Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    The Patient Rayzen17's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by LordVargK View Post
    I did not talk about whatever. I did talk about your posted poll, which does not feature a whatever option.




    You don't know the winner, because you don't know how much the people voting for A) and B) like Italian food. You can keep whatever out of question, because their preferences are Japanese=Chinese=Italian.

    In your example it could be the case that all the people who voted A) and B) hate Italian food and would rather eat nothing at all. Additionally it could be the case, that Italian food is also the most hated food of all (assuming not all Italian food lover have the same hated food). So you would have the logical contradiction that Italian food is the most liked and most hated. Which can't be true for obvious reasons. As long as this possibility even exists your approach to finding the most loved food is wrong.

    A poll that actually reflects what the majority want must have the multiple response format, meaning that you can vote on any number of choices, because only then you account for what people don't want.

    Let me give you one other example:

    You have 3 types of people: 20% have an income of 20,000$, 45% have an income of 50,000$ and 35% have and income of 100,000$. All of them want to maximize their income.
    Now you start the following poll:

    Vote on a taxing model!

    A) people with 20,000 pay no taxes, but all others do.
    B) people with 50,000 pay no taxes, but all others do.
    C) people with 100,000 pay no taxes, but all others do.
    D) Everyone pays taxes, but reduced by half.

    Now a simple multiple choice (= only voting for ONE option) would lead to:


    A) 20%
    B) 45%
    C) 35%
    D) 0%

    You would conclude: "Okay, the majority wants that people with an income of 50,000$ do not have to pay taxes". Which is obviously bullshit, because 55% of all voters are against this outcome (since they would have a comparative disadvantage now). To put it simple: 45% would be very happy, 55% very unhappy.

    Instead, if you allow multiple responses you would get

    A) 20%
    B) 45%
    C) 35%
    D) 100%

    Meaning that all people actually prefer option D), if their preferred option does not win. 100% of all people are satisfied. Noone is super happy but noone is super angry as well.

    And not, this does not mean that they don't care.
    I don't care what you want for your second option. So i don't care if you hate Italian food. By that logic we'll have the 2 biggest voted options duke it out in a final.
    And it was already established that they didn't care what the vote turns out, so why should they get a second chance when they squandered their first?

    It's like voting irl, you don't go and vote, you don't matter.
    There's no point in discussing this further, if they really have a preference between realistic outcomes then they should call it out and vote on their preference.
    Having a "i don't care either way" option to vote is stupid. If you can't see that it's useless, then go ahead and make your own poll, your meaningless poll to be more exact.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayzen17 View Post
    They are capped weekly dude. And from the news of it, it doesn't look like it takes much to actually gain Renown.
    Look here: https://www.wowhead.com/news=316846....we-know-so-far

    >> There will be a weekly cap on how much Renown you can gain.
    >> Renown is earned through playing the Covenant Campaign and by completing two weekly quests.

    Playing the Campaign makes sense (and who doesn't want to play the Campaign) and completing 2 quests doesn't say much, but it's definitely not something that should take a long time.

    As such, it doesn't seem like there's much grinding involved to keep up your Renown.
    And if you don't want to... then don't? xD

    P.S. There is also a catchup for alts, so it seems like good design at this part.
    Also: If you are behind, or you switch Covenants, or you are playing an alt, there is a catch-up system already in place. << this here shows that even if you switch the catchup is activated on your main. I got to give props to Blizzard for this design at least.
    Even if there is a weeklu cap, 4 covenant grinds per character will be an imense amount of work. It will kill alts for sure. Even with catch ups, it is just too much. Heck, with just one character doing all 4 is too much.
    On live atm, doing all your emissaries, visions and assaults already takes a decent amount of time. Multiply that per 4 per character and it becomes way too much grind. Burnout garanteed.

    Sorry, i just can't agree with that. It would be awful, no matter how much you want to downplay it, the time necessary will likely be comparable to what we have to do now times 4 cause we were expected to only do one. That is just not acceptable. I still believe the quest to return will make it very incovenient to constantly switch, and thank the devs if it does. Doing such a dumb move would just make more people quit.

