"Forced" or "Mandatory" covenants

[schwarzkopf]

Find it hilarious that people have whinged about BfA's RNG based systems for 2 years.

Now - finally we are actually getting to make meaningful decisions ourselves, without RNG and people are whinging about it before it even starts.

Summary : Blizzard cannot win, no matter what they do - whingers will just always want to whinge.

[Soon-TM]

I think an elegant solution to the problem of ability disparity might be something we have no knowledge of yet; encounter design itself.

I don't think they will redesign their entire dungeon design just to accomodate 1 (one) ability. Besides, let's suppose that Venthry teleport is nerfed, or made irrelevant, and trash is buffed to the point that e.g. Necrolord shield comes in handy. If so, Necro shield could easily become mandatory, since players without it will be taking a lot of otherwise avoidable damage.

And what about raids? Right now being able to dish the most possible damage while moving (and you need to move A LOT as of late) is the difference between mediocre and good players, so unless Venthyr teleport is nerfed into oblivion (something ridiculous like 10 min cd, 8 seconds cast time), it will remain the go-to skill.

That's not to say that your solution cannot work. It very well might, but I don't think it is highly likely.

[Nyhtt]

I see terms like these being throw around way too much, like you won't get to choose the covenant you like.

This is pure bullshit. You can do whatever the hell you want. It won't cost you a raid spot, you can still do m+ and pugs won't spit on you.

Making permanent choices is a crucial part of the RPG experience. We should have more things like this so we could express ourselves and make our character unique from others of our class.

It will cost you PVP rankings and Raid spots if you are in a good mythic progression guild. For the guilds that just do Heroic or barely push into Mythic then no they won't care. But the Mythic progression guilds will 100% bench you for the wrong covenant. I seen people get benched in Legion for not having the right Legos and that was pure RNG. You honestly think a GM is going to look at someone who made a choice to be weaker and let them in the raid?

Depending on the server you are on there might not be many progression guilds so it won't matter much but for example Illidan my server it isn't hard to find a good progression guild that is going to require you to Min/Max.

[taishar68]

I don't think they will redesign their entire dungeon design just to accomodate 1 (one) ability. Besides, let's suppose that Venthry teleport is nerfed, or made irrelevant, and trash is buffed to the point that e.g. Necrolord shield comes in handy. If so, Necro shield could easily become mandatory, since players without it will be taking a lot of otherwise avoidable damage.

And what about raids? Right now being able to dish the most possible damage while moving (and you need to move A LOT as of late) is the difference between mediocre and good players, so unless Venthyr teleport is nerfed into oblivion (something ridiculous like 10 min cd, 8 seconds cast time), it will remain the go-to skill.

That's not to say that your solution cannot work. It very well might, but I don't think it is highly likely.

Yeah, and the problem that Blizzard has always had with balancing is they use a chainsaw in place of a scalpel, and we are stuck in the ensuing carnage. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see but one only hopes that this is only a theoretical problem. Not feeling too confident about it though.

[Kuntantee]

Class abilities gated behind a faction is a dumb. They have the feedback, but they will not listen.

[Kralljin]

Find it hilarious that people have whinged about BfA's RNG based systems for 2 years.

Because the opposite of RNG isn't "No RNG" but meaningful choice, right?
Like seriously, "meaningful choice" is right up there with "Wait until Beta / Live / Patch X.1!".

[schwarzkopf]

Because the opposite of RNG isn't "No RNG" but meaningful choice, right?

Well - yes.... it is.

The opposite of RNG is No RNG.

Also - if the choice is not meaningful, then there is no choice at all.

[Kralljin]

The opposite of RNG is No RNG.

And now explain to me what "No RNG" has to do with "meaningful choice".

The removal of Titanforging has absolutely nothing to do with the Covenant system, the same people that are critizing Blizzard for Covenants also quite often praise Blizzard for the decision to remove Titanforging / discontinue corruption (including myself).

