Will Blizzard nerf your "meaningful choice"?

[Pury]

Remember what Ion said during conversation with Preach about SoulConduits?
Something like: "Conduits will not be destructible, we will change it. Barriers players can bypass by doing something stupid and annoying never work, we saw it with Azerite armour."
We are in the same situation with Covenants. Blizzard's half-assed approach to them created the same problem.

"You have to make a meaningful choice! Actually, if you keep doing some annoying degenerate shit you can ignore this meaningful choice, just keep regrinding this shit again and again, or make several characters of the same class with different covenants".

And there will be plenty of people doing absolutely moronic shit to bypass this system, because they can. And plenty of other people will feel pressured to do the same.
No restrictions at all or a permanent choice, that's how it should have been. I wouldn't mind to have permanent covenants, it would move away a ton of pressure from players imo.

[vulfrika]

Yet it is still numerical balance. So again numbers =/= choice. Funny how you blamed me for not reading with comprehension when I never said anything about output.

Ah, you are being retarded on purpose.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

That is still a direct nerf to door of shadows. They made the ability with that soulbind in mind. Removing it means nerfibg the total package called door of shadows.

[kaminaris]

Ah, you are being retarded on purpose.

No, you just lack skills of reading comprehension.

Cooldown and cast time are also numbers.

[Rageonit]

That is still a direct nerf to door of shadows. They made the ability with that soulbind in mind. Removing it means nerfibg the total package called door of shadows.

It's not a nerf to Door of Shadows, that ability always had 1.5 sec cast time and was not nerfed.
Yes, the synergy of Door of Shadows and that ability was "nerfed" (or rather, removed), because leaving it the way it was would compel people strongly to take that ability, which would, again, result in people taking the same Soulbind within the covenant. If they want to make Soulbinds an interesting choice, they need to make sure no ability is an outlier - and that ability was, hence the justified "nerf". That being said, it's still a great ability that requires more planning now, and skillful players will surely manage. "Everyone and their dog" knows that when an ability is too powerful compared to other choices, it will inevitably get nerfed (that's why beta exists, BTW). And in practice nothing was actually nerfed, because none of those abilities are released yet. Early beta is not a fully functional version of the game, it's a testground.

[oblakoff]

The things people fail to understand is that the meaningful choice is not between Venthyr or Kyrian. It is between the bigger numbers and what covenant feels good to be part of.

[Rageonit]

The things people fail to understand is that the meaningful choice is not between Venthyr or Kyrian. It is between the bigger numbers and what covenant feels good to be part of.

I think the thing people fail to understand is that meaningful choice may mean many different things to many different people, and noone needs to be told what meaningful choice is for him.

[Orwell7]

Unfortunately World of Warcraft has degraded the MMO genre into a freakin COMBAT SIMULATOR.

The core gameplay is combat and nothing else.
See, when MMOs started to rose, there were SO MANY THINGS to do in them, players won't even talked about balance between classes! Why?
Because "power" progression was so vast and "incomprehensible" for the players no one could reach true endgame or "bis" setups. There were "bis" gear from crafting, raids, pvp, realm vs realm, there were numerous epic questlines (with 50+ quests), the endgame zones were suicide without a party, etc.

Most old MMOs didn't locked power progression behind loot drops!
Most old MMOs didn't made your gameplay experience a COMBAT experience.

WoW did all of that. WoW "refined" MMOs to basic combat and nothing else. No housing, no guild houses, there are no guild-summonable bosses, there are no progression locked behind quests or attunements, nothing left but combat + loot.

And now they want to shake it up by restricting choices WHICH MADE WOW THE COOKIE CUTTER MMO IN THE FIRST PLACE!
WoW did killed every other MMO because it was the EASIEST and MOST ACCESSIBLE.

Then make it that way! Make it easy and accessible like in wotlk, so everyone have their FUN.
Restricting what players want, what players find fun is nothing but crazy - it creates a niche MMO no one really wants.