    The choice has to be consequential. Allow rectifying, but consequential. Having all 4 progressed at the same time just removes any point from the choice at all. Might as well not have it.
    Last edited by Swnem; 2020-08-05 at 07:04 AM.

  3. #63
    U cant fully balance things that are different. Thats never the goal. The goal is to make them balanced ENOUGH so that picking what u want wont put u at a huge disadvantage.

    A truly balanced game is boring
    Romance doesnt detract from a story. Its a Genre, like horror or comedy or adventure. The game was ruined when we got Horror in drustvar or nazmir. It wasnt ruined when we had funny quests. So if you think a little man on man love ruins the game, then yes you are either a homophobe or just a spoil sport that goes "ewww kissing is yucky" like a baby. Furthermore, if a character has never expressed interest in any gender, then its not proof they are straight. straight people are not the default

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayzen17 View Post
    I don't care what you want for your second option. So i don't care if you hate Italian food. By that logic we'll have the 2 biggest voted options duke it out in a final.
    And it was already established that they didn't care what the vote turns out, so why should they get a second chance when they squandered their first?

    It's like voting irl, you don't go and vote, you don't matter.
    There's no point in discussing this further, if they really have a preference between realistic outcomes then they should call it out and vote on their preference.
    Having a "i don't care either way" option to vote is stupid. If you can't see that it's useless, then go ahead and make your own poll, your meaningless poll to be more exact.
    I'm not talking about an "I don't care" option at all!
    How can you still don't understand that?

    And you should care about secondary opinions if you want to find the opinion that is supported by the majority.

  5. #65
    Old God Soon-TM's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    10,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayzen17 View Post
    The problem is that if Blizzard balances taking into consideration that players might pick under performing Covenants, then that means that a raid team which picks the best Covenants for the fight will have it much easier.
    And conversely, if they balance the raid around players choosing the optimal Covenant, they will make minmaxing mandatory, which they are ostensibly against.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rayzen17 View Post
    As can be clearly seen, the best design is for the covenants to be unlocked.
    If someone doesn't care or doesn't want to switch they have that option even if the covenants are unlocked, the same can't be said for the covenants being locked design for players that care to switch.
    Dude, all those folks mumbling something about muh meaningfulz choice just don't care about this. It's all about forcing others to play the way they see fit.
    Quote Originally Posted by trimble View Post
    WoD was the expansion that was targeted at non raiders.

  6. #66
    I dont think balancing those out is their goal tbh. Like how are you going to balance an abrorb shield VS a teleport? you cant. I think they want covenants to be as they said "a meaningful choice" only thing they can balance are the conduits and soulbinds by tuning some numbers here and there.

  7. #67
    Anyone who thinks they will balance the game is dreaming lmao been unbalanced garbage for years.

  8. #68
    Willing to bet they know they wont be able to balance covenants and in 9.2 they will magically let you swap between fractions easier and they got an extra year subs out of you.

    *Edit bonus spin table round.

    Infact Im willing to bet those changes will come around the same time as a 6month mount sub or when ones about to lapse. $50 on black baby!
    Last edited by Volatilis; 2020-08-07 at 08:57 AM.
    Comes a time when we all gotta die...even kings.

  9. #69
    Of course they will try and balance them. They try to balance everything. Which is what developers should always do and which often is the case. Success is a different matter.
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  10. #70
    Why exactly was OP banned? What was the reason mods? I mean he is not wrong.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Soon-TM View Post
    And conversely, if they balance the raid around players choosing the optimal Covenant, they will make minmaxing mandatory, which they are ostensibly against.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Dude, all those folks mumbling something about muh meaningfulz choice just don't care about this. It's all about forcing others to play the way they see fit.
    Why wouldn’t they try to balance things? If they didn’t we run into issues like what we had in Legion and BfA, where the 1st raids are pitifully easy due to the power people had and earned that Blizzard wasn’t expecting, to where we got an intermediate raid so overtuned a lot of people don’t even step foot into them.
    Even stating that, Blizzard still tried to tune the 1st set of raids around where they thought players were at. They even stated they hadn’t expected players to have so much AP in EN during the start of Legion, and I doubt they were expecting the power levels people obtained due to Azerite Armor that they then scrambled to balance out.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by MrLachyG View Post
    I mean Ion has already said that if they can't balance them then they will just allow people to freely swap. Personally I reckon they should just make it that when you hit exalted with the faction you can access their ability via a talent row choice or something.

