Page 33 of 37 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Because, presumably, it would be to test your ideas and improve them based on live reactions and beta feedback.
    Do a live stream to test people's reaction to things like Covenants? Seems a bit redundant, as they knew damn well what the reaction is.

    But anyway, back to the other thing. Imagine what would happen if they capped m+ at 15. Here, I'll help you out, because for some reason you aren't trying hard enough Take the Covenant instance buffs, for example. As is, it's pretty obvious those will be mandatory for groups pushing the highest levels, right? "Because every bit of DPS matters" - which, in this case, is actually true. And here you have it: the mere existence of things like infinite difficuly scaling creates this friction between player power vs RPG choices. Because out of sudden, if you cap m+ at 15, it's not "mandatory" anymore; it's maybe "quality of life". Sure, PUGs might still look for people with specific buffs to make it easier for themselves, but for organized groups, those buffs won't matter as much anymore. And then your m+ player doesn't have to sacrifice RPG for the ability to do highest end content.

    If you create cutting-edge content in your game, you pigeonhole yourself into a very narrow design path - and every time you stray away from this path, you willl have to endure the backlash of people doing said content. Yes, I do believe that Covenants is a min-maxer's problem; it's min-maxers creating this friction. But this happening is a natural reaction, and it's Blizzard to be blamed - for trying to cater to too many audiences at once (and very different audiences at that). That's the core problem of the game that maybe the influential youtubers fail to see, the problem that will haunt Blizzard for as long as this game exists. Covenants is just a tiny reflection of this problem.
    Last edited by Rageonit; 2020-09-13 at 06:54 AM.

  2. #642
    Don't tell me to do that, tell Blizzard.

  3. #643
    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    Do a live stream to test people's reaction to things like Covenants? Seems a bit redundant, as they knew damn well what the reaction is.

    But anyway, back to the other thing. Imagine what would happen if they capped m+ at 15. Here, I'll help you out, because for some reason you aren't trying hard enough Take the Covenant instance buffs, for example. As is, it's pretty obvious those will be mandatory for groups pushing the highest levels, right? "Because every bit of DPS matters" - which, in this case, is actually true. And here you have it: the mere existence of things like infinite difficuly scaling creates this friction between player power vs RPG choices. Because out of sudden, if you cap m+ at 15, it's not "mandatory" anymore; it's maybe "quality of life". Sure, PUGs might still look for people with specific buffs to make it easier for themselves, but for organized groups, those buffs won't matter as much anymore. And then your m+ player doesn't have to sacrifice RPG for the ability to do highest end content.

    Sigh..... You REALLY need to stop assuming that a player's desire to Min-Max is somehow not an element of RPGs. Min-maxing has been a part of RPGs since the first pen and paper tabletop game. Trying to take that and cut it out of the game is never going to work. Twisting and contorting the game to avoid players wanting to do it isn't going to work.

    You could cap M+ at 15 and this wouldn't change. Players would simply shift to speed running it as fast as possible, and would still min-max to accomplish that. What you need to understand is that many players WANT to min-max. That's part of the enjoyment of the game. Trying to force them into a different kind of fun is just doomed to failure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    If you create cutting-edge content in your game, you pigeonhole yourself into a very narrow design path - and every time you stray away from this path, you willl have to endure the backlash of people doing said content. Yes, I do believe that Covenants is a min-maxer's problem; it's min-maxers creating this friction.
    The "friction" is created by Blizzard trying to throw up arbitrary and completely unnecessary barriers to the fun of people who want to play that way. And doing it by unnecessarily tying a lore/roleplay reason to a mechanical game system. And also by trying to force a temporary borrowed-power into a "meaningful" choice.

    Have I said "unnecessary" enough times? Is the key point getting through yet?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    But this happening is a natural reaction, and it's Blizzard to be blamed - for trying to cater to too many audiences at once (and very different audiences at that).
    It's not that they're trying to cater to too many audiences at once. It's that they're adjusting the game for all audiences based on the desires of only one.

  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    You could cap M+ at 15 and this wouldn't change. Players would simply shift to speed running it as fast as possible, and would still min-max to accomplish that. What you need to understand is that many players WANT to min-max. That's part of the enjoyment of the game. Trying to force them into a different kind of fun is just doomed to failure.
    The min-maxing exists within the game parameters and rules. Covenants soft-lock does not somehow prevent this minmaxing, rules changed a bit, but overall it's all the same.

    Whether it's "doomed to fail" remains to be seen. It's all down to whether Blizzard will stick to their guns or cave.

