"Does it matter to you casuals if we hardcores get fluid covenants?" Yes, here's why.

[Flantini]

Good news, you can switch covenants, even back and forth

Right, don't respond to the meat of my argument just quote one line and pretend it somehow washes over the whole thing.

You can change covenants...ONCE. meaning you can swap from Necrolord to Kyrian if you want to. This initial swap takes about 1-2 weeks to complete. Switching back to Necrolord will be even harder and take more time. So if you would, responding to the above arguments, why should this system be left in place the way it is? But I'm assuming you know this and dont give a shit about anyone who plays the game different than the way you play.

[Echocho]

This initial swap takes about 1-2 weeks to complete. Switching back to Necrolord will be even harder and take more time.

No that's wrong I'm afraid. The initial swap will be instant, switching back will take a week or two.

[Elias01]

Well you can presume will be X4 of what it is now lower, probably not equal enough but it depends on covenant balance. So you'll just have to wait on average 4 times longer for a DPS of the right covenant.
Idk about you, but when picking dps it's like 1, 2, 3 done. There are always 10-20 dps that applied within a minute of posting the group.

This taking ~4 minutes to chose dps with meta covenants for their classes won't be a hassle.... just saying.
Healers and Tanks are special, but as an example going above M15 and you'll see that even they get scrutinized for their choices, nobody wants to wipe or have their key depleted.

Nobady cares about +15. Its no inteded content and balance no longwe works in those keys. Yes they are this 0,01% of players what push keys beyond for lulz but we can hardly desing game around such players. And even those players will never ever be optimal. Dungeons alredy give different bonuses per covenants so only way for you to have optimal covenant for mythic+ is to play 4 mages with 4 different covenants. Thats for someone who spents 18 hours a day playing game.

[Rayzen17]

Nobady cares about +15. Its no inteded content and balance no longwe works in those keys. Yes they are this 0,01% of players what push keys beyond for lulz but we can hardly desing game around such players. And even those players will never ever be optimal. Dungeons alredy give different bonuses per covenants so only way for you to have optimal covenant for mythic+ is to play 4 mages with 4 different covenants. Thats for someone who spents 18 hours a day playing game.

Maybe read what the reply was for. Nobody cares about +15, it was a random example, but it's still a high benchmark, the thing is that it can be done even with not taking any talents, to not play optimally.
But would anyone do that? Would it be fun? The answer is no.

I don't need any of the covenants to complete stuff, the point to be able to switch is to be able to use different abilities in different situations/game modes because it's FUN for me to have more options.

[Flantini]

No that's wrong I'm afraid. The initial swap will be instant, switching back will take a week or two.

On the beta that is not the case at all so, you are wrong.

[Zyky]

OP explained that. Because it trickles down. Not raiding mythic is not the same as not caring. You want to be able to join a group for anything without having the correct/FotM/BiS X.

And since you're thinking it already: "if you don't get accepted to a group because you have the wrong covenant, then make your own group."

There will ALWAYS be a right way perceived by the community. And if you don't put in that effort, then you're going to be shunned. So yes you're going to have to "make your own groups" if you're going to pick sub-optimal damage options for whatever content you intend on doing.

[KrayZ33]

you know what yea dont talk. If you just gonna pretend you dont see things and cut little snipets and comment on them with ridiculous leaps of logic but cba to give me an answer you might have given to someone else, oh apart from: i like it. Thats all you give: i like it, its meaningful choice. Just not how exactly.

Again, I did explain how exactly. So either read and accept it or just don't bother.
Just becuase you disagree with it being meaningful doesn't mean it isn't.

And the whole switcharoo thing is a compromise for players who are against it anyway.
The game portrays a covenant switch correctly by making them "hostile" to you, you have to re-earn their trust and work with them again.

If you say "that's not immersive" that's your problem man. What you find immersive or correct doesn't really matter to me and my opinion about this matter.
It's not immersive that I can just "respawn" when I die either. Or "log out" in the middle of anywhere. But you know...?
For all I care, they could remove the time gate and make it a grind, if that's what you want?
But how does that change anything? The essence of it all remains the same - it's not a mere button to be used to switch around covenants.
You dedicate your character to that covenant for a certain period of time.
You don't become a Fae loving Death-Knight in mere seconds, when you were all about sucking blood and anima and doing vampire parties the second before.