    also, technically they can balance them. all they have to do is make them do the same base damage. if they are going to try and balance them when you take into account secondary stats then yeah that's a bit harder but I don't think they should balance them around secondary stats
    No they can't. You can't balance utility tbf. Just take a look at signature covenant abilities and tell me you can balance necrolord shield and rivendreth teleport.
    S.H.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Volatilis View Post
    Willing to bet they know they wont be able to balance covenants and in 9.2 they will magically let you swap between fractions easier and they got an extra year subs out of you.

    *Edit bonus spin table round.

    Infact Im willing to bet those changes will come around the same time as a 6month mount sub or when ones about to lapse. $50 on black baby!
    Or, you know, Blizzard just decides to change things because they realize something they hope would work doesn’t, or they want players to have the ability to swap later.
    Not everything is about getting “muh moneys!” As I’ve stated in multiple threads, a really fun fact is that if people quit because something they don’t like, and Blizzard changes it so they do like it, then both parties are happy as one makes money and the other enjoys it. If people are still playing because they enjoy the product then there is no “give us your money” effect because people are STILL playing anyways.

  14. #74
    Elemental Lord
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Sfidt View Post
    No they can't. You can't balance utility tbf. Just take a look at signature covenant abilities and tell me you can balance necrolord shield and rivendreth teleport.
    I was more referring to balancing the class abilities

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    After being here for 5 years, I guess you know that for some people it is always about "muh money" - even to the point that they can make mental gymnastics like "Blizzard never learns what people want, they do what they do to please shareholders"...wait..what? If they do things that people don't want...doesn't that mean people will quit and there is less money....certainly not pleasing shareholders?

    To which I sometimes got the answer "But...whales". Again confusing...because if the whales stay anyway (and what is there to spend so much money on anyhow) then why not give the others what they want and have whales PLUS the other folks who would otherwise quit. More money and more fun for everyone.

    Though in the end: I do think a company creates a gme and makes decisions to bring a good experience to as many people as possible...to make money indeed. And while I appreciate that they didn't raise the sub (in my country) for 15 years...the price for the CE has gone up quite a bit from 69,99€ in MoP to 119,99€ for SL.
    People look for reasons behind decisions blizzard makes. I admit the whole infinity grinds make no sense to me moreso how they are rewarded. Why doesn't killing a mythic boss for example give hundreds of thousands of AP if a daily quest can give 600?

    These weird grinds feel more like facebook games then what wow used to be. Perhaps they target a different playerbase but the only playerbase they seem to benefit is the one i personally cant stand and the one that actively works against what I would consider my playerbase the progression casual.

    The HARDCORE bads. Players who never do anything above lfr and maybe normal or a mythic+4 barely know how to play but pour sixty or more hours into the game. They are usually the ones who push the whole " butz you haza grind to be a mythic raiderz" rather then simply being good at the game like in WoD (was heroic prior to that).

    I have no doubt blizzard makes choices based on what will get them the most money over making choices purely based on what they believe is best for the game but its hard to fault a company for doing that.

    Covenants are not going to be good for the game. There isn't anyone I know of or seen who raids mythic or pvps past 1800 who isn't bracing for flavor of the month on a level unseen so far in wow. Worse the raids have a bunch of forced mechanics on beta to make the weaker covenants relevant. I have never seen a raid where almost every boss has a mechanic centered around a bleed...

    I want SL to be good but I sadly think it is going to be remembered like BFA. No one recalls even now that BFA has some great dungeons and raids... BFA will be remember as "LOL AZERITE GEAR , MUH ESSENCES, CORRUPTION IS MY DMG" it just feels tragic that what would of been a good expansion was choked to death by terrible progression system and it looks like the mistake is going to be repeated in what looks like a fantastic expansion if you look past its derpy systems.