  5. #645
    To infinity and beyond det's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The forums
    Posts
    35,717
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post

    If a professional in the business of air quality and particulates tells you that your mask design has a lot of flaws with it that will make it less effective, do you listen to that guy, or do you listen to the rando off the street who says that just putting your T-shirt over your nose is going to work just fine?

    Yes, I get it: The WoW playerbase is massively diverse, and the game caters to a LOT of different playstyles. But when it comes down to who Blizzard should listen to, maybe it should be the players who play it for a literal living, and spent dozens of hours every week on their Beta and PTS servers, and not the guy who uses "Hexweave bag crafting casual" as his credentials(unless, of course, the question is about hexweave bags).
    Well...this goes around in circles. Apparently these people who know better than Blizzard are out there. Blizzard knows about them (there is no way they don't). And apparently they "don't listen". For whatever reason.

  6. #646
    Herald of the Titans msdos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    2,673
    I don't see them nerfing the Abom Limb, I'd have to actually play with it first.

    I like how Necrolord scales and synergizes with BDK. In the beginning, it'll be easier to increase stamina due to raw ilvl and BDK has access to quite a few stam modifiers. I wanna run Foul Bulwark, Gargoyle rune, Tombstone, with house Emeni you get more hp when you use Fleshcraft, then run Red Thirst. I'll never have to worry about dying on big pulls or bosses because I'll always have an oh shit button ready to go. I'll also never have to respec because the build will work on Fort and Ty, truly the lazy man's build.

  7. #647
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Argus the unmaker was an expansion launch raid boss, huh?

    Again, you're avoiding the context, or misunderstanding it. That was an x.3 patch boss when all the systems were well ironed out.
    And yet people came in with scuffed shit alts that barely had leggos on them, forgot gems and enchants and we still killed it first week.
    The only thing that was different from usual pug was that we were on discord.

  8. #648
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Sigh..... You REALLY need to stop assuming that a player's desire to Min-Max is somehow not an element of RPGs. Min-maxing has been a part of RPGs since the first pen and paper tabletop game. Trying to take that and cut it out of the game is never going to work. Twisting and contorting the game to avoid players wanting to do it isn't going to work.
    Not sure where you get the impression that if I don't think everything should be open to min-maxing, I somehow debunk the concept at large. Yeah, I too min-max to an extent, every player does. I just don't think it's a healthy situation for the game when picking this or that spec (or covenant ability) prevents you from completing part of the content. And because balance can never be achieved (and players shouldn't be forced into strict paths of character development, especially in a game with RPG elements), it's easier to go away with the problematic content.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    It's that they're adjusting the game for all audiences based on the desires of only one.
    How would adjusting the game based on your desires change it?
    Yeah, yeah I know. "But doing it the way we want wouldn't even affect them!"
    Last edited by Rageonit; 2020-09-13 at 09:40 AM.

  9. #649
    I read the hole thread and i just want to ask, what would be the problem to seperate the abilities from the hole RP covenant elements.

    Wouldnt that just please the minority 1/3/5% and wouldnt bother the majority 70/90/95% who doesnt care anyway?! I dont get it.

    Seperate the abilities and let us switch conduits without timegate and we can have fun with different specs in different content without limitations. (Ofc some kind of grind for leveling the conduits, different specs ...)

    It is still a meaningful choice cause of story, quests, transmog and other stuff..

    The majority can still enjoy every aspect and isnt bothered by that system in any way. Or if so i would like to know why.

  10. #650
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    The min-maxing exists within the game parameters and rules. Covenants soft-lock does not somehow prevent this minmaxing, rules changed a bit, but overall it's all the same.

    Whether it's "doomed to fail" remains to be seen. It's all down to whether Blizzard will stick to their guns or cave.
    The argument has never been that it prevents min-maxing. Only that it makes it needlessly annoying.

  11. #651
    Quote Originally Posted by Deckzor View Post
    It is still a meaningful choice cause of story, quests, transmog and other stuff..
    Why won't you let those people decide for themselves what's meaningful choice? Can you accept the notion that for them "meaningful choice" may mean something completely different than it does to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deckzor View Post
    The majority can still enjoy every aspect and isnt bothered by that system in any way. Or if so i would like to know why.
    There are probably thousand of posts on this topic here on MMO Champion. If you still don't know, I don't think there's any point in repeating it.

  12. #652
    Quote Originally Posted by det View Post
    Well...this goes around in circles. Apparently these people who know better than Blizzard are out there. Blizzard knows about them (there is no way they don't). And apparently they "don't listen". For whatever reason.
    I only mean to say that these players are qualified to identify serious flaws in the design, largely because they're more in tune with the PLAYER side of things instead of the echo-chamber developer side.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    I just don't think it's a healthy situation for the game when picking this or that spec (or covenant ability) prevents you from completing part of the content.
    Um...it doesn't?