And since no-one can do that, the whole story and perception about the covenant changes too.
As I have given plenty of examples.
A choice in an RPG were I kill a certain Merchant NPC in a quest is not really a meaningful choice, or means vrey little when I can just spawn him later again because I found out that he sells a mystic sword.
Wether you actually make use of that "re-spawn" doesn't matter. The whole idea about it being possible is enough to make it feel awkward and wrong and the choice itself becomes meaningless because you can just ignore any consequence what-so-ever.
If I am to go around and learn about necromancy to do that however - the whole thing becomes a completely different issue.

So, are you just going to ignore everything again?
If this didn't answer everything, I don't know what will - because that's my point on this and I've never - ever - said anything else about the whole topic, and everything else is completely irrelevant to my point of view on this.


I'm not going to adress every single point because I'm not going to re-trace every single post and connection you see in your head.
So I'm just going with what I adressed myself, since you quoted ME and not someone else.

What the actual? How is asking if something is psychologically filling translated by you as "Do you mean that it doesn't change anything if you can or can't swap on the fly". Do you understand what you did?

Yes. It basically tells you that it is psychologically filling - because it does something in me that would change if it weren't the same... that's the answer to your bs question. The effect itself is completely subjective.

[Kyux]

I'm not sure if it's ever occured to you, but Raiders like the theming of Covenants too. They like transmog, mounts, lore and so on. But theres a huge conflict of interests between picking the one that they like the look of vs picking the one that they need to choose to be successful. So immediately theres a good chunk of Mythic Raiders who aren't going to be able to choose the Covenant they'd like, and will instead be choosing the one that gives them the most power.

This is where I see the anti-Covenant argument fall down. What you've said is undoubtedly true, but it's intended and good. What you've said is the exact point: meaningful choice. You've just said that this group of players has competing priorities (transmog, lore, theme, and player power). They choose to put more value on player power which leads them to select X covenant. If they valued transmog more they would select Y covenant. That's a meaningful choice. They've chosen to play their game that way, which is fine. I've chosen to play my game how I like it, so I'll choose a different covenant.

You're right that decoupling the mechanical powers from the cosmetics etc would solve the problem, but it would also neuter the system. I suggest that people just accept that there's a choice and they need to make it. It's like selecting a better talent over a more fun one. It's a valid choice, and a valid ranking of priorities. It is impossible to have every choice equally enjoyable and equally powerful to every player.

[Popokolara]

Again, I did explain how exactly. So either read and accept it or just don't bother.
Just becuase you disagree with it being meaningful doesn't mean it isn't.

And the whole switcharoo thing is a compromise for players who are against it anyway.
The game portrays a covenant switch correctly by making them "hostile" to you, you have to re-earn their trust and work with them again.

If you say "that's not immersive" that's your problem man. What you find immersive or correct doesn't really matter to me and my opinion about this matter.
It's not immersive that I can just "respawn" when I die either. Or "log out" in the middle of anywhere. But you know...?
For all I care, they could remove the time gate and make it a grind, if that's what you want?
But how does that change anything? The essence of it all remains the same - it's not a mere button to be used to switch around covenants.
You dedicate your character to that covenant for a certain period of time.
You don't become a Fae loving Death-Knight in mere seconds, when you were all about sucking blood and anima and doing vampire parties the second before.

And since no-one can do that, the whole story and perception about the covenant changes too.
As I have given plenty of examples.
A choice in an RPG were I kill a certain Merchant NPC in a quest is not really a meaningful choice, or means vrey little when I can just spawn him later again because I found out that he sells a mystic sword.
Wether you actually make use of that "re-spawn" doesn't matter. The whole idea about it being possible is enough to make it feel awkward and wrong and the choice itself becomes meaningless because you can just ignore any consequence what-so-ever.
If I am to go around and learn about necromancy to do that however - the whole thing becomes a completely different issue.

So, are you just going to ignore everything again?
If this didn't answer everything, I don't know what will - because that's my point on this and I've never - ever - said anything else about the whole topic, and everything else is completely irrelevant to my point of view on this.