The Covenants could exist alongside Titanforging / Corruption, or without, if Covenants were freely swappable, that doesn't mean you'd have to bring Titanforging or Corruption back.

Covenants have nothing to do with gear, Titanforging has nothing to do with an external / burrowed power system such as Covenants.

These two things have absolutely no connection with each other, you just want to whine about whiners for the sake of whining.

[Vakir]

Good luck getting into high keys (20++) and high end mythic guilds with the "wrong" setup. But that's only 1% of the playerbase.

Zzzzz...

https://www.pcgamer.com/wow-covenant...ffer-pcgamertw

"What can easily be dismissed as a concern for only like the top fraction of one percent of players has a way of trickling down through guides and player perception into the behavior of a broader range of players," game director Ion Hazzikostas told me in an interview yesterday. "And I think, at the core of a lot of these concerns is the anxiety that someone is going to pick the Covenant that they think is coolest and then get told that they're being declined for a Mythic+ group, or pick-up group raid or whatever, because they're in the wrong Covenant. That's a very valid concern."

It's bookmarked at this point.

Find it hilarious that people have whinged about BfA's RNG based systems for 2 years.

Now - finally we are actually getting to make meaningful decisions ourselves, without RNG and people are whinging about it before it even starts.

How about no RNG...and abilities not being gated behind bullshit? Both can be true.

Another copy-paste I should have bookmarked: "If class abilities are the only thing you think allows Covenants to be a meaningful choice, they were never truly meaningful to begin with."

Blizzard can't say "pick the one you like most, don't think so much about the numbers or power!" and then put something that can be power-based behind gates. I mean, they can. It's just shitty and hypocritical.

We're going to win and Covenant abilities will be swappable, it's inevitable. The key is going to be making sure via feedback that it happens at launch and not 9.1 or later.

[Echocho]

Zzzzz...

https://www.pcgamer.com/wow-covenant...ffer-pcgamertw

Oh well this changes everything, if pc gamer says so it has to be true 100%.

[Vakir]

Oh well this changes everything, if pc gamer says so it has to be true 100%.

The quote is from Ion Hazzikostas.

You know, the game director?

It took literally one and a half lines of reading, dude.

[hitman84]

We're going to win and Covenant abilities will be swappable, it's inevitable. The key is going to be making sure via feedback that it happens at launch and not 9.1 or later.

This isn't about winning or losing. And who's we because many people like the decision that has to be made.
They're more likely to rip the utility abilities right out of the game and just give every class one new ability then make them freely swappable. Making them freely swappable completely defeats the purpose of having to make a choice.
Why is it so bad to see another player and think oh that's cool. And they're looking back at you thinking the same damn thing.

[Vakir]

This isn't about winning or losing. And who's we because many people like the decision that has to be made.
They're more likely to rip the utility abilities right out of the game and just give every class one new ability then make them freely swappable. Making them freely swappable completely defeats the purpose of having to make a choice.

Winning is exactly what this is about. There's a line in the sand drawn for the community. The same people who like this stuff either liked or were hopelessly naive about Legiondaries and Azerite Armor. And Essences not being account bound. And Corruptions.

Similarly, Blizzard insisted on their specific vision and then placed fixes into all of the above gradually despite their fixes being immensely similar to what people were suggesting when their vision of the content was early enough. The reason I use the term "winning" is because I already know they're going to pull this, because it's a shallow decision to bump up MAUs and subs during spotty times as soon as people are frustrated with the ability stagnation, which they will be. The key is to drum up enough community impact to make sure it happens on launch rather than in 9.1.5 or something asinine like that.

The community won't have this problem if they all hold them accountable, but for some reason, people do this with every single god damn system thinking it will go different and screw it up for everyone else.

