Page 34 of 37 FirstFirst ...
24
32
33
34
35
36
... LastLast
  1. #661
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    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.
    Yes, I agree - and they created those situations by creating an environment where some specs simply can't perform. I don't think you can reasonably expect that any game designer can create an environment like this (infinite difficulty scaling) and at the same time balance all the classes to be able to reach the exact same point. This is an impossible task; whereas going away with the environment is easy and solves the problem instantly. Even if they gave players all the tools to min-max every single thing, some specs would still perform better, because of different toolkit. You could also give the same toolkit to all classes - to the point where all classes will be the same thing, with different animations. Maybe min-maxers would appreciate it though, seeing as all the RP they need is a transmog and a mount

    Quote Originally Posted by Echo of Soul View Post
    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.
    Exactly.
    Last edited by Rageonit; 2020-09-13 at 10:59 AM.

  2. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    Yes, I agree - and they created those situations by creating an environment where some specs simply can't perform. I don't think you can reasonably expect that any game designer can create an environment like this (infinite difficulty scaling) and at the same time balance all the classes to be able to reach the exact same point. This is an impossible task; whereas going away with the environment is easy and solves the problem instantly. Even if they gave players all the tools to min-max every single thing, some specs would still perform better, because of different toolkit. You could also give the same toolkit to all classes - to the point where all classes will be the same thing, with different animations. Maybe min-maxers would appreciate it though, seeing as all the RP they need is a transmog and a mount



    Exactly.
    I already addressed this. Simply putting a cap on the extreme that infinite difficulty scaling can go won't stop anything. It will just convert things to speed runs. Sure, "everyone" could then theoretically reach the final difficulty, but it would come at the cost of many player simply getting bored of the the game being "too easy". And for what? So some players could reach the end with a sub-optimal spec?

    This idea that everyone has to be able to finish everything is silly. If we're going down that road, then why not nerf Mythic raiding too? Make everything LFR so everyone and their dog can be free of having to get better at the game? And make no mistake, min-maxing is an aspect of getting better at the game. In some regards learning how to maximize your character, and use that min-maxing properly, is no different than learning a boss encounter.

    The game provides different ranges of difficulty specifically in order to cater to different levels of skill and desire to min-max. The entire World-First Race is one gigantic celebration of min-maxing! Simply cutting the top end off the range of difficulty isn't going to help anything. And in some ways will actually make the game worse.

  3. #663
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    I already addressed this. Simply putting a cap on the extreme that infinite difficulty scaling can go won't stop anything. It will just convert things to speed runs. Sure, "everyone" could then theoretically reach the final difficulty, but it would come at the cost of many player simply getting bored of the the game being "too easy". And for what? So some players could reach the end with a sub-optimal spec
    For what? Well, for the ability to reach the end with a spec you love to play, in a role playing game, where the freedom of creating a character should be a cornerstone of your experience. If a role playing game forces you into a single avenue of character development, for any reason at all, it's not a role playing game anymore, as you are being prevented from playing the role you want to play. Then it's a min-maxing game, that has nothing to do with the R and the P. And please, don't tell me that I can still role play by choosing a transmog and a mount. I don't know of a single RPG that restrics the RP to how you look.

    BTW, I think there's a huge difference between "He can do +30 and I can do only +25" and "He finished his run 3 minutes faster". Sure, for some the speedrun aspect may be fun or even important, but player perception of those situations will be very different. And if some players get bored, because it's too easy... Well you said it yourself - they can still resort to things like speed runs or whatever. Remember that this game existed (and was more popular than it is today) when there were no M+ nor Mythic raids.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    This idea that everyone has to be able to finish everything is silly. If we're going down that road, then why not nerf Mythic raiding too?
    Good question. Why not just get rid of it, while we're at it? Seems like an easier solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Make everything LFR so everyone and their dog can be free of having to get better at the game? And make no mistake, min-maxing is an aspect of getting better at the game. In some regards learning how to maximize your character, and use that min-maxing properly, is no different than learning a boss encounter.
    That's taking it to the extremes. We're talking about balancing the highest level so that any class/spec can participate, so you're not punished for making RP choices during character development/play that are sub-optimal from player power standpoint. You said it yourself: there are many different HC guilds, some will min-max, other will try to master the mechanics or just get enough gear to make up for sub-optimal choices. And if there's a group of players that min-maxes to the extreme and that content will be too easy for them? Well I guess... bad luck? The game would be healthier, and they are still few enough that it wouldn't impact subs that much.
    Last edited by Rageonit; 2020-09-13 at 12:12 PM.

