Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    The Patient Rayzen17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Swnem View Post
    What? It's different cause it's 4 times more work. Did you miss that part on the post or something?
    It's nothing like gearing alt specs. You can do those just changing your loot spec and you can reuse gear you already got.
    Like, wth? It's nowhere even comparable. Nor is it comparable to reputations. They are not exclusive, they are finite and they don't affect player power.

    So, you are ok with 4 infinite grinds? Well... we know where you stand. In your chair, playing WoW all day, i guess. So much for alt friendly if that was the case.

    Thankfully i'm sure the quest will reign that back.
    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.
    Last edited by Rayzen17; 2020-08-04 at 09:33 PM.

  2. #62
    I honestly wish they would stop adding all these stupid systems. Look at class balance ever since they started this new "systems on top of systems, systems, systems". Class balance has been atrocious. Even Legion had absolutely garbage class balance so bad that we haven't such terrible balance since TBC.
    BfA, same crap. Nothing but garbage balance.
    I have a novel idea. Stop trying to balance all these stupid systems and instead...balance classes.

    Not gonna happen. Shadowlands will be the same crap.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    It comes down to what balance means, and when I tend to harp on Blizz for balancing issues... it's probably a lot different than what most people probably think I mean.

    First step is defining what balance means, everyone has a different idea. For example, the person you quoted stated their idea of balance when it came to class abilities was that they do the same damage. It's rather akin to a popular view that to balance classes they all have to have the same damage output and potential, which not only would be nigh impossible to do... I don't think that's balanced (and neither do the devs, I'm fairly certain).

    I'll stick to abilities available to a class across the covenants as an example to keep it simplified. According to the person you quoted, they define balanced as the abilities all doing the same damage. As you stated, the abilities do different things in different, and if they all had the same damage that doesn't mean they're necessarily balanced. Taking it a step further, knowing that each of the abilities will do different things and have different results in varying scenarios, how would one define the system as balanced?

    Let's say that one ability is ST, one is AoE, one is cleave, and one is utility/movement. Four abilities that do four different things. How can you balance this? In most of my posts, I tend to reference that Blizz either has to nerf them into uselessness or make them strong in niche scenarios. To expand upon this example, each of these abilities should shine in scenarios that fit the ability and less so in other areas (the ST ability shines in ST compared to all the others, the AoE ability in AoE scenarios, etc.). Even if you want to assign DPS numbers to the abilities, even the utility/movement ability has DPS gains, although that can be hard to quantify exactly... but in the case of many casters, except BM hunters, unassisted movement is a large DPS loss, and having abilities to speed up or make you able to get back to DPSing faster are a DPS gain. So in the end, all the abilities have different DPS values of some kind, but the system as a whole is balanced to where the abilities shine above the others when you get the right scenario.

    So where do I think Blizz gets this wrong? Typically, when Blizz heavily favors certain scenarios or making abilities/specs/classes/etc. universally good at everything. If there are no trade-offs or downsides to making a choice, then Blizz has failed at making a meaningful choice. This can either come down to the ability/class design for the game content design and systems themselves. When I view things like the covenant signature abilities, the reason I'm skeptical concerning balance isn't because they all do different things (I actually like that!), it's that one or two are almost universally better in every scenario considering how Blizz tends to balance and design content. Now they're trying to shift the balance of power to other systems, but as of late Blizz tends to cling stubbornly to certain ideas when it may just be easier to scrap it or come at it from a different angle. Basically, my concern isn't that all the abilities won't have niche applications, it's that a handful of outliers (in the sense of almost or always better than everything else in every scenario) won't be addressed. If Blizz can allow all these new abilities to shine at certain moments while being inferior to others at some point, that's probably as balanced as we can hope to get.
    Thank you for the detailed explanation... though I believe that to be common sense :3