"We heard your feedback and we truly understand. We've learned a lot of lessons about Covenant abilities and feel that there should be more player agency in having control over their strengths and weaknesses in certain situations, just as they can change their specializations and talents. We want to allow for this customization without devaluing Covenants as a player choice, so aesthetic and flavor will remain exclusive, along with Soulbinds." I can...already read the blue post.

Why is it so bad to see another player and think oh that's cool. And they're looking back at you thinking the same damn thing.

Because only naive people think that? Because for anyone who gives a fuck, they still have every other aspect of their Covenant being exclusive? Having abilities swappable means more interesting combinations in Torghast and more variability by gameplay scenario. If they really want to make it less swappable by boss, make them swappable outside of dungeons, raids, or organized PvP then.

Hell, I think Covenants shouldn't be swappable at all. If they really, TRULY believe that the abilities should reflect choice, they shouldn't allow you to swap them. Have the balls to do it. Really test the amount of bullshit players can tolerate and see if people who like to optimize are willing to roll 4 of a character. And if they did make abilities swappable, all the more acceptable to make you unable to switch.

Fucking commit. Either bring WoW into a bold new frontier where you have no fucking clue what's going to be good and force people into permanent decisions, including no changes to spec and talents, or allow the same flexibility across class lines. Otherwise, it's self-contradictory.

[Specialka]

Oh well this changes everything, if pc gamer says so it has to be true 100%.

The thing to note here and that fly right over your head is that even a low quality news web site like pcgamer is even talking about that issue. Meaning, maybe it is not necessarely the so call minority of min/maxer that is the only one "community" to express doubts about covenants and their implementation.

[Alkizon]

Vakir
Fucking commit. Either bring WoW into a bold new frontier where you have no fucking clue what's going to be good and force people into permanent decisions, including no changes to spec and talents, or allow the same flexibility across class lines. Otherwise, it's self-contradictory.

Mhhh.

I repeat, all these problems (for all of the above, same mistakes) are “consequences”, they aren't answer to question “why”, they are symptoms, therefore it's absolutely not important in this case if change within stuff under consideration easy or hard... it's falling outside framework of installed system, trying to duplicate it and therefore causing problems. That's the reason, it conflicts with original system (even if we assume that “original” in this case is current)

So, current system of hierarchy and design in general (look at least at your talents) is organized in exactly this way (you said it). But covenants, as people already noted on first page, strangely contradict this principle, still they also don't fulfill conditions of their design/location/attachment to what they're trying to "imitate"/trying to be. It follows from this, that this system doesn't obey either their current design philosophy, or is one of from "good old days", which means that all their talk in recent interview doesn't really carry anything meaningful in itself

it's like two opposing/conflicting (to each other) computer commands, from operators/systems of equal priority (1st. class'system 2nd. temporary "rental reputation power").

This shouldn't happen. It's should be character+class'within only, or be with influence of characteristics' degree, not higher.

right

klaps_05
Blizzard heard players dont like borrowed power, so now instead they give us entire borrowed classes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's clarify something a bit...

Don't need to be mistaken, there is no casualization, only sales, only streamlining = linearization gameplay and design => More money for less work to devs.

There is certain hierarchy of system's elements/priorities:

racial part goes cross-classes (bonuses, base animations), class' (abilities and mechanics) part goes cross-specs (build = talents), talents' part goes cross-roles, since last one is mostly controlled by “momentary choice”: priority of abilities, used gear and other temporary "progress" stuff

So, as you see - items/rep/world-parts'-"borders" must be at the very bottom in "control" hierarchy, and cannot creep into classes&talents and their main task is to emphasize role of your character in encounter (which is "enhance your performance, but not replace it")

it should be, because otherwise system will be affected by various kinds of conflict situations, from both social and technical point of view:

If skip their initial nonsense about "motivation by choice", "RPG" and other generated (by brainstorm of marketing department) phrases this (= covenants as example) is duplicate system that tries to act as class's one (choice of which is made when creating character once and for all), while not only it's not the one (it's temporary/not attached to just character and yet with possibility of changing, albeit difficult: class can't be changed; current system of specs makes same mistake, only in this case 3rd level tries to replace by itself 2nd one, and in case of covenants 4th behaves this way, the lowest of them all), but it also causes conflicts in system’s processing (violation of priorities, which is true not only in relation to system's choice itself, but also to its "repair") of different levels in hierarchy: it either has to be “this level” (= be inside class interface, obey only its rules) or is “higher/lower” (= not have significance of this level), but not duplicate (= have same significance, but be something different; same true for any its level), especially since it’s temporary.
- What is first thing to repair/change/develop in case of conflict, class part or "next crippled system", which unexpectedly is also kind of same?
- How should system behave in case of their mutually exclusive orders?
- Which one will obey other, which one shouldn't be preferred, part of which of them can be sacrificed in case of incompatibility?
This pass is slippery and wrong on all sides.

So restrictions for 4th level (which isn't just bald characteristics) and in general in hierarchy for system being consistent:

General requirement| they won't need to be unlocked or part of class' talents/mechanics (key part of build, only reinforce/strengthen it, even less significant, more general non-specific), but can be stackable/replaced and be part of professions/RPG-customization system (can exist/functioning outside of any items/locations/reputations), mathematical part of engine, otherwise they will spoil progress/balance system, class' fantasy and provoke more and more "unrecorded results".

If being permanent, they should end with being in class; if being difficult to change, they should not give significant abilities, but only passive and be in the field of talents (that is, they should remain outside choice of reputation of local races, for both from above); if they're “external” then shouldn't go beyond “influence” of characteristics (= gear) and be quick and easy to switch.

Their current actions are precisely connected with rocking the boat - bringing system to destabilization (I think, that this isn't accidental, but on purpose, because due to thoughtless approach during previous iterations they violated controlling mechanisms by general inflation of their use ~"drained planet’s natural resources"~ and now they believe, that the only acceptable way, is to break system itself, which "turns favorite game into another" (understood literally) - which means it changes TA/main directions/genre-partially, etc.),

I repeat, opinion is a non-permanent and relative thing, there is nothing wrong with any opinions, but... Rules and laws (basics of your game design: you change it - you get another game, other clients, another attitude towards yourself, you make someone unhappy; maybe it's worth to stop right away on creating another game?) should always be higher than opinions when making a decision, then you don't have to justify it for someone. By adhering to this you will preserve game and customer base integrity. Moreover, they will be much more confident and kinder (psychological climate) because they won't be afraid that someone else will come tomorrow, then ask to change something and company will find it expedient (more profitable = money are worth of loss reputation, trust, fairness and people together). And all responsibility for this lies solely on devs. They must be guardians, not intruders.

Devs' main task is to provide content, while progress system (fundamentals) as a whole must remain constant throughout entire game cycle. Territory organization/technical and logical connections, items/mobs/NPCs design/interdependence/lore/mechanics, quests and diologues, and so on. This is quite enough with normal initial/basic gameplay organization, especially if you add to this organized PvP component. Mechanics-toolkit is exactly what player pays for, what should be get by him almost immediately, but content isn't, fee includes only opportunity to receive it, content is payment for correct implementation/understanding/application/adherence to mechanics. New classes/races that are hormonically inscribed in engine can also become some form of temporary content... but not "swing" gameplay every time so that people get confused about game's genre, to dark side it leads.

There's a world behind the world, Professor Robinson. Lie once, cheat twice and everything becomes clear. Do not mistake my deception for a character flaw. It is philosophical choice, a profound understanding of the universe. It is a way of life. (c)

priorities now are "faster&easier&with minimal consequences" for devs... With same success, they could develop just new games under completely different adjacent title, but with common base of characters. It wouldn't change structurally anything.

Exactly! as we are discussing general priority issues now. It couldn't be otherwise, but the whole point is not in availability of these systems, but in their organization... in organization of gameplay! In methods, in "tools" used by devs, in way of implementation of one or another "common" system... and exactly they will have differences from one expansion to another, especially during periods of abrupt change of course.