My issue is you set the bar at simply having an existing delay, and dont really bother with its substance, when said delay was intentionally and specifically implemented to prevent us to optimise diferent content to affect player psychology as well as create artificial value in bringing people to the raid (timmy has good aoe, jimmy has good ST)- that is the dev words. You also dont seem to direct your complaints to the horrible wow storytelling, and accept anything that is not a respec button, and accept all the shit it brings.
I am sorry for being inexcusably toxic. I am trying too hard to convince you your standards are too low- because i believe it and because i think its so painfully obvious you should see it too.
Also because the whole idea of having an artificial lock by the blizzard overlord rather than you rping it because it somehow breaks immersion. I think that shows flaw in character/roleplaying mentality. RP is something personal, but i do think one can say some ways of rping are ultimately shallow crutches.


- - - Updated - - -

This is where I see the anti-Covenant argument fall down. What you've said is undoubtedly true, but it's intended and good. What you've said is the exact point: meaningful choice. You've just said that this group of players has competing priorities (transmog, lore, theme, and player power). They choose to put more value on player power which leads them to select X covenant. If they valued transmog more they would select Y covenant. That's a meaningful choice. They've chosen to play their game that way, which is fine. I've chosen to play my game how I like it, so I'll choose a different covenant.

You're right that decoupling the mechanical powers from the cosmetics etc would solve the problem, but it would also neuter the system. I suggest that people just accept that there's a choice and they need to make it. It's like selecting a better talent over a more fun one. It's a valid choice, and a valid ranking of priorities. It is impossible to have every choice equally enjoyable and equally powerful to every player.

I think the side of the anti covenants believe it does not become a valid choice, but rather a psychological game around a choice that shouldnt be placed there at all.
You cant compare talents with covenants because you can freely swap talents. You cant swap covenants freely.

[Caerrona]

My issue is you set the bar at simply having an existing delay, and dont really bother with its substance, when said delay was intentionally and specifically implemented to prevent us to optimise diferent content to affect player psychology as well as create artificial value in bringing people to the raid (timmy has good aoe, jimmy has good ST)- that is the dev words. You also accept the horrible wow storytelling just cause its not a respec button, and accept all the shit it brings.

I think i am an asshole trying to convince you your standards are pretty bad - because i believe it and because i think its so painfully obvious you should see it too.
Also because the whole idea of having an artificial lock by the blizzard overlord rather than you rping it somehow breaks your immersion.
Which is laughable in any serious Roleplaying circle.

I am sorry i end up so toxic and insulting. If i had to phrase it more diplomatically it would be you have extremely low and immature standards and the part of the population like you endorses harming the quality of the game.

- - - Updated - - -



I think the side of the anti covenants believe it does not become a valid choice, but rather a psychological game around a choice that shouldnt be placed there at all.
You cant compare talents with covenants because you can freely swap talents. You cant swap covenants freely.

Don't understand your complaints. Swap before the patch, kill raid, swap back. If you need more then the 2-3 weeks cd period to clear you are not in a guild that needs you to have certain abilities. Then just swap back for the rest of the patch for whatever else you do.

[Popokolara]

Don't understand your complaints. Swap before the patch, kill raid, swap back. If you need more then the 2-3 weeks cd period to clear you are not in a guild that needs you to have certain abilities. Then just swap back for the rest of the patch for whatever else you do.

Swap what?
M+
St/AOE fight raid bosses
How are you gonna swap for all these?

And noone talked about not being able to clear without them
We are talking about it being a bad game design for limiting and hurting gameplay.

[Hctaz]

Should we have a flexible system where people get to experience ALL content (not 25% of the content), have the ability to create different play-styles with 12 soulbinds and 8 unique abilities OR should people be limited to 25% of the content and create more and more player segregation?

I like you idea, but I want to comment on it in the other direction as well. You pointed out the negativity of having a rigid system locking you into only 25% of the content. This isn't inherently bad, but it isn't the way retail is designed so it becomes bad.

If this system were put into Classic WoW (a game I very much enjoy and is the only reason I'm still subbed to WoW), I think it would fit in pretty well. The game is already relatively restrictive in terms of what spec you should be for certain aspects of the game. I dumped several thousand gold into reaching rank 12 on my warrior which was split between all of the different consumable items and the respecs I had to do to go back and forth between raid and pvp spec. If I was PvP only i wouldn't have needed to grind extra. All of the gold I dump into consumes for raiding would just be converted to PvP consumes, and I wouldn't need to respec. During the midst of this, several players who were pushing rank 12 actually were given the option to take a slightly less optimal raid spec in order to have a mixture of PvP and PvE to continue grinding with. There wasn't as much of a focus on being 100% optimal because the costs were clearly understood at all levels of play.

