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

[Rayzen17]

Because it was never about me being better by limiting other peoples options, it was about me playing to my strengths and doing the best I could do in that situation. And those options are being taken away from me, I'm losing agency and the game is becoming more shallow.

My gameplay is being limited with this sytem.

So under perform in all situations vs performing to my strengths in one?

The only way this works out is if everything is so close that there is no meaningful difference between choices.


Then what's the point?

They can't be both a meaningful choice and also not have much of an impact.

All this is about is that they think this closes the gap between someone who optimizes and someone who only makes aesthetic choices.
Having a sub-optimal covenant in other areas than your chosen one will bring you down a bit... but not enough that it would actually matter when compared to "meaningful choice" and "muh RPG " players as their choices and performance are on average.. below standard.

[KrayZ33]

Because it was never about me being better by limiting other peoples options, it was about me playing to my strengths and doing the best I could do in that situation. And those options are being taken away from me, I'm losing agency and the game is becoming more shallow.

My gameplay is being limited with this sytem.

well okay... but it's not like you can't do the best in that situation or can't make the best choices available to you since the talent system still exists. Nothing is really taken away from you either, because.. you didn't have it in the first place after all.

You just get to add one thing for the rest of the expansion. (well, maybe more, who knows what they are planning along the way)
You add a thing, you don't lose 2 things you previously had because they enforced a system/skill on you you didn't want.

I think what you meant is that you'd rather have more things to play with and choose from at all times, like... more talents!
I think I'd love that on top of the chosen covenant too.

So under perform in all situations vs performing to my strengths in one?

The only way this works out is if everything is so close that there is no meaningful difference between choices.

I don't think that leads to underperforming because usually a fight or encounter is not just "1 thing"
And who are you comparing yourself to when you say "underperform", the one who has the best setup?

Then what's the point?

They can't be both a meaningful choice and also not have much of an impact.

Of course they can, not much =/= no impact. And you can advance and progress in a certain field.
Baby steps.
I don't believe that covenants resolves the "meaningful choice" issue by itself alone. But stuff like that could add up - and they'd also balance each other out.
In older games, where statpoints could be allocated and switching out impossible for example, it often turned out that a more balanced setup is the overall "winner build".
If there are multiple ways to achieve that in WoW, that would be great.

I'm pretty sure however that we are going to see something different in the next expansion. So it will never add up to much.. but who knows.

[Baconeggcheese]

I don't think that leads to underperforming because usually a fight or encounter is not just "1 thing"

So as with my original example you replied to, you bring X spec because you need Y.

You brought destruction to a fight when you needed on demand burst, you brought demonology when you needed high mobility, etc etc. If you're not bringing what the fight calls for, you're just screwed in this situation and you don't have many options to play to strengths or shore up weaknesses since you're locked into both a spec and a covenant.

And who are you comparing yourself to when you say "underperform", the one who has the best setup?

Whichever one you prefer, what you could potentially be doing if you picked differently, another player of the same class with a better setup, another player of a different class that performs in that area better where you're invested in trying to shore up, etc etc.

Edit: I'ma come back in a bit to let you finish editing lol.

[KrayZ33]

Edit: I'ma come back in a bit to let you finish editing lol.

Sorry!

I'm done now. That's just me.

[Omedon]

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

Boom. Exactly.

As I often say on this topic: the real "pros" will make whatever configuration the game ends up with sing for them like a well tuned instrument. I'm not one of those players, and I can easily admit that, and I think a lot more people could use some honestly with themselves as to where they sit in the pecking order, and adjust their "rage" accordingly. I can admit that I'm a casual with a level of ambition that fits my skill level, or at least a reasonable, economic effort level for the game. There are a lot of people that need to really look in the mirror and find this honesty for themselves. Speaking for me, reaching that honesty was when the game got a lot more relaxed and enjoyable, and part of the reason I start threads like this is to help people, even if it's just one more person, reach that epiphany of "you know what? The gear of X ilvl is going to be far more accessible next tier (from WQs and/or timewalking vendors), just do the ground level grind, relax and enjoy."

(To be clear, the "ground level grind" doesn't include anything formed in manual LFG with total strangers, at least not ones with "expectations" and "dot eye oh" levels of give-a-damn)

[Kralljin]

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

Okay.
Tried that in 8.0 as Elemental - didn't work.

And i've kept those bad cards since Classic.
There comes a point where you can't beat math, if you play something that's subpar, you are only equal / superior if your competitors play at a lower skill level.

[Krakan]

Boom. Exactly.