[SirCowdog]

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 think the main crux of the matter is balance. Because if the covenant choices, class specs and abilities, were all balanced better....then this wouldn't be an issue, and we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. However, as I've pointed out several times now: Blizzard seems to be unable to strike that balance. And seems to make the situation worse with every attempt at a new convoluted system that doesn't make a lot of sense to players who are expert with the workings of the game.

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.

You've just said asked who's talking about player behavior, then go on to talk about player behavior. You also said that players will always find reasons to be assholes to each other, regardless of the game. But then seemingly associate min-maxing with that same rudeness, by implying that anyone who doesn't min-max is a bad or lazy player. So you're sort of sending mixed messages here.

But I do think I see the point you're trying to make. However, I think that it's a problem of the community and how gamers in general play modern games. You can't really forcefully correct that in the ways that Blizzard seems to be attempting.

The other part of the equation is that players who aren't interested in min-maxing need to learn to be ok with their place in the game, and the fun they're able to get without min-maxing. If you don't want to deal with those "assholes" who call you a bad or lazy player, then don't play with them. This is also a problem with the community: That everyone seems to want to tell every other player how to play the game instead of just being happy with the fun they're personally getting.

I fully understand that the cliques and elitism are out of control in places like PUG M+ runs. LFG is rampant with it. Players constantly listing runs with insanely high Raider.IO scores or iLVL requirements far beyond what the run requires. Do you know what I do when I see that? I don't request to join that group.

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).

I think that removing the extremes would definitely cut down on the amount of elitism. But it would also come at the cost of a LOT of player enjoyment. A LOT of players would get bored and leave very quickly if there were not the high-end challenge of Mythic and higher M+ to tackle. WoW has always had that aspect of cutting-edge progression, and to remove it would cost the game a great deal of what makes it good.

As I said before, I think that it's ok for there to be extremes, or aspects of the game, that are not for everyone. I definitely think the game could be better balanced. But the reality that we're facing is that, for whatever reason, Blizzard can't or won't strike that balance.

A two-week hold on switching covenants doesn't really accomplish anything besides raw time-gating and inconvenience. Players who want to be able to min-max in the game are not going to accept sub-optimal specs simply because a player can't switch easily. They'll just find another player who IS optimal, and the person who couldn't switch will be left out. That's the nature of the Massive-Multiplayer aspect of an MMORPG.

So if that's what we're dealing with, then we might as well have a game that smooths the transition between optimal builds and sub-optimal ones. And players should instead focus more on finding communities, within that massive number of players, that better suit their desires, and to stop trying to impose their preferred playstyle on the entire PUG pool.

If anything, THAT is where Blizzard should be implementing better systems. Creating better and more smooth and easy methods of finding groups of like-minded players. The in-game guild and community finder is atrociously bad, for example. The systems for penalizing or mitigating shitty behavior(such as quitting M+) is likewise terrible.

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.

That is 100% a problem with the player, not the game or the rest of the community. If a person wants to reach the top, they have to put in the work, not ask for, or attempt to get the entire game to lower the bar.

Look at athletes with injuries or disabilities. There are runners with only one leg(or no legs) who operate at a competitive level. Are they ever going to match Usain Bolt? No. But they will achieve the highest levels they can with what they have.

But in a videogame like WoW we're not generally restricted by our physical limitations(yes I know some people are colorblind, or only have 1 hand, or whatever else), there's nothing stopping you from switching to the "Usain Bolt" spec and learning how it works and going to the absolute height the game has to offer. The game does not stop you from reaching that level, your choice to not use every available tool DOES.

And I know people don't like that. I don't think it's perfect either. But it's what we have, since Blizzard can't or won't perfectly balance every spec/class. And I would rather people have the option to switch more easily than have everything be homogeneous, even if that means some class/specs aren't as good.

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?

WoW isn't an RPG. It's an MMORPG.