  4. #664
    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    role playing game
    Words 'roleplaying' and 'roleplayer' are derogative terms in the WoW community. And roleplaying is only a tiny tiny subset of the game, with just a few designated servers for creeps to have cybersex with each other. It is not something that is encountered in any type of endgame.

    Weird how this forum somehow attracts more roleplayers than the RP realms do.

  5. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    For what? Well, for the ability to reach the end with a spec you love to play, in a role playing game, where the freedom of creating a character should be a cornerstone of your experience. If a role playing game forces you into a single avenue of character development, for any reason at all, it's not a role playing game anymore, as you are being prevented from playing the role you want to play. Then it's a min-maxing game, that has nothing to do with the R and the P. And please, don't tell me that I can still role play by choosing a transmog and a mount. I don't know of a single RPG that restrics the RP to how you look.
    I keep seeing people misrepresent this point. Having to spend a little bit of extra effort to find a pug willing to take non-optimal specs is not the same as being denied access. There's nothing stopping you from reaching the end-game. As others have pointed out, even heroic raiding is open to PUGs. However, that's not the same thing as going to the extremes that the game has to offer.

    Granted, in a perfect game maybe all specs and all methods of playing would be equally balanced. But that's not something that Blizzard has historically been able to achieve. And the answer to that is not to hold back min-maxing players because Blizzard fails at balance, and people choose to not pay the cost of playing the strongest specs in order to reach the heights the game offers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    BTW, I think there's a huge difference between "He can do +30 and I can do only +25" and "He finished his run 3 minutes faster". Sure, for some the speedrun aspect may be fun or even important, but player perception of those situations will be very different. And if some players get bored, because it's too easy... Well you said it yourself - they can still resort to things like speed runs or whatever. Remember that this game existed (and was more popular than it is today) when there were no M+ nor Mythic raids.
    You want to quote the old magic to me? Vanilla is where the fucking meme started, my friend. "Resto or GTFO" is the epitome of what you seem to be arguing against.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    Good question. Why not just get rid of it, while we're at it? Seems like an easier solution.
    Easier is not always better. The entire game is based on progression. As I said before, just chopping off the top end of the difficulty so lower-end players can feel better about their decisions is a poor solution.

    Frankly, I think it's ok for there to be heights of the game that require sacrifices to be made. And it's ok that those areas of the game are not for everyone. If you want to play whatever is your "favorite" role or spec, then you have to accept that you'll need to also spend a little extra time and effort finding a group of like-minded people who are going to tackle content at that pace. If you want to reach the ultimate extremes that the game offers, then you have to accept that you might have to do something that's not exactly your favorite.

    Unless Blizzard somehow magically is able to figure out the formula to perfectly balance everything(which they've historically NEVER been able to do), this is how it is.

    EDIT: And yes, I realize this can apply equally to min-maxxers. If they want to play that way, they can spend more time and effort, they might have to do something that they might otherwise avoid. Like waiting 2 weeks to switch specs. Or maintain a primary character and four alts. :/


    Quote Originally Posted by Rageonit View Post
    That's taking it to the extremes. We're talking about balancing the highest level so that any class/spec can participate, so you're not punished for making RP choices during character development/play that are sub-optimal from player power standpoint. You said it yourself: there are many different HC guilds, some will min-max, other will try to master the mechanics or just get enough gear to make up for sub-optimal choices. And if there's a group of players that min-maxes to the extreme and that content will be too easy for them? Well I guess... bad luck? The game would be healthier, and they are still few enough that it wouldn't impact subs that much.
    Again, ALL classes/specs can and will participate at the highest levels. The array of groups willing to take a non-meta spec might be smaller, but it's not non-existent.