    Intentionally picking a sub-optimal spec might result in it being harder to quickly find a PUG, but it won't prevent you from completing the content. The age old rule of "Form your own group" still works. Find a guild that's not as picky. Spend enough time in the LFG tool and eventually you'll find a group that doesn't care.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    How would adjusting the game based on your desires change it?
    Yeah, yeah I know. "But doing it the way we want wouldn't even affect them!"
    Don't misconstrue me arguing in favor of player choice as me arguing for my personal playstyle. I'd like to think I'm more objective than that. Especially considering that I pretty firmly fall into the range of "casual" these days due to work and other real life factors.

    I simply don't believe that players should have the option to min-max taken away from them because some other group of players doesn't want to deal with the consequences of valuing style over effectiveness, or because Blizzard can't handle balancing things close enough so that all covenant choices are good.

  13. #653
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Um...it doesn't?
    Intentionally picking a sub-optimal spec might result in it being harder to quickly find a PUG, but it won't prevent you from completing the content. The age old rule of "Form your own group" still works. Find a guild that's not as picky. Spend enough time in the LFG tool and eventually you'll find a group that doesn't care.
    Yes, exactly! That's how it works in heroic raiding, in m+ in the ~15 bracket. And that's why I already said: heroic guilds will not be affected by covenants, contraty to what @Baconeggcheese was claiming.
    But I'm not arguing Blizzard should go away with heroic raids or m+15, am I. I'm arguing for going away with, for example, infinite m+ scaling. Because there are certain specs (numoerous ones, actually) that will be unable to finish a 30+ run. For some, it may mean that they are not able to complete all of the content the game has to offer. Why not get rid of it? It creates friction ("Why I'm not meta! Buff me! Give me swappable abilities so I can stay relevant in raids and still complete highest keys!").



    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Don't misconstrue me arguing in favor of player choice as me arguing for my personal playstyle.
    Don't misconstrue me arguing in favor of more class identity as me arguing for my personal playstyle. I actually love to min-max!

  14. #654
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo of Soul View Post
    You don't understand RPGs do you? Building your character (player power) is one of the core parts of the genre. Cosmetic crap isn't.
    You do know what "R" in "RPG" stands for, right?

  15. #655
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    The argument has never been that it prevents min-maxing. Only that it makes it needlessly annoying.
    Minmaxing should not be easy though. If it was then everyone would be doing it and the content would have to be tuned appropiately, shutting out more of those who do not enjoy it.
    Minmaxing has always been the speciality and boon gives to those who want to put in the effort and time to make it happen, not to those who wants to be given the optimal performance on a silver platter.

    In Shadowlands Minmaxing will now mean either: A. Choosing the covenant best at the majority of the content you do, changing occasionally. Or B. Painstakingly keeping up with 4 alts to be optimal in every situation.

    Again, if you make minmaxing easy, then what is the point? It would be like making mount drops extremely high, or making reaching max PvP rank extremely fast. The challenge lies in rising above the limitations set in place by the game, if you want the game to cater to you by making it easy then what is the point?

  16. #656
    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    Yes, exactly! That's how it works in heroic raiding, in m+ in the ~15 bracket. And that's why I already said: heroic guilds will not be affected by covenants, contraty to what @Baconeggcheese was claiming.
    I think it's important to distinguish between "not be affected" and "to what degree they're affected".

    Not all heroic guilds are the same. Some are tryhard and will want to min-max as much as possible. Others will rely more heavily on proper execution of fight mechanics. Some will just derp around until they overpower the fight.

    As I said before: Enforcing one rule to fit them all is a bad plan. And that's what blizzard seems intent on doing, even if it doesn't need to be done.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    But I'm not arguing Blizzard should go away with heroic raids or m+15, am I. I'm arguing for going away with, for example, infinite m+ scaling. Because there are certain specs (numoerous ones, actually) that will be unable to finish a 30+ run. For some, it may mean that they are not able to complete all of the content the game has to offer. Why not get rid of it? It creates friction ("Why I'm not meta! Buff me! Give me swappable abilities so I can stay relevant in raids and still complete highest keys!").
    Isn't choosing a class that's capable of operating more effectively at the extremes of the game also a "meaningful choice"? The problem you described is one created by Blizzard's inability to successfully balance all classes and specs. They're the ones creating situations where some specs simply can't perform, not the players.

    However, I think one of the few good things Blizzard is doing in Shadowlands is to make it far easier to play alts. If being able to clear the highest difficulty content the game has to offer is important to a player, then it should not be too onerous to switch to another character.

