Soulbinds seem...kinda awful right?

[Kumorii]

This gives me an headache...
The concept i love most in all RPGs was always an easy concept to grasp.

A bad for B bad good for C
X good for B but bad for C

Blizzard, is playing God on this one and destroying the concept by making it mathematically corrent.
For me...this is worse than dangerous medicine experiemnts on humans. this is a human cloning experiment

I hope u understand how much of a nerd i am for the concept, sorry to have bothered you so much

Np... I just don't understand how binary choices that have definitive benefits over others in X situation compared to Y is somehow customization. You will just straight up pick what's best for the situation, no choice involved.

[huth]

This gives me an headache...
The concept i love most in all RPGs was always an easy concept to grasp.

A bad for B bad good for C
X good for B but bad for C

Blizzard, is playing God on this one and destroying the concept by making it mathematically corrent.

But that's exactly what you're asking for.

[Big Thanks]

But that's exactly what you're asking for.

I want it to be incorrect sometimes...otherwise is not a "game" anymore.

[huth]

I want it to be incorrect sometimes...otherwise is not a "game" anymore.

You're really driving yourself nuts on this one. Ion said they're trying to do exactly what you want, yet you keep insisting on reading it as him saying the opposite.

Whether they succeed on it is a different matter, of course. But they're not breaking it on purpose.

[Alkizon]

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 (I understand that current talents (=perks) system and other nonsense comes down to this, but this only proves its incorrect organization). That is, in the role of customization this talent isn't imposed on you as only right one between two/three available, but devs also have no right to make choice for you, offering an invariant default solution as ready set without ability to change elements *pointing at current specs* (both options are more likely a lack of choice). All that is required of them is to provide flexible opportunity to make choice that doesn't stumble upon situations like those described in previous sentence. Mentioning all this, I also remind you once again that choice should be made from available toolkit within specific system (for each individual system at its own separate level of influence, inside it, since class capabilities are being discussed now, it means inside class). If system has same purpose, but goes beyond its originals (tied to place(*spiting at toys*)/time(*spiting at endless grind*)/content(*spiting at PvP perks*)/reputation(*spiting at new "reputation perks"*)/loot(*spiting at rental powers*) and other garbage) it violates first and main rule, which means it will create problems. What kind? Is this really important? After all, all that is needed in this case is to follow rules and not have problems at all. Proposed system violates rule, which means that nothing good will come of it, why all this current verbiage? As for devs' words, I don’t see stuff that they’re talking about, moreover, as you already understood, it’s not even really matter.

You can't make choice at all, since system will depend not on your choice, but on devs' subsequent actions (previously, only one system's part has such influence and this was Class's one). So now, how, after all that has been said, can “it” be called “controlled/fair choice”? It doesn't exist, since it will have every chance of being depreciated in next iteration, and generally abandoned and forgotten after expansion, how can it be "meaningful" in such conditions? It just don't. And all because it's inserted in wrong place, or... they are lying (which is much more likely) and its purpose is completely different (not provide you with meaningful choices)

A simple example of correct addition: Aldor vs Scryers, in fact, you're offered choice between secondary characteristics, therefore, if you still decide to base your choice on emotional/role component, this will generally affect your progress/success very slightly, like "ripples on the water" vs tide.

I remind you: class>talents>roles(characteristics), in this priority and with such a degree of influence. All you need is to decide which of these parts you're going to add innovation to, since this will determine degree/amplitude of its utility/influence, and add it to corresponding element...

That is, "customization" should have certain signs: it should not have content restrictions, should be contained within class functionality "attached to character ONLY", everything that is outside remains in strength and usefulness within bar/limit of such stats' and characteristics' ones (doesn't expand functionality, therefore can be cross-class, and easily replaceable mainly due to professions and loot "NOT attached to character").

class>talents>characteristics = mostly permanent (mechanics and abilities, tied to character only)>hardly switchable(tied to character only, with incredible rare moderately/unnoticeable exceptions)>easy replaceable(tied to whatever you want)

(there is more stuff in this link)
and these endless discussions "availability of correct or wrong choice" won't be needed.

Shadoowpunk
Is it a RPG thing making a permanent choice? Yes it is.

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.

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.

ps. You're saying kind of same things, but each in its own way and this useless debate continues for more than 5 pages already.

[Big Thanks]

You're really driving yourself nuts on this one. Ion said they're trying to do exactly what you want, yet you keep insisting on reading it as him saying the opposite.

Whether they succeed on it is a different matter, of course. But they're not breaking it on purpose.