    I don't agree that the game would be "healthier" just because people are participating in the heights of the game in a way that other people don't like, or don't want to do. But hey, if you have the magic formula for perfect balance, maybe you should sell it to Blizzard so we can all benefit, yeah? All I can tell you is that just removing parts of the game, or making them pointlessly irritating, isn't that formula.
    Last edited by SirCowdog; 2020-09-13 at 01:00 PM.

  6. #666
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    Covenants mean more to me than just dps output, so I don't care
    Well said!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Volatilis View Post
    no one is buying that.

    OP brings up a good point.

    What is choice when decisions made above change what you picked through no power or player agency of your own.
    Wrong i disagree could careless about max out but i get to a certain point and just stop careing about it.

  7. #667
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidax View Post
    That's not the only argument there, but for the sake of this specific reply. Yup, in the end it did not matter. If the expansion will be good, a restriction or two they put in won't matter any.
    To you maybe, but it absolutely did matter.

    And again, the best defense of a poor design choice being "it won't / doesn't matter" is no defense at all. Especially when the argument from the developers is its supposed to be a meaningful choice. That means in your view they're failing at their mission and the entire overarching reason for this design choice...

    Which again makes me wonder where your initial "greater good" argument ever came from... because this benefits no one and the best you keep coming up with is "it won't matter".

    It's basically like Legion and if you'd think about it there was a whole lot of headscratchers there starting with RNG legiondaries, multispec and alts nightmare and ending with hundreds of MoS runs and what not. But in the end, after it was done - it was a good expansion.
    Oh I'm not on board there at all, I think legion was an absolute mess and that peoples memory only seems to extend as far back as the last patch of an xpac the farther away you get from it.

    The majority of legion was an absolute mess and the community voiced it. It only turned around at the end when they trivialized their own systems, which is to say that the systems were poorly designed and they needed to be trivialized to feel good.

    Hence the entire argument being we're about to see a repeat of that and they aren't learning.

    Same will be here, except that starting point is much better than Legion because we play with Legion Systems v3.0 with a fresh coat of paint and much less grind and RNG. If in the end Shadowlands will offer good content, it will be a good expansion, despite this relatively small annoyance for some.
    The one thing I'll agree with is this seems like a potentially less bad version of legion... which is again not a good thing.
    ..and so he left, with terrible power in shaking hands.

  8. #668
    Quote Originally Posted by Baconeggcheese View Post
    Oh I'm not on board there at all, I think legion was an absolute mess and that peoples memory only seems to extend as far back as the last patch of an xpac the farther away you get from it.

    The majority of legion was an absolute mess and the community voiced it. It only turned around at the end when they trivialized their own systems, which is to say that the systems were poorly designed and they needed to be trivialized to feel good.

    Hence the entire argument being we're about to see a repeat of that and they aren't learning.
    Oh but they are learning.
    First issue was RNG acquisition of leggos -> covenants and legos are not assigned at random.
    Not having any gear slots -> having tons of gear slot
    And tons of other issues fixes

  9. #669
    Quote Originally Posted by burek View Post
    Words 'roleplaying' and 'roleplayer' are derogative terms in the WoW community. And roleplaying is only a tiny tiny subset of the game, with just a few designated servers for creeps to have cybersex with each other. It is not something that is encountered in any type of endgame.

    Weird how this forum somehow attracts more roleplayers than the RP realms do.
    You chose to ignore one crucial word there, namely "game". Role playing and role playing game are two completely different things.

