score as well, I'd rather take someone with a high iO (better indicator of player ability) than someone who plays some meta class at lower io.

And with which classes / specs is it easier to reach a high R.IO score?

The Meta ones, because they're the most efficient choices to reach a high R.IO Score.

It doesn't make it impossible with non Meta choices to get a high R.IO Score, but by following that rule, you will involuntarily invite Meta choices, because they should have on average a higher R.IO score than others.

This is basic shit, it's like PvP, it's also easier to get a higher rating with a Meta class.

[FlubberPuddy]

Ion also said that not being invited based on that is a valid concern which doesn't affect just the 1%.

Ion also said if it's easier to switch Covenants it exacerbates the problem, not minimizes it. So yeah it's a valid concern but still the solution isn't making Covenants freely switchable, obviously. So repeating the point doesn't serve to further your argument, it actually works against it.

And with which classes / specs is it easier to reach a high R.IO score?

The Meta ones, because they're the most efficient choices to reach a high R.IO Score.

It doesn't make it impossible with non Meta choices to get a high R.IO Score, but by following that rule, you will involuntarily invite Meta choices, because they should have on average a higher R.IO score than others.

This is basic shit, it's like PvP, it's also easier to get a higher rating with a Meta class.

I have timed every +15 with non-meta choices, the point is that when you go by r.IO score you're not ONLY inviting Meta choices. How obtuse can your arguments get about it? Again, I worked my way up to achieve KSM as an off-meta spec. Every spec can achieve that. Thus it's balanced enough that every spec can complete the content and attain max rewards which is what Blizzard balances around.

Even timed a +17 FH with a Shadow Priest in the group.

[Kralljin]

Ion also said if it's easier to switch Covenants it exacerbates the problem, not minimizes it. So yeah it's a valid concern but still the solution isn't making Covenants freely switchable, obviously. So repeating the point doesn't serve to further your argument, it actually works against it.

Problem with his argument is that he simply ignored the option that people may not invite that person based on that choice.

Like, assume for a minute that switching specs is difficult, Fire is by far the Meta choice for M+ and a Frost mage queues up.
Will people invite the Frost mage (despite not playing the Meta choice), or just hit decline and wait until a Fire Mage queues up?

This reality is completely untouched by the argument, because the argument does not acknowledge that you don't have to invite a certain player at all.
Blizzard is basically trying to throw a smoke screen without realizing that people don't have to walk through the smoke screen at all.

I have timed every +15 with non-meta choices, the point is that when you go by r.IO score you're not ONLY inviting Meta choices.

No, you misunderstand the point.

The Meta choices will naturally have a higher R.IO, this is not debatable, this is how things are.
Same as you find more Meta choices within the earliest Mythic kills, you will find more people playing the Meta choice within a higher R.IO.

This is very basic logic, the more successful a class is, the more people will achieve higher ratings / scores with it as opposed to Non Meta classes.
If then your primary metric for an invite is then R.IO score, you will on average more often invite Meta choices than non Meta choices.

This has nothing to do that Non meta classes can get that R.IO but simply that more that play this Meta Class are able to achieve it.

You are now (once again) trying to paint a black and white picture.
This argument does not question whether a certain class or spec is incapable of completing a certain level, boss encounter or dungeon, but rather that having a setup consisting of Meta Classes make things easier for you.
Especially in a pug world where a big variety in terms of skill level exists, having the meta choices will obviously grease the gears for you, giving you room to make a mistake, whereas classes / setups that lack these advantages do not have the same room to make errors.

Even timed a +17 FH with a Shadow Priest in the group.

Arguments like these display your lack of understanding of the subject.
It's not about things being possible or not, it's about what is the most effective way of doing it compared to other, more ineffective ways.

People are also able to clear MC with 40 Shaman in Classic, doesn't mean it's a viable way of raiding, or that Shaman is somehow fine (or even OP).

And i don't know when you've done a +17, but right now, +17 are a complete joke anyway because Corruption where even an SP is capable of pulling serious AoE dps thanks to TD.
And there is also the not corruption related issue that M+ dungeons are naturally easier near the end of a Patch than during the start because everyone is pumped up with Ilvl.
An advantage that during the early days of a Patch does not exist, yet during the early days of a patch (or expansion) you obviously have the most players.

The game is easier near the end of a patch than at the start, it's simple as that.
The fact that you resort to anecdotal evidence does not help your case either.

[FlubberPuddy]

Problem with his argument is that he simply ignored the option that people may not invite that person based on that choice.

Like, assume for a minute that switching specs is difficult, Fire is by far the Meta choice for M+ and a Frost mage queues up.
Will people invite the Frost mage (despite not playing the Meta choice), or just hit decline and wait until a Fire Mage queues up?