Don’t know with what to compare, it's like different microchip with same input and output connectors replaces one on the board, you replaced it and without looking at the fact that system's composition hasn't changed, but output may already have a completely different result (can’t vouch for analogy, it's not my field of activity). Friend used something similar in the sense of "robot with control unit", but old forum died and I have no way to quote something (there was nothing left even in Google’s cache). Oh, found it in "web archive", it's here:
- 23.10.2017 -

Verbal visualization:
Imagine game as large complex robot, system of which can't be remade (these are game engine). All you can do about balance is Control Unit. Control Unit consists of 2 parts (with pinch-bars): 1) general (parameters and characteristics); 2) special (fine tuning for each individual subsystem); 3) they are interdependent. Since it's not possible to change system itself - for convenience, you can add pinch-bars, BUT with each removal of basic ones (which as you know are part of related system) problems will start to experience. What is now is a completely broken panel: 1) there are almost no pinch-bars on general part (strong arms, weak mind), there are electricity spark or RNG placed in place of broken ones; 2) special ones also suffered badly and they are so split that any change leads only to robot's squeal and helpless manipulators swings; 3) now they are trying to break dependencies, as a result of which system will stop working as a single unit (it has long been not working properly, but it'll be even worse).

Naturally, it was impossible to simply, quickly and painlessly disrupt system, so process went at slow, but steady pace. In this case, Catclysm was transition period, and MoP - first new iteration.

Therefore, statement that “WotLK influenced failure of Cataclysm” have place for existence (only that problem here isn't in sequence, but in methods' inheritance), since they began “familiarize” with subsequently realized unsuccessful design solutions in it. WotLK was an inappropriate experiment, results of which were misinterpreted, and Cataclysm became consequences, Pandaria was result of cleansing Cataclysm, WoD was PR bomb and great overestimation of current own capabilities without correcting wrong design trends (in theory, it should have been excuse for 3 previous expansions, maybe they even understood that they were wrong, but it was already late and they only made even more critical errors, my personal experience ends here in connection with new models advent, everything further is more likely theoretical sampling speculation), Legion - is already corporate experiment to obtain long-term profits (this time experiment was a success, just its goal was no longer respectable, but fully money based, because they urgently needed something to "pay" for WoD compensation), BfA is "based on reduced budget" dried rot of ideas left after Legion, and Shadowlands dosn't really change much of main BfA stuff.

So, that's what this loop system has now evolved into:

Well, in order to devalue and shake word "greedy" little, let me replace it with less economic one "selfish". In theory, there is nothing particularly bad in this and polarity in this sense hasn't changed as such, even someone can correctly notice same typicality of “it was also like that before”, but let’s turn it around in a way that we already discussed once: if they used to make comfortable and honest game for "themselves as players" back then, so now they do for "themselves as devs". This is "selfish" part.

It isn't something new if I'll put here question "For what particular audience do they make this game, whom do they want to attract here?", and then will answer "Everyone! regardless of the fact that those in structure aren't TA". This is "greed" part. Let's look at it in more detail in order to understand why I put it at first to be more prevailing one. Here are 2 quotes of people saying essentially obvious things related to this part that complement each other:
- 1 -

decide finally, who do you work for, you can't please everyone, or...ither..., so you just play off of players with each other and this is one of main reasons why community is toxic.

- 2 -

Don't forget: the more you fight each other instead of being friends and negotiating for solving real problems - the richer AсtiBlizzard become. Forgive old men, if something goes wrong, we aren't your enemies; remember the basics..