As I often say on this topic: the real "pros" will make whatever configuration the game ends up with sing for them like a well tuned instrument. I'm not one of those players, and I can easily admit that, and I think a lot more people could use some honestly with themselves as to where they sit in the pecking order, and adjust their "rage" accordingly. I can admit that I'm a casual with a level of ambition that fits my skill level, or at least a reasonable, economic effort level for the game. There are a lot of people that need to really look in the mirror and find this honesty for themselves. Speaking for me, reaching that honesty was when the game got a lot more relaxed and enjoyable, and part of the reason I start threads like this is to help people, even if it's just one more person, reach that epiphany of "you know what? The gear of X ilvl is going to be far more accessible next tier (from WQs and/or timewalking vendors), just do the ground level grind, relax and enjoy."

(To be clear, the "ground level grind" doesn't include anything formed in manual LFG with total strangers, at least not ones with "expectations" and "dot eye oh" levels of give-a-damn)

I mean I've cleared ce or its equivalent for over a decade and I still find all the wacky alternative progression and grind till your eye bleed systems dull and trash tier.

I get accepting that things won't change but you should grumble about it at the very least.

[Kumorii]

Okay.
Tried that in 8.0 as Elemental - didn't work.

And i've kept those bad cards since Classic.
There comes a point where you can't beat math, if you play something that's subpar, you are only equal / superior if your competitors play at a lower skill level.

Okay.
I also said this in the sentence right before the one you quoted.
"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."

So I mean, I guess we agree then?

[Kralljin]

So I mean, I guess we agree then?

No, not really.

Because what you're saying is outright contradictory.

Good players focuses more on improving their own shortcomings before min/max

"Fixing shortcomings" very much fits the definition of min/maxing.

Your comment above is just a Meta statement "good players will be good, bad players will be bad", not really saying anything or adding any new point of view to the discussion.

[Omedon]

I get accepting that things won't change but you should grumble about it at the very least.

Oh I have certainly done my share of grumbling and then some over the course of BFA, just not on this point.

[Kumorii]

No, not really.

Because what you're saying is outright contradictory.

"Fixing shortcomings" very much fits the definition of min/maxing.

Your comment above is just a Meta statement "good players will be good, bad players will be bad", not really saying anything or adding any new point of view to the discussion.

Within the context of the discussion being about min/maxers and covenants I just presumed that you would get the connection that min/max would be about the character power such as talents, gear and covenents while improving as a player and fixing shortcomings would be about player skill and performance about how you play the character in question.

Others seems to have got it, but now it's made more clear. So hopefully you can understand the post better now.

[Krakan]

Oh I have certainly done my share of grumbling and then some over the course of BFA, just not on this point.

I just want my ce and glad mount on the same toon but it looks unlikely in sl.

[Omedon]

I just want my ce and glad mount on the same toon but it looks unlikely in sl.

Good thing mounts are account wide! Even the gladiator mounts now (or at least soon)! Coincidence? I think not!

[Zyky]

As is the case with classes. Where's the petition to make classes swapable when your pick doesn't cut the cookies for you chosen content?

There's a huge difference between a class/toon that you have to invest a ton of time into and a singular ability within that class that you can only have 1 out of 4 options of.

[docterfreeze]

I agree with WoW's 1% on a lot of things especially class design. In this case however, giving them what they want would mean less fun for everyone else. Cookie cutter builds are boring. Swapping builds for every scenario is not choice. I am looking forward to the specialized and personalized builds players come up with for their spec in PvP. I only wish that there were even more choices.

[Krakan]

Good thing mounts are account wide! Even the gladiator mounts now (or at least soon)! Coincidence? I think not!

I guess I just don't want to gear both.. will have to see I'm not a huge fan of the spider mounts unless they fly so might end up passing. Unless we skip on sales.

[qwerty123456]

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.

LOL you provided no evidence and then link an Article about How yes instant swaps are bad because it trickles down and so billy bob starts demanding everyone uses X in his normal pug or he boots people. Does it effect non instant shit too? Yes. but when it does Blizzard and everyone else can then see how imbalanced it is and then change it. If only one geared the fuck out Demon Hunter makes it into mythic raiding or what ever its alot easier for us to notice than it is to notice that only 1% of players use shining sun talent and when they do its only for one fight. Since it's instant swaps Blizzard doesn't really need to balance the talents because everyone can use a better option. But if demonhunters were so ass that only 2% of players play them and once they hit endgame most switch toons Blizzard has to get on that shit and try and buff em.

You go off on a conspiracy theory with shit like "When you're dealing with a mega-corporation that benefits from player engagement statistics, the push and pull of a "game as a service" becomes an inextricable war with a company that is not your friends and does not view you as an individual, but as a dollar sign." I actually mentioned several times where Blizzard caved to people bitching, while you haven't given a single amount of evidence to your theories. And the one "gotcha" you did actually proves my point and not yours.