I know that sounds silly at first glance, but it's an important distinction to make. WoW, more than any other game out there, has to be taken in the context of the massive community dynamic that it creates. And because WoW is primarily a progression-based game, the community will ALWAYS lean towards optimal choices.

Quite frankly, Blizzard has done a fairly good job of allowing players to play in many different ways. But they're NEVER going to be able to eliminate min-maxing....mainly BECAUSE WoW is an RPG with stats, abilities, builds, and classes that all work differently. Someone will always find a "best" way to do things. Honestly, the community just needs to wrap their head around that and accept it for what it is, and move on to find the fun they can within that context.

To close:

Could Blizzard be doing a better job of balancing class/spec/race/covenant/talents? Absolutely. I think there's room to still do that before the launch of Shadowlands. I think there's a very good possibility that the numbers and dials can be tweaked enough to close the gap between the most min-maxed optimal builds and the weaker choices.

But can that be done at the same time as some sort of ambiguous "meaningful" choice imposed by long-ish delays between swaps? I don't think it can. I think Blizzard would be better served by focusing on the fun that players ARE having, instead of trying to create meaning out of fun that players aren't having.

There is a LARGE portion of the community that enjoys min-maxing. Trying to curtail that seems counter-productive.

[Rageonit]

You've just said asked who's talking about player behavior, then go on to talk about player behavior. You also said that players will always find reasons to be assholes to each other, regardless of the game. But then seemingly associate min-maxing with that same rudeness, by implying that anyone who doesn't min-max is a bad or lazy player. So you're sort of sending mixed messages here.

Just to make things clearer: player behaviour and player mindset are two very different things. Player mindset comes from the "meta" of the game, if you will; player behaviour is just that - behaviour of certain individuals. Depending on what the mindset is, it may be easier to deal with destructive behaviour. For example, if the general mindset of the game is "Play what you want", it's easier to ignore a person who berates you for playing the "wrong spec". That person will probably be shunned by the playerbase. But if the mindset is: "Min-maxing is important", then such a person will often find supporters and you will be shunned instead. WoW mindset is definitely centered around min-maxing at the moment.

(Not to mention some people are less assertive than others; someone like me won't care if I he gets rejected from a group for whatever reason; for others, it may be a signal they are doing something wrong and it may affect their enjoyment.)

And yes, you're right that the problems stem from the fact that WoW is progression-based. But that was exactly my point: if progression never stops, the mindset trickling from the top will inevitably affect those at the bottom (as it happens so often in WoW). Now the question is: should a game as popular as WoW, a cultural phenomenon no less, offer that level of progression and competitiveness? People who play that content (I do too!) will of course say yes, cause it's in their best interest, but are you 100% sure it's good for the game and the community as a whole? Personally, I think that competitive games are best, when they don't try to by anything else, because they attract same-minded people (I guess PoE would be a good examle, though I didn't play that game for years now) and therefore there's less friction there. My view of WoW changed a lot with passing years. It's a very different experience when you are one of the cutting-edge players (not sure if I was even that - when I played the most, M+ and Mythic raiding didn't even exist, but I did kill the hardest bosses present at that time) and when you're trying to introduce your kids to the game. On many levels, WoW playerbase is unneccessarily hostile to new players, and I think it would be less prevalent if it was more laid-back with less competitiveness. Because it's such a big game, Blizzard decided that instead of going one way or another (laid-back vs competitive) they will rather create a game that caters to both.

Which is fine, but I think they didn't realize those people will have to play together.

EDIT: BTW, did you ever play Guild Wars? I did in my time (GW2 too) and I can't rember it being so min-max centered as WoW is. Clearly, it is a very different game, but it's also a proof you can make MMORPG that's not centered around min-maxing.