Let's look at process itself.
You've been sold a bill of goods (while idiologically taking into account preferences of both (conditionally) parties of conflict) before next expansion - with this first step they forming heterogeneous/conflicting "nutrient mass" from audience/community, which can then be operated on as root cause. When porridge begins to brew, "active" elements mix and begin to "interact violently", firstly more with devs rather than each other, so time comes for second step - distraction: devs pretend being softer and more flexible through "gradual retreat" imitation. Result is in slight upsurge of enthusiasm/ardor, as ostentatious and feigned demonstration of weakness transfers anger of conflict's sides to each other. Imaginary “hope to gain influence/control/power over situation” for further development appears on one of sides (make no mistake, devs don’t lose any control over situation, because retreat is thought out in advance and is designed to drag out, they don’t lose anything, since none of the systems lives in current design forever), but this naturally doesn't happen. All this ultimately passes into third step "we learned from mistakes". Its results and subsequent actions depend on length of second step, with which they form a cyclic sequence. Announcement of the new expansion is fourth and final addictive step, giving next threshold of imaginary "hope for a better future", even if so far without your control. New expansion cancels all devs' concessions, as well as achievements of both sides, thereby marking triumph of first ones: world reborns in fire, first day of new world is coming and... everything repeats again

ps. I believe that conflict has matured (difference became obvious even to uninitiated people, because if use old friend's analogy "loop is closed" = system finally went into state of "repetition in solutions"), here is why there are so many similar topics. Here is bonus - kind of light description of old system

In fact, WotLK in some sense was very much tolerant (compared to Legion&Co) due to that there was a certain height (ceiling/temporary limit) of growth in everything, which means that person could work, then relax a little, then switch to twink and work again, go back to main and relax again and so several times during single expansion without any rush (both PvE and PvP). Do you feel this now? From my own experience, this is main thing that most people did before project "commercialization", somewhere between BC and Legion. But problem is that faster game "goes" (and "faster faster" is now its basic philosophy), the more often switch happen, which means that period of fun is shorter, and the higher soft cap is (under "soft cap" I mean: average stair to which specific player can climb without changing own game style intensity/complexity - current amount of content that can consume and depth of progress that own abilities' level allows to reach; as part of this, stuff that happens now is even more pitiable, since all content is consumed easily through easiest difficulty, and progress, which's indicator are equipment(ilvl)+AP, isn't attainable in principle by virtue of mechanics (process is accessible to all regardless of ability and experience, since doesn't require any such stuff to participate (=borderless in terms of content), but is unachievable for anyone); don't forget that current average player is like a dog in "food absorption" framework - doesn't know own measure, because game doesn't allow/teach to determine it), so the less it happens during one expansion. What follows from all this - total number of once average player's "fun"-hours inevitably decreases and "work"-hours increases... Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to complain to trade unions!

Yes, not everyone did it well, but they made attempts to understand, mash the brain at least. We aren't even talking about this, but about whole system (classes(mechanics)+talents+stats/characteristics+tuning=RPG), it was much less complicated before! easier to analyze and understand than now. Naturally, yes, you don't need to understand it to play now, but if you suddenly will want, it'll probably take more time... and for what? Most of dependencies and information are not even tied to your character, but lying around somewhere in the mud (PvP talents, Azerite armor, etc.) tightly adhered to it and not accessible to you. Therefore, as one of the most lazy, but curious people, I would gladly change carrent system to old one at any time.

[Echocho]

The thing to note here and that fly right over your head is that even a low quality news web site like pcgamer is even talking about that issue. Meaning, maybe it is not necessarely the so call minority of min/maxer that is the only one "community" to express doubts about covenants and their implementation.

I worked for a WoW magazine in the past, trust me most of the times the articles are either personal opinions or something we saw on some forum somewhere and then pass it off as some sort of truth. Going out and doing research for weeks or months in order to present something accurate just isn't in the budget, it used to in the past but news papers and magazines are part of a dying industry.

[Specialka]

I worked for a WoW magazine in the past, trust me most of the times the articles are either personal opinions or something we saw on some forum somewhere and then pass it off as some sort of truth. Going out and doing research for weeks or months in order to present something accurate just isn't in the budget, it used to in the past but news papers and magazines are part of a dying industry.