  10. #670
    And they are a phrase role-playing game. If you are not happy go play Fortnite or dota, or any other insta-gratification min-maxing millennial shit.

  11. #671
    Bloodsail Admiral Alkizon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Strasbourg
    Posts
    1,146

    Red face

    Echo of Soul
    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.
    In fact, it's completely incomprehensible how this can be an argument.
    - - - -
    absolutely nothing (for RPG) would change in this sense, even if they simply give everyone, who has completed corresponding quest chain, corresponding spell (every, together) with whole set of stuff with it (neither from logical/lore part, nor from mechanical/system part will do this "less RPG-ish") is this understandable? there'll still be a every second choice of particular ability in particular situation; problem is that organization of such choice (in such way *pointing at SL*) doesn't obey either current or old hierarchy/philosophy; it falls outside system hierarchy/outside own sphere of influence
    - - - -

    One doesn't interfere with other within framework of RPG concept, but devs decided that this is important now to have...
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Here about choice:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Technically, what you argue about as part of content is 1. "situational" every second choice + 2. choice that is made within system's work for a fairly long time together (both are parts of one system): 2. is "permanent" not for 1 fight, but for a while before meeting with class trainer together with loosing time and money for "re-qualifies" you (it's class “umbrella”, which consists of full set of class' abilities (mostly permanent completely) and, being overwhelming majority of them passively, talents of build (not spec)) - choice, and 1. consists of equipped items (= characteristics) + particular using spells during encounter - flexible options.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    Choice may be wrong for a particular set, but at the same time be very useful for another. What is important in this case (when discussing customization) is overall picture, but not problems of right/wrong private choices
    - - - snip - - -
    You may be mistaken in choosing a strategy, but this won't necessarily mean fallacy of one/each of its individual elements. Is it clear? They can all be correct, but interfere with each other in this "sequence" ...be incompatible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkizon View Post
    No, RPG is presence of set/constructor for formation "something", subject to certain rules of interaction of its parts. Something may be permanent and something may not, but this isn't its fundamental characteristic.
    ...somehow years wasn't, they destroyed entire infrastructure, which really had choices, about 7 years ago, and now here it is. Choice of character's race, its class, set of talents (1 at first, then happened 2nd). And now, for some reason, it has become important for them to organize "meaningful choice" in place that isn't only temporary, but also doesn't fit with existing system of choice. Maybe then it's easier to start from scratch? Maybe you'll back to classes as set of abilities and mechanics (and not to specs/roles), to full set of passive talents that upgrade abilities and mechanics available to whole class, limit choice there, make certain "inconvenient" conditions for switching them, mmm?.. and then all your arguments with "meaningful choice" will receive direct ideological reinforcement, such ones will say that "this is exactly what we're now putting into game design!" Retrain community to do this? They won't retrain anyone, simply limit capabilities to certain reasonable scope. Another thing is that they can "shout" with their design about such approach from players' very first steps in the game, but they don't. This means, that, at certain point of own gameplay, player, who comes with such philosophy, will stumble upon similar "wall" and be puzzled. What for? Game should have solid/designated design, which emphasize its features, and we smoothly return to that very "greed" discussion.

    Devs, do you have balls for ^this? No? Well, then don't stutter about "meaningful choice", there won't be its influence on the game/community as a whole. It. just. won't.

    They want you "to be a blah blah paladin or a blah blah blah paladin", but hey, you're already human/blood elf/draenei paladin (and this is even if we omit all criticism regarding their current approach to class design)... what kind of blah-blah+blah can even be talked about here?