Covenants as they stand currently would be a great addition to Classic WoW honestly. I would actually like a system like that and I would even suggest you make it to where you cannot change Covenants at all if it were to exist in that version of the game.

Retail WoW isn't like Classic though. You can't put a restrictive system into a game designed so you can press a button and change your spec and build from PvE Raid to PvE dungeon/AoE to PvP Defensive to PvP offensive.. It doesn't make sense. They've spent every expansion since MoP making every aspect of the game as easy to access as possible and are now creating an expansion specific restriction on how you can min/max your character. You really can't go back. The genie is out of the bottle as they say. Back in Classic-Wrath, I never touched PvP because the extra commitment was too much. I finally decided near the end of Wrath to make a separate character AND CLASS (I didn't even want to play the same Class in PvP lol) to uniquely PvP with. I started to PvP on my main in MoP when they made changing talents and specs easy, and I've continued to do PvP, M+, Raiding on mythic, etc. up until I quit at the end of Legion. You can't take that away from people once you give it to them. It doesn't make sense.


Overall, I agree with your point. I just wanted to go ahead and talk about the reason why Covenants being restrictive is a good thing but not for modern WoW.

[Vakir]

Hmmmm......

The difference is I actually explained why it was a slippery slope fallacy rather than using buzzwords.

Meanwhile, the only way this can be taken as that is if you ignore all the evidence of Blizzard doing this deliberately and the financial ramifications for them.

You're complaining about things that might happen after they were to make a change, I am doing so about things that are actually present right now, and problems they've historically made about ignoring feedback.

Actually try refuting an argument for a change.

[pewpmeiser]

covenants are not going to make or break the game. get over it.

[KrayZ33]

My issue is you set the bar at simply having an existing delay, and dont really bother with its substance, when said delay was intentionally and specifically implemented to prevent us to optimise diferent content to affect player psychology as well as create artificial value in bringing people to the raid (timmy has good aoe, jimmy has good ST)- that is the dev words.

Wowowow, hold up a sec here, because that's not true at all.

I did bother with it's "substance". The only reason there is a delay at all in my eyes is so people who oppose the feature have something to fall back to.
And even from a role playing perspective (role playing - as in RPG - that doesn't mean I have to be on a Role Play Server, just to point that out in general)
it makes sense, because not having any option at all limits your "role-playing" too.

For example, my character can decide to leave it's "holy order" (I'm using a generic example) to join the "dark side", or maybe even redeem himself as he found out that he worked for the wrong side all along and he was tricked etc.

And the value is not artificial at all, because just like you decided to take the Hunter Set instead of the Mage Set, to put it in words Ion used, you will decide to take set A over B and have different points of strengths and weaknesses you can't overcome just like that, because again - my character is supposed to have weaknesses and strengths and while my class AND spec already sets those towards a specific direction, there are ways to specialize further. And this covenant specialization is story focused and not something you picked as soon as you chose your class.
You evolve your character to a specific point. You've noticed that your damage against X is low, and you've heard about and seen (since you get a "taste" of it while leveling) the powers of the Necrolords who have ways to work around that.
Etc. etc.

This is a simple and rather typical RPG "mechanic" or.. "feature" (not sure if you call these things mechanics)

You also dont seem to direct your complaints to the horrible wow storytelling, and accept anything that is not a respec button, and accept all the shit it brings.
I am sorry for being inexcusably toxic. I am trying too hard to convince you your standards are too low- because i believe it and because i think its so painfully obvious you should see it too.
Also because the whole idea of having an artificial lock by the blizzard overlord rather than you rping it because it somehow breaks immersion. I think that shows flaw in character/roleplaying mentality. RP is something personal, but i do think one can say some ways of rping are ultimately shallow crutches.