Never said otherwise. Just that some web site on the net are talking about the worrying of a part of the Wow community about covenants. If the covenants were not such an issue or talked only by the minority, we would have not seen that.

[Azharok]

The quote is from Ion Hazzikostas.

You know, the game director?

It took literally one and a half lines of reading, dude.

I'd wager they still won't be mandatory for people doing their weekly m+. I also doubt it'll further increase the rejection rate of players in m+. You tried queueing up as a non meta class these past few weeks/months ? You get declined A LOT. Even if you outscore/outgear the content. What the playerbase considers obligatory choices for optimal play and what the devs intend when designing stuff are two seperate things. Just because your favorite streamer uses X/Y/Z in his 28 keys doesn't mean you'll need it to do your 10 key. And if they don't take you, form your own group, play with a guild/friends, or apply to another key.

Water is wet, news at eleven.

[Vakir]

snip

And yet the game director acknowledges it as a problem that the community does indeed make these judgments. And acknowledges that allowing abilities to be swappable as a "last resort" - which in Blizzard terms is really saying "We'll let you do it, but we'll do it in 9.1.5 when numbers start to slide in the slow season." Maybe late 9.3 if they're particularly bold, like Echoes.

Classes are definitive choices locked to a character. When you run a sub-optimal character, you are choosing to do so the moment you click the button to enter the game from the character list, and there's often other specializations that might be quite good. And many people who compete often do, because you are still choosing to play that character as well as you can. No matter what Blizzard says, Covenant choices are not on the same level as selecting a class, because those same choices aren't uniform across all specializations. Many of those same abilities suck with some of the specs of the class you're selecting it for, so you're ultimately not just being sub-optimal but are partly limiting yourself in terms of gameplay interactions.

If classes are designed to have different talents and different specializations changed, it stands to reason that locking certain abilities that influence those same specs and talent builds are not going to mesh with their decision. Even if we just look at the generic abilities - ignoring the batshit insanity of Door of Shadows, a DPS will always prefer something like Soulshape over something like Phial. Similarly, something like Fleshcraft might be pretty awesome if they tweak the channel time, but majority-wise will be desired by a tank. This is because, no matter how crafty Blizzard is, they can't tune encounters to work where Fleshcraft is a heavy advantage, because then the encounter can't work unless everyone has it. Generally, if you're taking damage that's avoidable, you should usually be dead. Meanwhile, moving quickly? Basically always good.

But if I want to play, say, Ret and then went to swap to Prot, you are effectively saying "fuck you - even though you can build a new gear set with optimal talents and play Prot well, you still aren't allowed to enjoy it the same way as if you picked this other Covenant that has better abilities for Prot."

And god help you if you wanna play PvP. The Hunt? Not terribly attractive as it is in most settings. Insane in PvP. So if I want to PvP, do I need to feel pulled by Night Fae, even if I have no interest in them?

The game allows these changes in the current culture of it, but the Covenants literally clash against it. Do one or the other. Go back to an old Vanilla style framework where changing is immensely costly in ALL areas or allow flexibility where it needs to happen. Don't dilly-dally because simps allow you to get away with systems you know are flawed on release.

Give a good reason why they shouldn't do it immediately besides "It doesn't affect me." If your reason is "meaningful choice," does that mean you think choices are only meaningful if they give player power? If so, you're just as bad as the min-maxers in terms of wearing blinders...you just also choose to not play as well as you could. But no, the rest of us understand that choices can be meaningful while also compromising with things that influence player power.

And at the end of the day, nobody has given a single solitary decent answer as to why one should be more sympathetic to them, who the decision does not affect, over the elusive numbers it will affect, who the decision does. Whether you want to call that 5, 10, or 15% of the population, which I'd argue is lowballing it - fucking over a small number is worse than fucking over nobody. Unless, of course, you are selfish.