    Here people talked about sub-specs, but, as already been voiced in previous argumentation, if it's this kind of crap, so it shouldn't be tied to "current expansion", but to character's whole life devolopment, and this suggests that specific material makes same mistake that Legion did (which people talked about even after just its announcement) - it doesn't take into account global game design/place and impact of innovation on its overall picture ⇒ no meaningful choice. They made this mistake while implementing class-halls, designing artifacts, and other such nonsense... what does that mean? This means that all this was bad, ill-conceived, short-time design even already in devs' heads back in its early days... had no "meaningful" future already then.

    ps. "blah-blah-blah" paladin you say? blah-blah-blah design I hear... redo your whole system if you want diversity and meaningful choice, half-@$$ed design isn't solution.
    Last edited by Alkizon; 2020-09-24 at 12:30 PM.
    __---=== IMHO(+cg) and MORE |"links-inside" ===---__

    __---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__

  12. #672
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    You want to quote the old magic to me? Vanilla is where the fucking meme started, my friend. "Resto or GTFO" is the epitome of what you seem to be arguing against.
    But who's even talking about balance here? I myself said a perfect balance is unattainable. And who's talking about player behaviour? Players will always find reasons to be assholes to one another, even in a game about farming vegetables.

    I feel like you don't see the point I'm trying to make. And the point is: if you create content tuned for the best of the best, you will also instil specific mindset and behaviour amongst the playerbase. Why do you think so many people consider min-maxing one of the most important parts of WoW? I guess there are a few reasons, but one of them is: because there's content that requires extreme min-maxing. This creates a belief that if you want to be a "good WoW player", you have to min-max too (and who doesn't want to be a good player?). Because those amazing guys are doing 30+, and I can barely time a 15! And everyone who joins your group and doesn't have the right enchants, gems, corruptions and what have you, is a "bad" player; a lazy player who makes it harder for you to be one of the best. I don't know if that's also your mindset, but I can assure you that there are plenty of people who think that way.

    Now, imagine what would happen if, like you said it yourself, "everyone and their dog could be free of having to get better at the game". If the hardest thing in WoW was indeed LFR. Do you think people would care as much about min-maxing? Yeah, some would maybe do speed runs & stuff like that, and they would still min-max. But do you think playerbase as a whole would be so focused on min-maxing as it is right now? Personally, I doubt it. In an easy game, there's very few reasons to break your back for a little bit of extra DPS. Content difficulty does influence the way players think. (EDIT: Which doesn't mean I'm arguing for making the game too easy! Rather, for finding better balance and going away with both extremes: LFR, but narrowly tuned Mythic too).

    And here you have WoW. A game with a huge spectrum of difficulty levels, from LFR to Mythic raiding. I have no doubt in my mind that the way of thinking of players at the top influences behaviour even among players at the bottom. You can see it on those forum, every day. Is it healthy for the game? It's a matter of opinion, obviously - personally, I don't think so. So you say: "A player can play any spec he wants, take any covenant ability he wants, and he will be able to <finsish> the game". Even if it's true (and I believe it is), I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who won't do that, even if the hardest content they do is heroic or even normal. Why? Because the popular mindset is: you have to min-max. Read this thread from the beginning, there are people here who call players w/o fotm specs "lazy" and "baddies", who make them work harder than they should be for their reward.

    So whether they do Mythic rading or just normal, they won't develop their characters the way they would in a RPG game. When choosing a spec, they won't think: "Okay, so do I want to be a powerful make hurling balls of fire, or maybe this, or maybe that"; the first though will be: "Okay, which spec is doing the best DPS at the moment?". And this, my friend, is a bad RPG design. If you don't think about who you want to be, but how to do more DPS: that's bad RPG. Yes, I agree, people min-max for as long as RPGs exist! But in a good RPG, they min-max within the scope of the character they want to be. If they want to be a frost mage, they play a frost mage; if they want a skill that feels cool, they take it; and then, armed in those things, they try to min-max to be the best version of a frost mage using that sub-optimal skill that feels great to them. If they pass that skill though, because the next talent in the same row is just better, even if it feels bad - they are not RPGing anymore, they are solving a riddle. And because the mindest of the playerbase is what it is... They will do that. Take the optimal talent. Which makes WoW a bad RPG game. And this design "flaw" is several magnitues bigger than "covenants", which sparked so many emotions. (And why? Because the mindest in WoW is... you have to be able to min-max!)

