Min/Maxing and Exclusivity: Idealism vs Realism

[Osmeric]

There's an easy way to discourage min-maxing: get rid of any content for which it would be appropriate.

Ion should realize the straightjacket difficult content puts on the design of the rest of the game.

[Lei]

How can people be so naive after an azerite and corruption fiasco just within one expansion? Remember how those systems started out as and how and why they have been changed? Legiondaries?
Hellooo, Dory?

[Osmeric]

You may see it as idealism, but dont let Ion fool you - he pushes Covenant design NOT out of idealism.

Ion has to push it because stock holders need the systems that bust /time played metrics,

No, the stockholders don't need time played metrics. They need $$$.

Management may have noticed there's a correlation between time played and player retention. But if so, making that metric a target would be a great example of Goodhart's Law. Once a metric is used as an explicit goal, it ceases to be a good metric.

[Doffen]

You don't mean to put min/maxers in a negative light, and then you do just that by implying that their behavior is bad. No, it isn't. Trying to be good at what you do is part of normal human behavior. There is nothing wrong with it.
Blaming players is never an answer when discussing game design. Games are made for players, not the other way around. It is developers job to anticipate player behavior and build their game accordingly for their maximum enjoyment.

Sure it's their job, but it's also not their fault if there are some people who don't like what they are doing. There is no game that everyone universally think is good. You know the player's responsibilities are? Play another game if they don't like what the devs are doing for that specific game. It goes both ways. Developers can't base a game on 1million different opinions. There are always someone who will like what they do, and some that don't. Because for most games, if people don't like it, they move on. Players should be able to vote their opinion though, nothing wrong with that. In many cases that leads to something good.

You can't blame players for the game. that's very true, but you can't blame developers for not making a game that appeal to everybody. If Covenants appeal to 5million players, but does not appeal to 5 million others, is it then the developers fault for people having different taste in game, and game design than them? Maximum enjoyment is such a widespread term, Blizzard will never appeal to everyone. 8.3 does not appeal to me. I then play other games that does. I quit after t11 in Cata, because the game wasn't fun anymore. Is that the developers fault?

I am sorry if this seem to be directed to you, you probably just mean that developers are in charge for making a game as good as they can and players are not to blame. It's more a generalized post towards players vs developers. I just don't understand that if a game is not for you(as in any person) anymore, that should be totally fine and that's just life.

I do however totally agree with the first half of your post, trying to be good at something is human behavior, and wanting to be good in a game is no different than real life achievements. For some, doing good in games are real life achievements.

[lappee]

I mean maybe 2 if you play very risky and burn a lot of cds on psych...

Psychus isn't the problem with boosting, sanity is if you go with 4.

[Krakan]

Psychus isn't the problem with boosting, sanity is if you go with 4.

It's a knock on effect. You lose more sanity by needing to burn more cds on paychus and that drags out the fight. I suppose it also robs you of a neck.

[crakerjack]

I think the only scenario where covenant will matter is world first guilds trying to cheese a boss because a specific covenant ability makes a specific mechanic easier. Even then, it's a stretch because what if the next boss in progression is easier with the covenant ability you just got rid of?

I severely doubt that any pug leader will not invite someone because they don't have X or Y covenant ability. It just doesn't make sense because if a pug isn't killing a boss, I highly doubt it has anything to do with people not having the "right" covenant ability, and more so people just not doing mechanics properly.

I think a lot of people are blowing the whole covenant system out of proportions without enough empirical evidence to support their beliefs. It's almost like a lot of the pessimism is fueled with bias/emotions than actual facts.

[Wangming]

Well I never really gave any fucks about the meta in any of the MMOs I played cause I never do hardcore pvp or high end raiding. That is for better players than I am. All I care about is fun.

[lappee]

It's a knock on effect. You lose more sanity by needing to burn more cds on paychus and that drags out the fight. I suppose it also robs you of a neck.

And sanity only really becomes a problem at 4 buyers, because you have 4 necks less. If you could use the buyer necks you could do 5th buyer as well since damage isn't a problem at all.

[Amariw]

If covenant switching will be designed to be too much of a hassle, i will be forced to stick with one, prolly either something good for m+ or pvp. But if the difference is noticable, and i suspect it will, i will just be frustrated at the lack of freedom to optimize my power for the content. I will play the content how blizz forced me too, but i will enjoy it less because of it.
RPG power choices of this manner hold no benefit for me, would really rather they keep covenants a story choice and that's it.