    And maybe that's the solution that the min-maxers will end up using: Simply maintaining more than one character in order to have an optimal choice in any given circumstance. That seems excessive to me, but even Preach and his bro said that it's fairly standard practice in their guild(which is a mythic raiding guild). Still, it's an example of how no matter what Blizzard does with covenant ability swapping, players will find a way around it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    Don't misconstrue me arguing in favor of more class identity as me arguing for my personal playstyle. I actually love to min-max!
    I'm in favor of more class identity. However, Covenants abilities are not that. They're just another in a long line of rental powers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sondrelk View Post
    Minmaxing should not be easy though. If it was then everyone would be doing it and the content would have to be tuned appropiately, shutting out more of those who do not enjoy it.
    Minmaxing has always been the speciality and boon gives to those who want to put in the effort and time to make it happen, not to those who wants to be given the optimal performance on a silver platter.

    In Shadowlands Minmaxing will now mean either: A. Choosing the covenant best at the majority of the content you do, changing occasionally. Or B. Painstakingly keeping up with 4 alts to be optimal in every situation.

    Again, if you make minmaxing easy, then what is the point? It would be like making mount drops extremely high, or making reaching max PvP rank extremely fast. The challenge lies in rising above the limitations set in place by the game, if you want the game to cater to you by making it easy then what is the point?

    Covenants are not permanent sub-classes. They aren't a permanent 4th spec. They're basically not much more than an additional talent row with an associated ability and some sockets.

    Things like talent choices and gemming/enchants are an important part of a character, and can have a significant impact. But they're not AS important as a spec or class choice. But Blizzard is trying to act as though they're the latter instead of the former.

    But perhaps you think talents and gemming/enchanting should also be semi-permanent things that you can only change once every two weeks?

  17. #657
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Covenants are not permanent sub-classes. They aren't a permanent 4th spec. They're basically not much more than an additional talent row with an associated ability and some sockets.

    Things like talent choices and gemming/enchants are an important part of a character, and can have a significant impact. But they're not AS important as a spec or class choice. But Blizzard is trying to act as though they're the latter instead of the former.

    But perhaps you think talents and gemming/enchanting should also be semi-permanent things that you can only change once every two weeks?
    What I want is for meaningful choice to be a thing in WoW again, making talent choices and spec changes doable at the drop of a hat is what has led us to the current state of the game where tiny discrepancies in efficiency alters the meta for almost the entire playerbase.

    Besides, if this is an almost meaningless choice then who cares if it is difficult to change? You cannot both complain about the choice barely mattering as well as complaining about how terribly nerfed you will be if you don't choose the optimal one.

    The game could be more of an RPG with a diverse amount of playstyles and players, but making minmaxing easy is not what is going to accomplish that.

  18. #658
    Quote Originally Posted by oblakoff View Post
    You do know what "R" in "RPG" stands for, right?
    And you know what the "G" stands for? Minmaxers seem to ignore that part and advocate for the covenant system to only adhere to the first two letters.

  19. #659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sondrelk View Post
    What I want is for meaningful choice to be a thing in WoW again, making talent choices and spec changes doable at the drop of a hat is what has led us to the current state of the game where tiny discrepancies in efficiency alters the meta for almost the entire playerbase.

    Besides, if this is an almost meaningless choice then who cares if it is difficult to change? You cannot both complain about the choice barely mattering as well as complaining about how terribly nerfed you will be if you don't choose the optimal one.

    The game could be more of an RPG with a diverse amount of playstyles and players, but making minmaxing easy is not what is going to accomplish that.
    The problem is one of disparity of risk vs reward. If a choice is going to have consequences, then the rewards for it have to be in line with the magnitude or severity of that choice.

    Swapping talents used to be a simple gold cost at a trainer that you could do as often as you could afford. THAT'S the magnitude that covenant abilities are at, not some two week long investment.

    I'm all for adding more significant things to the game. But I am NOT in favor of making small things have costs or consequences far beyond their actual value simply for the sake of creating a purely artificial sense of meaning.

  20. #660
    Quote Originally Posted by Sondrelk View Post
    In Shadowlands Minmaxing will now mean either: A. Choosing the covenant best at the majority of the content you do, changing occasionally. Or B. Painstakingly keeping up with 4 alts to be optimal in every situation.
    You have to remember though that gear will be much harder to come by in shadowlands. You could end up with 4 alts with really crappy gear meaning you won't even be viable for any situation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    As I said before: Enforcing one rule to fit them all is a bad plan. And that's what blizzard seems intent on doing, even if it doesn't need to be done.
    That's true regardless of what route they go. It doesn't matter how they design something, it will enforce one rule to fit them all.

Posting Permissions

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