I did direct my complaints there too, or rather, I adressed exactly that argument.
If I want things to change, I would obviously back features I think will help defining future story-telling methods that are to my liking.
And that doesn't mean I'm trying to back whatever they throw at me that could change, no, I genuinely believe it's a good thing and I agree with about every point Ion made in that interview.
I pointed out that I would go further, more "hardcore" and all that, but I can completely understand why they didn't and why people don't want that. There has to be a compromise, but if you just switch out stuff on the fly, there is no compromise towards what I believe is a defining RPG feature. You just lose the whole aspect of it. As the other poster pointed out. There are several features already in game that pleases the raiding crowd (of which I'm also a part of btw.) but there are pretty much none (anymore) that pleases the RPG crowd, with the exception of character creation.
And it being attached to "power" is also something important for RPG players. Because RPG isn't just about ERP in Gold Shire.
When I play Dragon Age or other titles, my power rises and the decisions and cults I join etc. define my character in combat in a specific way too.

This Covenant feature is one feature I want on top of even more layers.
My standards aren't low, I'm just not thinking "well - they won't go all the way anyway, so it just sucks"

It's a step in the right direction from my point of view. A step that can lead to good storytelling and a good RPG experience. If I shoot it down the moment they try it, I'm never going to see the horrible state of what WoW has become by now (from an RPG-perspective) change.

[Popokolara]

Wowowow, hold up a sec here, because that's not true at all.

I did bother with it's "substance". The only reason there is a delay at all in my eyes is so people who oppose the feature have something to fall back to.
And even from a role playing perspective (role playing - as in RPG - that doesn't mean I have to be on a Role Play Server, just to point that out in general)
it makes sense, because not having any option at all limits your "role-playing" too.

For example, my character can decide to leave it's "holy order" (I'm using a generic example) to join the "dark side", or maybe even redeem himself as he found out that he worked for the wrong side all along and he was tricked etc.

And the value is not artificial at all, because just like you decided to take the Hunter Set instead of the Mage Set, to put it in words Ion used, you will decide to take set A over B and have different points of strengths and weaknesses you can't overcome just like that, because again - my character is supposed to have weaknesses and strengths and while my class AND spec already sets those towards a specific direction, there are ways to specialize further. And this covenant specialization is story focused and not something you picked as soon as you chose your class.
You evolve your character to a specific point. You've noticed that your damage against X is low, and you've heard about and seen (since you get a "taste" of it while leveling) the powers of the Necrolords who have ways to work around that.
Etc. etc.

This is a simple and rather typical RPG "mechanic" or.. "feature" (not sure if you call these things mechanics)



I did direct my complaints there too, or rather, I adressed exactly that argument.
If I want things to change, I would obviously back features I think will help defining future story-telling methods that are to my liking.
And that doesn't mean I'm trying to back whatever they throw at me that could change, no, I genuinely believe it's a good thing and I agree with about every point Ion made in that interview.
I pointed out that I would go further, more "hardcore" and all that, but I can completely understand why they didn't and why people don't want that. There has to be a compromise, but if you just switch out stuff on the fly, there is no compromise towards what I believe is a defining RPG feature. You just lose the whole aspect of it. As the other poster pointed out. There are several features already in game that pleases the raiding crowd (of which I'm also a part of btw.) but there are pretty much none (anymore) that pleases the RPG crowd, with the exception of character creation.
And it being attached to "power" is also something important for RPG players. Because RPG isn't just about ERP in Gold Shire.
When I play Dragon Age or other titles, my power rises and the decisions and cults I join etc. define my character in combat in a specific way too.

This Covenant feature is one feature I want on top of even more layers.
My standards aren't low, I'm just not thinking "well - they won't go all the way anyway, so it just sucks"

It's a step in the right direction from my point of view. A step that can lead to good storytelling and a good RPG experience. If I shoot it down the moment they try it, I'm never going to see the horrible state of what WoW has become by now (from an RPG-perspective) change.

Do you believe the existence of mythic level difficulty and competitiveness on an mmorpg to be compatible with covenants locking you out for 2 weeks for example?

[KrayZ33]

Do you believe the existence of mythic level difficulty and competitiveness on an mmorpg to be compatible with covenants locking you out for 2 weeks for example?

Yes. *Especially* in MMORPGs.
Less so in FPS etc.

There are way too many factors that are far more impactful than Covenants when it comes to competitiveness in MMOs.
Class stacking (no matter the Covenant) or simply the amount of time you have available for example.