    Blizzard has explicitly been saying this BFA that they want to make the niche strenghts of classes, etc shine in niche scenarios, so that last paragraph is wrong. There however is the problem that there are too many scenarios and you cannot predict how all of them will play out with different classes/specs/covenants/talents/etc. In your example it is just AoE, Cleave, ST and utility but reality is that the scenarios are way more varied than that. The covenants might offer just 1 selection of AoE abilities but the AoE scenarios have hundreds of variations. A very simple example: 1 target. 5 targets. 13 targets. 27 targets. 49 targets. Shall I go on? Rogue's AoE ability might be better at 10 targets than Paladin. Paladin's AoE ability might be better at 5 targets. But in M+ players have a choice how to play. You can choose to pull 5 targets or you can choose to pull 10 targets. But if you can pull 10 targets and survive, WHY would you ever pick the 5 target one? On paper they have their unique strengths, but in practice, players can MANIPULATE these strengths and benefit even more than intended - pull 20 targets instead of 5. Now Rogue is absolutely better and Paladin falls down. Pull 30 targets and Rogue is the only playable melee DPS. That is how "universally good" specs are created. Players are too smart and too many, for the developers to predict all the scenarios that the players can create and manipulate. Ofc, the above example is very simplified so no need to try and come up with an arbitrary solution for it. There is no way to balance things.

    And the problem of majority of players is not the balance. It is the fact that you cannot change. Because they KNOW that 1 ability will be better at one thing and another at a different thing. And they want to be best at everything. Which directly contradicts Blizzard's philosophy to have different classes and gameplay choices provide different niche strengths and weaknesses. Players are the problem. Players have unrealistic expectations without considering the consequences from them.

    But since majority of players are very limited in their perspective, they blame it all on "Balance" when that was never a realistic thing in the first place. And those that properly realize that it's the permanent choice that is a problem are still in the wrong too, imo. In the end, a choice will only matter if you lose something from it. Because to gain one thing means to lose another. If you have everything, you have nothing. It might be a bit too philosophical for most players but... that is not something I can help them with. I will play and enjoy the things I enjoy. I just hope Blizzard sticks to their philosophy and only makes changes after carefully considering the pros and cons.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayzen17 View Post
    Tell me how you make a decision when the 3rd/4th type of player says whatever?

    You don't, their apathy does not influence the outcome because they don't participate in a clear decision.
    I did not talk about whatever. I did talk about your posted poll, which does not feature a whatever option.


    What are we going to eat tonight?

    A) Japanese - 17%

    B) Chinese - 21%

    C) Italian - 39%

    D) Whatever - 23%

    Tell me, which one is the winner?
    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.

  5. #65
    The Patient Rayzen17's Avatar
    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.

  6. #66
    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.

  7. #67
    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

  8. #68
    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.

  9. #69
    Legendary! Soon-TM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    6,588
    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 Danuser
    we created a story structure for Sylvanas that, on the surface, echoed many broad strokes of the road Garrosh took (...). These parallels were intentional. But it's within the nuance that we sought to show the story grow and change.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thage View Post
    BFA was about as nuanced as a golf club to the testicles/ovaries.

  10. #70
    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.

  11. #71
    Anyone who thinks they will balance the game is dreaming lmao been unbalanced garbage for years.

  12. #72
    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.

  13. #73
    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.

  14. #74
    Why exactly was OP banned? What was the reason mods? I mean he is not wrong.

  15. #75
    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.

  16. #76
    Brewmaster Sfidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,459
    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.

  17. #77
    To infinity and beyond det's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The forums
    Posts
    35,708
    Quote Originally Posted by kodemonkee View Post
    Why exactly was OP banned? What was the reason mods? I mean he is not wrong.
    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.

    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.
    Sounds reasonable (unless somewhere else the Rivendrath have a shield and the Necrolords a movement increase ability). But really....when I look at any random piece of Azerite gear and the traits from one class and compare them to another class...I wouldn't know if they are balanced. (except the few things that pop up across the board for all classes - like heal after a kill or get an absorb shield - but even they are trash to some speccs and helpful to others)
    Last edited by det; 2020-08-07 at 09:20 AM.

  18. #78
    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.

  19. #79
    To infinity and beyond det's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The forums
    Posts
    35,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post

    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.
    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.

  20. #80
    Scarab Lord
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,074
    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

Posting Permissions

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