[LorDC]

Sure it's their job, but it's also not their fault if there are some people who don't like what they are doing. There is no game that everyone universally think is good. You know the player's responsibilities are? Play another game if they don't like what the devs are doing for that specific game. It goes both ways. Developers can't base a game on 1million different opinions. There are always someone who will like what they do, and some that don't. Because for most games, if people don't like it, they move on. Players should be able to vote their opinion though, nothing wrong with that. In many cases that leads to something good.

That's true. And could have been a valid argument if we weren't talking about min-maxers specifically. They are part of well known "achiever" archetype and were one of the pillars of WoW community since forever.

[Doffen]

That's true. And could have been a valid argument if we weren't talking about min-maxers specifically. They are part of well known "achiever" archetype and were one of the pillars of WoW community since forever.

That's true for any kind of players. I should know, I have been there myself.

[SirBeef]

I will pick a covenant that I think will be the overall best for PvE situations, and switch for tier end-bosses if one allows some weird quirky strat or something. After progress I might switch to one that excels in M+ if I decide I want to push some keys. Rinse and repeat steps 2&3 3 times and wait for next expansion. Wow that was hard.


This is going off the assumption that covenants are swappable with some grinding after the first time, like they eluded to before.

Pretty sure this has not changed. Your approach is better-minded than the I most have the most optimal load out for every encounter/activity I engage with.

[Boddhi]

My stance as a "aged and matured in since the begining with breaks" player is this:

Meanwhile i do no play for "success", i try to have fun. This is because, as an aging person, video gaming and the underlying concepts do not spark the joy anymore that they used to. As real life achievements grow more demanding but also more rewarding, being a very good video game player becomes less and less relevant. And honestly, the gamer offspring is so far ahead in dedidaction and time investment, trying to compete with them is more than futile anyway.

So i just try to *have fun* instead and feel the immersion Blizzard invests so much effort to provide. And how i play the game, literally the decision which buttons i press or not press, is not based on numbers. it's based on immersion. For example i dont care anymore for weak auras or other addons that help me being a better player, and i don't check icy-veins anymore after every patch if new talents are to pick. For abilities and talents, i read the description and think about how it would add to my playing experience if using them. If i knew this and that active talent would improve m< dps by 5% or even 10%, i would still not use it when i felt pressing this extra button would disturb my gameplay "flow". So me personally, i can live with "dead buttons" at times. I do not have this "damn if i could use this now i was even better" feeling. Preach seems to have it and probably many others more. But i also believe there are many players as me.

I think Ion and his guys want to make a game for players like me. They of course also want to give it to the minmaxers as much as they can, but if they have to decide, its casuals the game is primarily designed for. And i think for a game like WoW, it just makes sense. Not only for financial and business reason but also regarding of how this game works. Perfect balance that entirely supports skillbased success is impossible to achieve in such game, so why even try. People scream "Simplify and reduce it, then you can balance it! why dont you listen? later it will be unbalanced because you didnt listen!1!!". It's not what they want primarily. It's not their vision of the game imho.

I believe WoW is turned into game that shall primarly be joyful the be played. "playing", as you were playing as a child, where is just about is it fun what you do or not. And where its not about "Am i gud or how to gitgud and become better than others". There are tons of other game (genres) that's suited better for such needs.

[Dakara]

Take a 470 Fire mage in mix matched gear with -25% Mastery, and Focusing Iris Major because it’s “fun to use”, no mecha bracers and whatever else they utilise in their 18 sec pull timers, along with the “Wrong” Azerite traits and talents, then compare them against a properly optimised 470 Fire mage and see what the difference is.

Then, magnify that difference across your entire Raid or M+ group and see how well you do outside of LFR and low keys.

Meta gaming will always be a thing, but in WOW, we’re not talking about a 1 or 2% difference, we’re talking about multiple 1-2% optimisations that result in a cumulative 30-50% increase.

If Blizzard want to move away from style of play, it’ll take more than Covenants to accomplish.

[Jackstraw]

Take a 470 Fire mage in mix matched gear with -25% Mastery, and Focusing Iris Major because it’s “fun to use”, no mecha bracers and whatever else they utilise in their 18 sec pull timers, along with the “Wrong” Azerite traits and talents, then compare them against a properly optimised 470 Fire mage and see what the difference is.

Then, magnify that difference across your entire Raid or M+ group and see how well you do outside of LFR and low keys.

Meta gaming will always be a thing, but in WOW, we’re not talking about a 1 or 2% difference, we’re talking about multiple 1-2% optimisations that result in a cumulative 30-50% increase.