Everyone but like China I think uses a sub. Hows a 2 week lock going to effect a sub? You really think millions of players are going to see they have one week left on their sub and buy another month so they can switch then log? And if you are talking about short term player engagement(daily logins) you seriously think if a player wasn't already logging in daily for world quests, adventures, farming, content to get weekly chest, etc... that they would suddenly be logging in daily because they "need" to switch covenants? Oh and they are updating the companion app for adventures meaning you don't even have to log in if you don't want to. That sure sounds like a trick big evil Blizzard would do to force you to log in.

If you seriously think Blizzard is just trying to scam everyone with the 2 week swap then quit the game and when it asks why you are quitting tell them. Personally I have spent less on Wow subbing since day one of vanilla, buying some race changes, transferring my brothers characters to his own account, buying wow tokens for quick gold, etc... Than I have on a single mobile game in a year or fortnite in a couple years. So while they may have done shit I don't like imo they are far from the big evil megacorp that you are claiming them to be.

[Baconeggcheese]

well okay... but it's not like you can't do the best in that situation or can't make the best choices available to you since the talent system still exists. Nothing is really taken away from you either, because.. you didn't have it in the first place after all.

You just get to add one thing for the rest of the expansion. (well, maybe more, who knows what they are planning along the way)
You add a thing, you don't lose 2 things you previously had because they enforced a system/skill on you you didn't want.

I don't understand this logic at all, I had 3 specs I could freely swap between, and 3 sets of talents I could freely swap between. Starting in legion they put systems in that prevented me from swapping specs without massive penalties, and now they're adding more systems that are effectively new talent rows that I have to lock into.

They are absolutely taking away agency that I absolutely did have in the first place.

Even if you look at covenants in their own isolation, there are multiple systems within a single choice. You could have the freedom to make all sorts of different choices across these systems, but instead they made it so we have to choose everything under a single umbrella. They're limiting our choices and our agency.

I think what you meant is that you'd rather have more things to play with and choose from at all times, like... more talents!
I think I'd love that on top of the chosen covenant too.

I want to be able to play my class again instead of my spec, and I'd like these systems to give players more agency instead of limiting it.

I'm debating what class I want to play right now because I absolutely hate what they did with mine over the last 2 xpacs and SL does nothing to remedy that. One of the hardest decisions I'm having is picking a class that only has 1 dps spec vs 2-3. My favorite one at the moment is one that only has 1 dps spec, but I'm having a hard time committing to potentially playing a single spec the entire xpac. While I'm enjoying it now I'm not sure I'll enjoy it as much a year from now...

That same feeling extends to covenants which are basically choosing a few talents that I'll be locked into unless I want to re-progress.

Of course they can, not much =/= no impact.

Picking between different races has very little impact on your overall performance, and therefore isn't a super meaningful choice as far as your performance is concerned. This was done intentionally to let people play what they want while still having some flavor.

If covenants had as little impact as something as races then they aren't a meaningful or weighty choice because you can't make a wrong one as it'll have a negligible amount of impact on your performance. That clearly isn't the case or what they're going for with this.

I don't believe that covenants resolves the "meaningful choice" issue by itself alone.

Blizzards words are covenants are meant to be a "weighty choice". So that is their intention.

In older games, where statpoints could be allocated and switching out impossible for example, it often turned out that a more balanced setup is the overall "winner build".
If there are multiple ways to achieve that in WoW, that would be great.

Not sure which games, usually you get certain stats up enough to meet requirements and then you dump stat into whatever is the most effective.

And often in those games it was really trivial to make a new character and then transfer over all your gear or what have you if you did screw up. The barrier was a couple hours.

I'm pretty sure however that we are going to see something different in the next expansion. So it will never add up to much.. but who knows.

Not sure what this means, but yes the entire point of the design overhaul since legion is that they have a very shallow base to work off of and then add new systems every xpac to give us something "new" that won't carry over to the next xpac to solve the bloat problem.

Boom. Exactly.

As I often say on this topic: the real "pros" will make whatever configuration the game ends up with sing for them like a well tuned instrument.

I was raiding in a US top 10 guild for 6+ years, think we peaked at world 24th with our only goal being to be top 10 US... not sure if that's "pro" enough for you...

Just because we'll min-max whatever system is thrown at us doesn't mean we enjoy said system. I know its this weird concept for people who don't play competitively but people who do play competitively care about more than just the highest possible performance. We'll sacrifice other things we care about for that performance, but that doesn't mean we're happy about it and don't think it could be designed better.

[StrawberryZebra]

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.

What you're talking about here isn't a meaningful choice. It's having consequences to making a choice. For a choice to have meaning it has to be assigned that by the player. The consequences to that are expressed by the game.