Mythic difficulty by itself is unaffected for sure, so I think you are strictly looking at the world first race, server first race etc.?

When I did my server firsts in BC and WotLK we didn't stack classes or specs either. We just went with people that were good enough and had enough time. Nearly no one in my guild had a good enough twink to be even considered for changing and we surely did not have the perfect amount of shamans to go along with us.
This is something that can work on Normal, HC and Mythic while all 3 difficulties exist at the same time.

So yeah, I don't know about the world first race, but I know that competitiveness in general won't just disappear like that. (no matter what content difficulty you do).

It works in other MMOs and games too.
It even worked in Ragnarok Online, which was a game where players and guilds had a serious disadvantage from level alone but still could do well in 1v1 PvP or in guild vs guild combat due to other factors. I'm just using that game to showcase that players were still competitive enough to do these things and that it doesn't just disappear simply because the scales aren't perfectly balanced.

The only thing that will or might change is the current mindset about how you have to clear mythic raids if you introduce enough systems like how Covenants work at this point in time.

[Popokolara]

Yes. *Especially* in MMORPGs.
Less so in FPS etc.

There are way too many factors that are far more impactful than Covenants when it comes to competitiveness in MMOs.
Class stacking or simply the amount of time you have available for example.

Mythic difficulty by itself is unaffected for sure, so I think you are strictly looking at the world first race, server first race etc.?

No. I know some people who just reached carapace. they bad players, thats just honesty. They will be affected as well. All these things count. They affect things no matter how bad a player. specially some of the utility.

I think it would be an immersive rpg choice if it was a permanent lock AND the lore supported it and a ballsy move.
You accept it as its as much as you know you are getting. The perception of immersiveness from being locked out of something is not something, i believe, to justify the afereffects on the raiding scene. These boss fight are tuned around a lot of pulls. The later bosses specially. I feel you want to apply single player rpg rules to a game that can ask between 70-400 pulls for the last few and harder bosses (depending on skill), and i can tell you, single player games which are less flexible do not plan for such an eventuality. This is not a single player game.
Players who try to optimise or just wanna be better for their teams which can include as much as 800 world rank guild? maybe more if they deserve better but want to help their less abled friends, are quite cucked by this situation.

Btw how impactful do you think covenants are going to be? abilities and soulbinds all together.
I liked wow rp when communities were around. Large scale events, storylines, a lot of nice details. Never has swaping talents bothered me as rp is not combat/mechanics, its what you do with the world which is frozen in time and only you move and cause things to exist with other players.
There are not a million other priests. I am the champion of azeroth according to cannon and i have some friends, 19 to be exact.

[Orwell7]

One question:
what is more probable?
1: someone plays REALLY GOOD, but does NOT min/max
2: someone plays average/bad, but DOES min/max?


2 is absolutely more probable, because if someone plays REALLY GOOD, they just automatically min/max, bc they want the BEST performance and for this, all things should be taken to account.

That's why covenants are a problem. There will be a LOT more bad players who just play "whatever" and not min/max, while the really good ones WILL min/max and get burned out a lot more faster.

We all want this game to thrive, right?

[Kumorii]

One question:
what is more probable?
1: someone plays REALLY GOOD, but does NOT min/max
2: someone plays average/bad, but DOES min/max?


2 is absolutely more probable, because if someone plays REALLY GOOD, they just automatically min/max, bc they want the BEST performance and for this, all things should be taken to account.

That's why covenants are a problem. There will be a LOT more bad players who just play "whatever" and not min/max, while the really good ones WILL min/max and get burned out a lot more faster.

We all want this game to thrive, right?

People who get burned out doesn't mean they are good or bad even... It only shows they care about min/maxing to a harmful degree for themselves. Dunning kruger effect is real, there are plenty of people who are bad who think that the only reason they lose is because they couldn't min/max due to unlucky drops or whatever. Honestly, I think it's more common that people who complain about min/max options aren't as good as they think and instead of focusing on improving their own play they complain about X/Y mechanic or lack of drops or whatever. Good players focuses more on improving their own shortcomings before min/max, obviously there is a natural overlap and you have to work on both.

Good players make the best of what they are dealt. Bad players complain they didn't get the right cards.