This reality is completely untouched by the argument, because the argument does not acknowledge that you don't have to invite a certain player at all.
Blizzard is basically trying to throw a smoke screen without realizing that people don't have to walk through the smoke screen at all.

The reality is you don't simply take a Fire mage or a Frost mage, if the fire mage as 1k io and the frost has 2k io you can bet groups are going to first see the r.io number before even whispering 'which spec are you?? Not fire? GTFO SCRUB!'

Choices are not made in a vacuum, and why would anyone want to give Pug owners like that even more power?

No, you misunderstand the point.

The Meta choices will naturally have a higher R.IO, this is not debatable, this is how things are.
Same as you find more Meta choices within the earliest Mythic kills, you will find more people playing the Meta choice within a higher R.IO.

This is very basic logic, the more successful a class is, the more people will achieve higher ratings / scores with it as opposed to Non Meta classes.
If then your primary metric for an invite is then R.IO score, you will on average more often invite Meta choices than non Meta choices.

This has nothing to do that Non meta classes cannot get that R.IO but simply that more that play this Meta Class are able to achieve it.

You are now (once again) trying to paint a black and white picture.
This argument does not question whether a certain class or spec is incapable of completing a certain level, boss encounter or dungeon, but rather that having a setup consisting of Meta Classes make things easier for you.
Especially in a pug world where a big variety in terms of skill level exists, having the meta choices will obviously grease the gears for you, giving you room to make a mistake, whereas classes / setups that lack these advantages do not have the same room to make errors.

You are the one that keeps painting black and white. Your basis in arguments is "is there a difference? Yes? see I'm right!!" without accounting for the delta between those differences, which is what ultimately matters.

And it really is worth pointing out that non-meta can achieve things, because the arguments that get thrown around with not being meta is "if I'm not meta then I can't play the game because no one will group with me" which is absolutely a farce and exaggeration.

Arguments like these display your lack of understanding of the subject.
It's not about things being possible or not, it's about what is the most effective way of doing it compared to other, more ineffective ways.

People are also able to clear MC with 40 Shaman in Classic, doesn't mean it's a viable way of raiding, or that Shaman is somehow fine (or even OP).

And i don't when you've done a +17, but right now, +17 are a complete joke anyway because Corruption where even an SP is capable of pulling serious AoE dps thanks to TD.
And there is also the not corruption related issue that M+ dungeons are naturally easier near the end of a Patch than during the start because everyone is pumped up with Ilvl.
An advantage that during the early days of a Patch does not exist, yet during the early days of a patch (or expansion) you obviously have the most players.

The game is easier near the end of a patch than at the start, it's simple as that.
The fact that you resort to anecdotal evidence does not help your case either.

As I said above, it is very much about things being possible. Taking arguments to absurdity like clearing MC with 40 shaman isn't the arguments people are making that want Covenants to stay as hard choices.

It is actually the other side, the people that go make arguments like I gave above, "If I'm not the absolute best class/spec/covenant ability I will be utter trash and no one will want me!" when I've clearly not listed just anecdotal evidence but you can go and look up and see that there are off-meta specs who have also achieved KSM.

Also, power gains increase over time even within a tier, so to say the game is easier near the end of a patch is working in favor of what others have said:

The big concerns are coming from people that wish to complete a mythic raid in the first couple months rather than later, therefore the actual concern isn't "can I actually compete" it's "can I compete in a speed run" which flips it back to ->

IF you are supremely concerned with being one of the first or top 200 w/e to "compete" (as if you're Kralljin, or many of the other complainers here on MMO-C are getting paid to do so unlike Method/Limit or MDI peeps who actually are) then you will always do whatever is necessary no matter how the system is balanced/designed which means you're most likely going to complain regardless of how they design the system if it isn't akin to FortNite/LoL/DoTA and at point you're simply playing the wrong game.

Even Ion mentions that WoW has always had this aspect where choices you made about your character mattered and it was simply left to skillful play.

I think what's showing here is people think WoW is some competitive game like League where championships and shit happen when WoW has never held its weight based on that. Things like World First race and MDI are just extra shit which came recently that majority of the playerbase don't give a shit about.

Less so does Blizzard, who doesn't care to reward players that are able to run M+25 in time , and the only recognition given from Blizzard to top 100 raiders is a leaderboard with a cosmetic title (whoop-de-doo!).

Whereas the majority of the playerbase plays the game for the rewards it gives and not for its competitive nature. You CAN play WoW in a very competitive way, but if you're looking for a lot of recognition from a competitive gaming standpoint then other games will serve you much better.

Anyone not at World First/top 100-200 level are simply complaining they don't have enough crutches to down a mythic raid/high key in week 5 over week 7-8.

Thankfully Blizzard knows that and isn't balancing the game around the vocal minority that need crutches because of being obsessed with clear speed.