    Of course you can argue that WoW is not an RPG game, because if it's not, all of those things mean jack shit. But what is it then?
    Last edited by Rageonit; 2020-09-14 at 08:22 AM.

  13. #673
    There will be no meaning full choice at all.

    Blizzard has already realized how gigantic the difference is in output, utility and gameplay fun there is between the various convenant powers, and now they are nerfing everything so hard, that everything covenant related is going to be of minor significance. They are doing it because even drippling goon can quickly realize, that one team outperforming the other teams will not be fun for anyone. This way you get shit games like neocron and classic WoW.

    As Ion said in the latest blue post, the moment a covenant rises to become better than the others, they will bring down the nerfhammer with fury. People who still believe in the "meaningful choice" business is WoW's equivalency to Flat Earthers.

  14. #674
    Quote Originally Posted by vulfrika View Post
    There will be no meaning full choice at all.

    Blizzard has already realized how gigantic the difference is in output, utility and gameplay fun there is between the various convenant powers, and now they are nerfing everything so hard, that everything covenant related is going to be of minor significance. They are doing it because even drippling goon can quickly realize, that one team outperforming the other teams will not be fun for anyone. This way you get shit games like neocron and classic WoW.

    As Ion said in the latest blue post, the moment a covenant rises to become better than the others, they will bring down the nerfhammer with fury. People who still believe in the "meaningful choice" business is WoW's equivalency to Flat Earthers.
    Ah. Another post that doesn't understand that choice =/= numbers. Its fine, we were fully aware that they will do it like this, since the introduction on blizzcon.

    It is exactly a meaningful choice.

  15. #675
    Quote Originally Posted by kaminaris View Post
    Ah. Another post that doesn't understand that choice =/= numbers. Its fine, we were fully aware that they will do it like this, since the introduction on blizzcon.

    It is exactly a meaningful choice.
    Ah, another person who cannot read english.
    Hint: out of "output, utility and gameplay" only 1 is about numbers

  16. #676
    Quote Originally Posted by vulfrika View Post
    Ah, another person who cannot read english.
    Hint: out of "output, utility and gameplay" only 1 is about numbers
    Yet you specifically complained about nerfing stuff. And thinking that numerical balance = choice. Even that dumb comparison at the end points it to this direction.

  17. #677
    They already have in the beta. I'm sure they will continue. I mean they already said they were gonna balance the covenant choices. Balancing means nerfing and buffing.

  18. #678
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    impossible because i will make my choices based solely on visials of covenant and how it fits classes

    dont care about numbers . they will nerf/buff them through first 3 months anyway

    cant wait to see tryhards whining on forums every time nerfs/buffs happen - will be glorious
    "Fuck everyone else, got mine"

    You seem like a nice person.

  19. #679
    Quote Originally Posted by kaminaris View Post
    Yet you specifically complained about nerfing stuff. And thinking that numerical balance = choice. Even that dumb comparison at the end points it to this direction.
    Because nerfing means other than output tuning. An example from Slands beta is the venthyr ability "door of shadows", which was nerfed from being an instant teleport to a 1,5 sec channelled spellcast. The nerf to Door of Shadows' utility was enormous.

  20. #680
    Quote Originally Posted by vulfrika View Post
    Because nerfing means other than output tuning. An example from Slands beta is the venthyr ability "door of shadows", which was nerfed from being an instant teleport to a 1,5 sec channelled spellcast. The nerf to Door of Shadows' utility was enormous.
    That's not true, Door of Shadows had cast time since the beginning. There was a Soulbind ability that made it instant, but you had to take it, locking yourself into that particular Soulbind. And because it seemed like people will almost universally take that Soulbind bacuse of the instant cast, they removed it, so the choice between Venthyr Soulbinds is more interesting.

Posting Permissions

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