If Blizzard want to move away from style of play, it’ll take more than Covenants to accomplish.

The difference has never been this much oppressing though.

The comparison Ion drawed upon was Aldor vs. Scryers. And I'm fine with the callback.
However, Aldors and Scryers did not give my class tools and spells and stuff. All they gave me was sometimes useful gear and a tabard. That's it.

Blizzard wants to move away from hyper optimization? Then performance should be the driving factor. Classes should be made so that no external plug is further needed.
This toxic system started with the Eye of Galakras, got magnified with the Archimonde trinket and now at the end of BfA classes do not matter: it's the external power that drives the performance.

If Blizzard wants to move away from style of play then Covenants are NOT the right solution.

[Armourboy]

Ultimately if Blizzard wants individual choice and fun to be the driving force then they need to drive the game content that way as well.

Individual choice is not a thing when you have hyper tuned content that demands players strip individual choice to insure content is downed. In that world those players have choice stripped from them because the content demands it.

Tbh the fight to me has always been less about the battle between min/max and TPG and more a battle of control. The difference between the early experiences and today to me is control.

Really around Cata Blizzard started designing to save players from themselves, and the longer the game has gone on the more this has spread. It started with raiding and putting 10 and 25 man on the same footing so that players wouldn't run 4 versions of the same content every week. It then spread to even basic systems like dailies and rep where they began to control just how much of it you could do. Heck you could even toss the flying debate into it.

Me personally if they want WoW to excel again then they need to design classes, gameplay, content and then systems and then just get out of the way. If someone wants to burn themselves out playing a million hours and tracking every detail then let them. But then they need to hold firm and make the player understand that it's their choice to do so, not something is necessarily designing around.

Blizzard wants its cake and eat it too and that's just never going to happen.

[Alphatorg]

To be honest I just don't understand what makes being locked into a class defining covenant ability so great, that it's worth trashing the entire expansion for competitive minded players. If meaningful choices are so important why not make it a role playing choice if you're trying to please role players. If you have no interest in your output and just pick what you like anyway how does it benefit you when Blizzard take away other player's choices?

[Krakan]

And sanity only really becomes a problem at 4 buyers, because you have 4 necks less. If you could use the buyer necks you could do 5th buyer as well since damage isn't a problem at all.

I mean... no.

What your proposing isn't going to happen except maybe after pre patch.

[Razion]

A problem that arises is that you can't inherently always make people do what you want to do, no matter how much visual, auditory, or mechanical feedback the player gets. Players can be told what to do, but they may not listen, even when it would be in their best interest in the long run. And especially to a certain extent, not all players want their hands held through things they feel they should be able to control. Players do want to be free, so the problem ultimately is this: how can you save players from themselves without forcing them away from the issue?

With parenting we can equate this to a hot stove, or a fork and an outlet. For one, the child may hurt themselves and decide not to do it again. But for the other, the risk of casualty is perhaps too great that one may be willing to risk and so they feel they need to intervene. We've seen these systems largely been open-ended thus far with approaches to Artifact Power and Relics in Legion where you did have free reign and in BFA where you could grind as much Island as you thought you wanted or felt you needed. Now, in SL, they seem to be still giving players the freedom to do things like Torghast as much as they want while still grinding as much of these Conduits as they want - but they've implemented things like additional Soulbind trees to perhaps give most players an alternative to filling their bags with Conduits - you can have different loadouts for different situations if you want so you don't have to grind as much if you don't want to.

I guess what needs to be done, is that visually and audibly and mechanically - the Soulbind system needs to feel like another kind of talent tree that can apply maybe even mechanically because of the passives of those trees more obviously to different roles or types of target spread or utility. Some people have noted that some Soulbinds like Mistblade seem to cover DPS - but to what degree it would be good to specialize for what situation, has yet to be figured out by people from what I've gathered in terms of public opinion. I think if people had a good idea if one Soulbind would be good for Cleave, another for AoE, another for Single-Target, it would be a lot more obvious that people didn't have to change out these Conduits - luckily ther are already multiple paths in the trees themselves to offer various boosts for Tank, DPS, or Healer conduit bonuses, so to some extent the Soulbinds don't need to specialize exactly as far as roles go necessarily, but the Soulbinds now can be more of a purpose for target spread no matter your role.

I think if the community focus goes more towards that, the 'problem' of Conduits can at least be perceived to be less of an issue while they continue to work on the other ways the system is presented to maybe make these alternatives that can help players from themselves be more appealing.