[SirCowdog]

Just to make things clearer: player behaviour and player mindset are two very different things. Player mindset comes from the "meta" of the game, if you will; player behaviour is just that - behaviour of certain individuals. Depending on what the mindset is, it may be easier to deal with destructive behaviour. For example, if the general mindset of the game is "Play what you want", it's easier to ignore a person who berates you for playing the "wrong spec". That person will probably be shunned by the playerbase. But if the mindset is: "Min-maxing is important", then such a person will often find supporters and you will be shunned instead. WoW mindset is definitely centered around min-maxing at the moment.

At the moment? No, it's always been that way once you reach end-game. In many ways that's what the game has always been about at its core: The search for the best loot, the strongest drops, the most potent talent combination, the most synergistic raid comp, etc.

However, in the older expansions, at least there was a BiS that you could obtain for every piece of gear. A player could theoretically be done with progression and min-maxing at a certain point. That hasn't been possible for a few expansions now due to titanforging and such. But from what I understand of Shadowlands beta, they're going back more towards that format. No titanforging. No corruptions. Maybe that will help.

(Not to mention some people are less assertive than others; someone like me won't care if I he gets rejected from a group for whatever reason; for others, it may be a signal they are doing something wrong and it may affect their enjoyment.)

That is a problem with that person, not the game. WoW is a social game, with many different types of communities. Just because a person was rejected from one community doesn't mean the entire game needs to change in order to prevent that from happening. That person needs to either spend the effort to find a community that suits them, or go find a game that better caters to their preferences.

As I said in my last post: Blizzard could absolutely do a better job of making it easier to find such groups. Casual communities exist, and almost certainly outnumber the hardcore.

But once you set foot into the gameplay-oriented areas of the game, such as dungeons or raids, a person needs to fully understand that optimization is simply part of what that mode is.

And yes, you're right that the problems stem from the fact that WoW is progression-based. But that was exactly my point: if progression never stops, the mindset trickling from the top will inevitably affect those at the bottom (as it happens so often in WoW). Now the question is: should a game as popular as WoW, a cultural phenomenon no less, offer that level of progression and competitiveness? People who play that content (I do too!) will of course say yes, cause it's in their best interest, but are you 100% sure it's good for the game and the community as a whole? Personally, I think that competitive games are best, when they don't try to by anything else, because they attract same-minded people (I guess PoE would be a good examle, though I didn't play that game for years now) and therefore there's less friction there. My view of WoW changed a lot with passing years. It's a very different experience when you are one of the cutting-edge players (not sure if I was even that - when I played the most, M+ and Mythic raiding didn't even exist, but I did kill the hardest bosses present at that time) and when you're trying to introduce your kids to the game. On many levels, WoW playerbase is unneccessarily hostile to new players, and I think it would be less prevalent if it was more laid-back with less competitiveness. Because it's such a big game, Blizzard decided that instead of going one way or another (laid-back vs competitive) they will rather create a game that caters to both.

Which is fine, but I think they didn't realize those people will have to play together.

Am I sure that min-maxing and optimization are good for the game and the community? Yes. That's what the game is founded on. If you don't want that, then there are literally thousands of easier singleplayer or co-op games that provide a less competitive environment.

The POE example is a fascinating one, because it easily contains 100x more min-maxing and optimization than WoW does. The main difference is that POE is not an MMORPG in the traditional sense. Nor is it an open world where players regularly interact with each other directly. I think that's the main difference. The two games are founded on completely different premises. POE is largely a single-player game outside of the trading economy. WoW is a group-oriented MMO.

I can guarandamntee you that if players in POE had to share mobs and rare spawns and drops, or be required to form groups in order to get the best loot, that the exact same elitism and min-max requirements would happen in POE that you see in WoW.

EDIT: BTW, did you ever play Guild Wars? I did in my time (GW2 too) and I can't rember it being so min-max centered as WoW is. Clearly, it is a very different game, but it's also a proof you can make MMORPG that's not centered around min-maxing.

I did play it in the first couple years. Did you ever experience Fractals? It's virtually the exact same thing as M+. And it had the same or worse levels of min-max elitism that WoW does right now. Entire classes were not included in groups because they literally couldn't generate as much DPS as the meta classes could.