@Alkizon - You clearly put a lot of effort into your post, and I want to respond, but the formatting is bizarre enough that I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I'm getting some serious House of Leaves vibes.

I worked for a WoW magazine in the past, trust me most of the times the articles are either personal opinions or something we saw on some forum somewhere and then pass it off as some sort of truth. Going out and doing research for weeks or months in order to present something accurate just isn't in the budget, it used to in the past but news papers and magazines are part of a dying industry.

Cool, but the messenger doesn't matter. I'm referring to a quote from the game's lead director. The fact that it is in PC Gamer is incidental.

[VinceVega]

And yet the game director acknowledges it as a problem that the community does indeed make these judgments. And acknowledges that allowing abilities to be swappable as a "last resort" - which in Blizzard terms is really saying "We'll let you do it, but we'll do it in 9.1.5 when numbers start to slide in the slow season." Maybe late 9.3 if they're particularly bold, like Echoes.

Classes are definitive choices locked to a character. When you run a sub-optimal character, you are choosing to do so the moment you click the button to enter the game from the character list, and there's often other specializations that might be quite good. And many people who compete often do, because you are still choosing to play that character as well as you can. No matter what Blizzard says, Covenant choices are not on the same level as selecting a class, because those same choices aren't uniform across all specializations. Many of those same abilities suck with some of the specs of the class you're selecting it for, so you're ultimately not just being sub-optimal but are partly limiting yourself in terms of gameplay interactions.

If classes are designed to have different talents and different specializations changed, it stands to reason that locking certain abilities that influence those same specs and talent builds are not going to mesh with their decision. Even if we just look at the generic abilities - ignoring the batshit insanity of Door of Shadows, a DPS will always prefer something like Soulshape over something like Phial. Similarly, something like Fleshcraft might be pretty awesome if they tweak the channel time, but majority-wise will be desired by a tank. This is because, no matter how crafty Blizzard is, they can't tune encounters to work where Fleshcraft is a heavy advantage, because then the encounter can't work unless everyone has it. Generally, if you're taking damage that's avoidable, you should usually be dead. Meanwhile, moving quickly? Basically always good.

But if I want to play, say, Ret and then went to swap to Prot, you are effectively saying "fuck you - even though you can build a new gear set with optimal talents and play Prot well, you still aren't allowed to enjoy it the same way as if you picked this other Covenant that has better abilities for Prot."

And god help you if you wanna play PvP. The Hunt? Not terribly attractive as it is in most settings. Insane in PvP. So if I want to PvP, do I need to feel pulled by Night Fae, even if I have no interest in them?

The game allows these changes in the current culture of it, but the Covenants literally clash against it. Do one or the other. Go back to an old Vanilla style framework where changing is immensely costly in ALL areas or allow flexibility where it needs to happen. Don't dilly-dally because simps allow you to get away with systems you know are flawed on release.

Give a good reason why they shouldn't do it immediately besides "It doesn't affect me." If your reason is "meaningful choice," does that mean you think choices are only meaningful if they give player power? If so, you're just as bad as the min-maxers in terms of wearing blinders...you just also choose to not play as well as you could. But no, the rest of us understand that choices can be meaningful while also compromising with things that influence player power.

And at the end of the day, nobody has given a single solitary decent answer as to why one should be more sympathetic to them, who the decision does not affect, over the elusive numbers it will affect, who the decision does. Whether you want to call that 5, 10, or 15% of the population, which I'd argue is lowballing it - fucking over a small number is worse than fucking over nobody. Unless, of course, you are selfish.


@Alkizon - You clearly put a lot of effort into your post, and I want to respond, but the formatting is bizarre enough that I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I'm getting some serious House of Leaves vibes.



Cool, but the messenger doesn't matter. I'm referring to a quote from the game's lead director. The fact that it is in PC Gamer is incidental.

I don't think i have ever agreed with a post this much! thumbsup^^