It's probably best to give an example here. Have you played Mass Effect? I'm going to assume yes, but just in case there are minor spoilers ahead.

There is a part in the first game where you are asked to choose between which of your party members you would like to save, with the other one dying.

The meaningful part of that decision can be anything the player wants it to be. They could have an emotional investment in both characters and having to choose is a highly charged moment. It could be for role play reasons, or they may be in a, in-game relationship with one of the characters.

There are also plenty of reasons it may not be a meaningful decison. It could be pragmatic considerations, where one party member is more useful to the player than the other. Due to the story setup, one of those choices leads to an early encounter with the games villain, and perhaps players are wanting to just go shoot the bad guy. Maybe one of the characters are annoying and whiny and the player is choosing NOT to save them. Hell it could even be a completely whimsical decision made based on the colour of each characters armour.

Regardless of what the reasoning behind the decision the meaningful part is applied entirely by the player, not by the game.

The consequences of that decision are not having one of those characters available for the rest of the game and it's sequels. That locks you out of conversations with them, mission options that rely on having them in the active party, as well as character related romances and subplots. You are not restricted from any in game content, powers and such. The story itself is largely unaffected and will continue on with minor dialog changes no matter which character you choose to save.

Those are applied entirely by the game, not the player.

How does this relate to WoW Covenants then?

The meaningful part of this decision can, again, be for any reason the player chooses to asign to it. Be they Role Play reasons, liking the characters and story or because their friends are all in the same one for group content. It could also be for completly meaningless reasons, like going with Kyrian because blue is their favourite colour or they've picked one at random. It's not up to Blizzard to decide the rationale their players use to decide which one to go with.

The direct consequences of that decision are being locked out of content related to the other factions. Being unable to use the abilities associated with the other covenants, and being unable to use the soulbinds related to other covenants. Indirectly, those consequences could also be exclusion from the content you want to participate in or being forced to switch covenants and setting back your progress.

But it goes beyond this too. If players are opting in to a covenant for one part of it, such as the abilities, but then dislike the content they've now got access too. If players are opting out of the 3 other covenants and are picking the least objectionable choice then the idea of it being a meaningful choice is highly questionable.

What about the option no one is talking about - Not choosing a covenant at all. If you're clamouring for a "meaningful" choice surely this would be the most significant one of all. Choosing to reject the system entirely, either because you don't strongly identify with any of the covenants, are paralysed by the idea of having to decide or perhaps even as a means of protest, saying to Blizzard "This system sucks and I don't want to participate in it".

Those players suffer ALL of the consequences of not being in a Covenant and recieve no benefts for it at all.

Players who don't choose to assign any meaning to the decision are instead being asked to pick between which set of consequences they find the least objectionable. Not everybody will be making a meaningful choice, for some its going to be a cold, hard calculation. This is why players are unhappy with Covenants. They're being asked to choose which of them is least bad and that always leaves a bitter taste. Only the people who opt in to a meaningful choice are getting one, and are still stuck with the consequences no matter what. Nobody wins in this situation.

But I get the feeling I'm going at this the wrong way, so let me instead ask you; Who benefits from the Covenant system? Which player groups do Covenants actively improve the gameplay experience for, and which problems are they solving for those groups?

From my point of view, Covenants only offer restrictions to gameplay. That's Blizzard directly limiting my play experience. I'd be interested to see what they look like from another point of view.

[qwerty123456]

Those players suffer ALL of the consequences of not being in a Covenant and recieve no benefts for it at all.

Players who don't choose to assign any meaning to the decision are instead being asked to pick between which set of consequences they find the least objectionable. Not everybody will be making a meaningful choice, for some its going to be a cold, hard calculation. This is why players are unhappy with Covenants. They're being asked to choose which of them is least bad and that always leaves a bitter taste. Only the people who opt in to a meaningful choice are getting one, and are still stuck with the consequences no matter what. Nobody wins in this situation.

But I get the feeling I'm going at this the wrong way, so let me instead ask you; Who benefits from the Covenant system? Which player groups do Covenants actively improve the gameplay experience for, and which problems are they solving for those groups?

From my point of view, Covenants only offer restrictions to gameplay. That's Blizzard directly limiting my play experience. I'd be interested to see what they look like from another point of view.

Everyone benefits with covenants not being instant swaps.

Tim's guild gets to realize that the only reason they were able to do mythic raids was because they only ever used what was op. They then can either suck it up and switch to heroic or they can actually try to improve and not rely so much on Blizzard poor balancing skills.

Bill and his guild get to show that they are better players than Tim's guild as they are still quite capable of clearing mythic raids.

James gets to know his actions have consequences.

Blizzard gets to see whether or not they need to nerf certain content so its not just people exploiting poor balance achieving things.

ETc....