I don't know if they ever fixed that. I doubt it. It's the same exact problem that WoW faces. Although I will say that GW2 had a much better foundation for character abilities and balancing. The simple fact that they completely split PVP and PVE apart into two separate games would make balancing so much easier.

[Rageonit]

Am I sure that min-maxing and optimization are good for the game and the community? Yes.

That's not the question I've asked, though. I don't even try to undermine the idea that min-maxing, in general, is good for the game. I do it, and every player who ever put on a quest reward with higher item level, is also min-maxing.

[Unholyground]

Blizzard is going to decouple the abilities from the covenants by 9.1 mark my words, everyone knows it is going to happen. They ALWAYS stick to their guns with stuff like this to make some obscure point only the smug developers care about and then cave when they realize we were right to begin with.

[Martymark]

After 15 years of WOW, I fully expect anything I like in the game to be thrown in the trash.

[Baconeggcheese]

Blizzard is going to decouple the abilities from the covenants by 9.1 mark my words, everyone knows it is going to happen. They ALWAYS stick to their guns with stuff like this to make some obscure point only the smug developers care about and then cave when they realize we were right to begin with.

I do think its likely they give on this at some point during the xpac, but 9.1 is far too early for that point. Its usually closer to the end of the xpac than the beginning. They'll iterate on this a bunch before they give on it.

[SirCowdog]

That's not the question I've asked, though. I don't even try to undermine the idea that min-maxing, in general, is good for the game. I do it, and every player who ever put on a quest reward with higher item level, is also min-maxing.

Yes, I do think there should be extreme heights of content where players have to struggle/compete. It gives everyone else an ideal to strive for.

Obviously everyone doesn't play in the NBA or the Olympics. But seeing people operate at that level inspires many others to strive to better their own skills.

It's the same thing in WoW. Although we seem to notice the awful aspects of rude players, it's important to remember that there are just as many good groups and guilds that are inspired and encouraged to be better by the example set at the highest levels.

[Rageonit]

After 15 years of WOW, I fully expect anything I like in the game to be thrown in the trash.

Out of curiosity: do you also pay them your hard earned money since 15 years, making them know you love how they develop the game?

[Unholyground]

I do think its likely they give on this at some point during the xpac, but 9.1 is far too early for that point. Its usually closer to the end of the xpac than the beginning. They'll iterate on this a bunch before they give on it.

I doubt it, the outcry is already bigger than previous ones and it isn't even out yet. I think very likely 9.1 which will be the Troll afterlife patch sometime around April.

[kaminaris]

I doubt it, the outcry is already bigger than previous ones and it isn't even out yet. I think very likely 9.1 which will be the Troll afterlife patch sometime around April.

Outcry? LOL no. There is literally no outcry. Zero, none.

Outcry was with camera changes and legiondary softcap.

Almost no chance they will decouple it even till end of expansion. I bet crate of whiskey.
They will loosen up requirements for switching in 9.2 and thats it.

[Lolites]

Blizzard is going to decouple the abilities from the covenants by 9.1 mark my words, everyone knows it is going to happen. They ALWAYS stick to their guns with stuff like this to make some obscure point only the smug developers care about and then cave when they realize we were right to begin with.

like they did with azerite armor? which, unlike covenant powers, was pretty much universaly hated?

[PedroloGeo]

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.

Your choice is to go with the strongest covenant. You chose so, if they nerf, you change, you chose to change for 1, 3 or 6% extra dps in certain conditions which also you are chosing to go in, say it doing mainly arena or doing mainly raids.

You can chose to stay too, because you are a slaker and dont want to bother with a dps augment when you are in a top mythic guild and want your partners to carry you.

You can chose based on apearance, or convenience of the sanctum, or because one soulbind looks gorgeous and you want to marry her.

Not everybody chooses by the same motives that you choose. And even pros don’t choose the same covenant option because there are many variables and ways of calculation.