Ok, ive calmed myself down in order to start thinking straight again in a more neutral view of things.
Tell me what you think please.

1) The problem with this system is that Blizzard insists in making gameplay customization a permanent choice.
The problem is that Blizzard thinks this will save the RPG genre in WoW.
Is it a RPG thing making a permanent choice? Yes it is.
BUT i now think is a bad decision BECAUSE the ONLY possible solution to fix the problems that follow is "perfect balance"...and this is not ok

2) Another game i know tried this in the past and made gameplay customization a permanent choice.
You had to make a new character if you wanted to try different customization options
This "failed" and the developers came to the solution:
"Players can now switch between customziation options...once per week (a currency you farm for one week and then you can change gameplay of your class entirely)

I think this is a better solution

Locking gameplay customization on a permanent choice is bad......the developers of this secret game im talking about figured it out.

My new neutral opinion?
Make covenants not punishing to switch (aka not lose soulbind progression, legendary, traits, conduits etc) BUT make it take 1 week
And please....forget this "perfect balance" solution

There is no value in "holding your ground" about the RPG-gimmick of making a permanent decision with customization options.....only to ruin it with "perfect balance"

[Nurasu]

1) they aren't even in the alpha yet in a way that can be tested (don't have access to them in game)
2) we'll get 2 soulbinds while leveling, and a 3rd after finishing the covenant campaign
it's good to leave feedback but also look at the fact the system isn't even able to be tested yet lmao

We already tested it in Legion and no one liked it. It's the Netherlight Crucible with more templates.

[Laughingjack]

Ok, ive calmed myself down in order to start thinking straight again in a more neutral view of things.
Tell me what you think please.

1) The problem with this system is that Blizzard insists in making gameplay customization a permanent choice.
The problem is that Blizzard thinks this will save the RPG genre in WoW.
Is it a RPG thing making a permanent choice? Yes it is.
BUT i now think is a bad decision BECAUSE the ONLY possible solution to fix the problems that follow is "perfect balance"...and this is not ok

2) Another game i know tried this in the past and made gameplay customization a permanent choice.
You had to make a new character if you wanted to try different customization options
This "failed" and the developers came to the solution:
"Players can now switch between customziation options...once per week (a currency you farm for one week and then you can change gameplay of your class entirely)

I think this is a better solution

Locking gameplay customization on a permanent choice is bad......the developers of this secret game im talking about figured it out.

My new neutral opinion?
Make covenants not punishing to switch (aka not lose soulbind progression, legendary, traits, conduits etc) BUT make it take 1 week
And please....forget this "perfect balance" solution

There is no value in "holding your ground" about the RPG-gimmick of making a permanent decision with customization options.....only to ruin it with "perfect balance"

I think the issue is wow isn't really a unified game... It has vastly contrasting game play modes that are all designed to feed into one another. I played several games with permanent choices but I never played one that had a time attack, pvp, and pve all balanced around one character.

This system feels more fitting for something like diablo with just a single end game.

[unbound]

When they said they learned lessons did they simply mean they learned lessons in coding on how to combine ui?

When they said that they learned lessons, it means that they didn't learn anything at all. It's just PR for vague promises that it will be better. They are relying on idiots...er, the majority of their customers to assume what that means (usually along the lines of Blizz will make it much, much better).

I would say it is pathetic that Blizz keeps doing this (promising to make things better, but then they still do whatever is cheaper)...but it's really just sad that people keep falling for this over and over again.

[Alkizon]

Shadoowpunk
Is it a RPG thing making a permanent choice? Yes it is.

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.

Shadoowpunk
Make covenants not punishing to switch (aka not lose soulbind progression, legendary, traits, conduits etc) BUT make it take 1 week

this is not solution, this is crutch for initially poor system

[TheWindMask]

We already tested it in Legion and no one liked it. It's the Netherlight Crucible with more templates.

in what way are they anything like the crucible? soulbinds aren't random boss drops that can wf/tf, the effects they have aren't random, and you can change your soulbinds whenever you want. the only "similarity" is that it vaguely looks like a skill tree

[Big Thanks]

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.

I agree "permanent choice" by itself, in a vacuum, may not necessarily be a RPG "thing".
But Blizzard insists on this gimmick to save the RPG genre of WoW.

[Laughingjack]

I agree "permanent choice" by itself, in a vacuum, may not necessarily be a RPG "thing".
But Blizzard insists on this gimmick to save the RPG genre of WoW.

...but why is my great question.