  16. #76
    unlocking a covenant fully will take months. people didnt want an unlimited azerite power type grind and they wont have one. reknown is capped weekly. and you need reknown levels to unlock souilbinds and abilities. and you have to do it for each covenant you want to use.

    being able to swap does nothing.

  17. #77
    Honestly, the only people who really care are the hardcore players or the ones trying to sniff each others elite assholes to try to impress one another. Pick the one you like the most and be done with it.
    Lead Game Designer

    YouTube Channel

    https://www.youtube.com/@Nateanderthal

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    Sometime Blizzard explains their reasons and the next guy shouting "lies" is not far away

    Yeah...there must be something to these systems like AP that "works", because they keep coming back. (same with inventing tons of trash items for every x-pac that always clutter up your bag. Sure it is like 10 seconds to summon your yak, click the "sell junk" micro and re-summon your flying mount - but I guess it adds up. Or do they invest the work into trash items for "flavor"?

    At first I thought Covenants would be very simple and more a cosmetic choice with maybe a handful of cool benefits. Maybe you move faster outdoor or on foot, maybe every two minutes you can use a damage / healing CD. What it has become now however looks overwhelming. So I am kinda glad that making my choice based on Lore / cosmetics or how it fits my class is what will work for me in SL.

    You say "it looks like the mistake is going to be repeated " - which kinda brings us to the start again. Does Blizzard really see these things as mistakes? Sure in interviews they say "Yeah...we learned a lot from this and that" - but I can't help to think that is just appeasing people. Imagine what would happen if they said "Why are some of you angry? The systems worked great and we did the right things"
    I don't really know. I can only observe what people post and what my own small communities think about such systems. I would of loved covenants if they were a cosmetic or only effected the open world. I just don't see who this new system is for if I am honest...

    Mythic raiders, ranked pvpers. mythic + pushers are all going to use one build and shun anyone without it. Not out of cruelty but simply because they offer such specialized power that you will never be as close to as efficient at specific content over someone who min maxed for it.

    So if it isn't for them is it for the average player? I would argue it falls flat there as well. The majority of the effects from covenants and all the systems tied to them are passives that are not really felt during gameplay. They make important differences in your output but its on par with having a passive proc to me at least I think this misses the mark.

    Is it for levelers? Maybe... out of all of wows groups this one seems to benefit the most out of it. They get to play with every covenant while leveling and enjoy a somewhat unique end game as each covenant offers a different set of quests and story elements for people who just do daily quests.

    It just feels weird that so many types of gameplay are going to be negatively effected by this when at least from what I can deduce only a small amount of players benefit from the system. Again my conclusion cant be perfect as it involves a lot of guess work but I would argue the logic flows from point a to point b rather well.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by dcc626 View Post
    unlocking a covenant fully will take months. people didnt want an unlimited azerite power type grind and they wont have one. reknown is capped weekly. and you need reknown levels to unlock souilbinds and abilities. and you have to do it for each covenant you want to use.

    being able to swap does nothing.
    Wanna bet that at or by the end of first patch the cap will be removed and quantity reduced?

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    Well, obviously I am no mod - and mods won't discuss mod decisions publicly, so you need to write them an e-mail and ask. Worked for me in the past.

    However: He got infracted in another thread on the 4th of August. It is a bit tedious, but you can check out ppls post history and find when they got infracted. I seriously have no idea WHY he got infracted for that post though, but that is again a different issue.

    And let us not forget (and I say that as somebody who has been banned in the past) - infractions pile up, the time to run them off gets longer and longer and you need to accumulate (I think) 4 of them to get a ban. Not judging or shitting on OP, but I do see him frequently get infractions and thus bans.

    In three cases posters who got many bans ended up with a permaban from here...again..I have no idea why and how that process worked. Could even be stuff like ban evasion or such playing into these decisions.
    Oh okay, didn't know OP already got some infractions, that's why I was curious because he didn't say anything bad in this thread. Thank you very much for the great explanation :-)

Posting Permissions

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