I never really took wow to be a usual rpg. Leveling isn't really all that important for the majority of the game it acts almost more like a tutorial level.

I can't tell you anything about what my character is supposed to be thinking or why he fights or really does anything. I see wow toons as animated dolls moving under my will but I can never imagine a story where my character matters how can I when there is never any choice and all outcomes are the same.

It just seems bizarre to insist that wow has some deep multi layered hard choice gameplay... Everyone just does what is optimal or simply doesn't care. I could be the one out of touch but the choices blizzard makes always strike me as bizzare.

I can't see how these weird systems are better then what we used to have with just loot drops.

[huth]

My new neutral opinion?
Make covenants not punishing to switch (aka not lose soulbind progression, legendary, traits, conduits etc) BUT make it take 1 week
And please....forget this "perfect balance" solution

There is no value in "holding your ground" about the RPG-gimmick of making a permanent decision with customization options.....only to ruin it with "perfect balance"

But that's more or less the same thing in a different dress. It's a question of whether you want the cost for switching frontloaded or backloaded.

And you're doing yourself a disfavour calling it a "permanent choice". Permanent doesn't mean hard to change. Permanent means impossible to change.

[SLNC]

My new neutral opinion?
Make covenants not punishing to switch (aka not lose soulbind progression, legendary, traits, conduits etc) BUT make it take 1 week
And please....forget this "perfect balance" solution

There is no value in "holding your ground" about the RPG-gimmick of making a permanent decision with customization options.....only to ruin it with "perfect balance"

I really don't know, where you're getting their desire to achieve "perfect balance" from? In the first interview Ion did after Alpha launch, he already said, that Covenants probably won't be perfectly balanced. The more they talked about it and the more got datamined about soulbinds in particular, it showed, that they're trying to make every choice viable to tackle each situation (that is why you're getting three easily switchable soulbinds), but not the same. They're not striving for "perfect balance", because yeah, that would mean, that the choice is ultimately meaningless, but try to provide different ways to tackle different situations.

[Big Thanks]

I really don't know, where you're getting their desire to achieve "perfect balance" from? In the first interview Ion did after Alpha launch, he already said, that Covenants probably won't be perfectly balanced. The more they talked about it and the more got datamined about soulbinds in particular, it showed, that they're trying to make every choice viable to tackle each situation (that is why you're getting three easily switchable soulbinds), but not the same. They're not striving for "perfect balance", because yeah, that would mean, that the choice is ultimately meaningless, but try to provide different ways to tackle different situations.

Ive been dealing with customziation my entire life.
There is always a wrong choice.

Ion said there wont be a wrong choice of covenant in the LATEST interview. (the girl on the interview even made the gesture of "praying to the Lod savior Jesus" with her hands and started thanking Ion)

The only way this is posible is by either make it all cosmetical, perfectly balanced or a non-choice.

So far, no one here has proven me is possible to have true gameplay customization without having a wrong choice (with actual examples)
Guess why? Because is impossible.

[SLNC]

Ive been dealing with customziation my entire life.
There is always a wrong choice.

Ion said there wont be a wrong choice of covenant in the LATEST interview. (the girl on the interview even made the gesture of "praying to the Lod savior Jesus" with her hands and started thanking Ion)

The only way this is posible is by either make it all cosmetical, perfectly balanced or a non-choice.

So far, no one here has proven me is possible to have true gameplay customization without having a wrong choice (with actual examples)
Guess why? Because is impossible.

Because when every choice is viable, there is no wrong choice. But viability doesn't mean, that every choice is the same and perfectly balanced. It's not hard to understand, unless you willfully misunderstand.

[Big Thanks]

Because when every choice is viable, there is no wrong choice. But viability doesn't mean, that every choice is the same and perfectly balanced. It's not hard to understand, unless you willfully misunderstand.

"Viable" is an euphemism to "is unbalanced but who the hell cares"
Viable still means there is a wrong choice.

I would be ok with that.

But im sure Blizzard will try to make everyone happy, as always.

[SLNC]

"Viable" is an euphemism to "is unbalanced but who the hell cares"
Viable still means there is a wrong choice.

Well, that's a problem of mindset. It's only a wrong choice, if you want to be optimal.

[Laughingjack]

In a way blizzard is kind of a amazing company. They managed to burn pretty much anyone who would care. Those who want to be optimal will be bogged down with a large grind to enjoy multiple forms of content unless they luck out and their faction is the best at their chosen game modes.

While on the other hand those who want meaningful choices won't get them as they try desperately to chase a balance they will never achieve...

Everyone who is invested losses I love it!