Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    "Intended"? If paying for the game but you'd be unable to play it was the "intended" way to play would you feel that was a good change to WoW?
    The point is that the covenant system is poor design. So poor that it takes what was feeling like a rather ok expansion and makes it almost unplayable.
    My or your opinion doesn't matter here, it is intended to be played on live like it is on beta, yes. There is no way around it. Whether we like it or not is not relevant on that matter. The point is that you think it's poor design. If it makes it unplayable is up to each and one of us. I don't share your opinion, and while people share yours, some share mine. The thing is that the latter group is the one who likes it how it is intended. So how are they more egoistic than the other group?

    So no, no one will lose anything by being able to respec your class. it has not been a problem the last 16 years and it would not be this time either.
    We didn't have Covenants in the other expansions, so no. And you are right, respeccing your class no one will lose anything on. But Covenants is not your class however. Similar sure.

    It really shows that the top names have left WoW and Blizzard. They are just not able to push out quality content anymore.
    Well that's your opinion. My opinion is that BfA wasn't good enough, while Legion was near perfect. So they can, it's just the eye of the beholder.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Proton View Post
    "But my choices need to matter! This is an rpg". As if WoW was ever that way. Wow was always casual and simple in this regard.
    Choosing a Covenant is almost like choosing your spec in start of Legion. They even did a comparison to that in interviews. WoW was always casual and simple in this regard until 2016 you mean. So yes, WoW was this way, and has been for the last 4 years.
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  2. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    My or your opinion doesn't matter here, it is intended to be played on live like it is on beta, yes. There is no way around it. Whether we like it or not is not relevant on that matter. The point is that you think it's poor design. If it makes it unplayable is up to each and one of us. I don't share your opinion, and while people share yours, some share mine. The thing is that the latter group is the one who likes it how it is intended. So how are they more egoistic than the other group?


    We didn't have Covenants in the other expansions, so no. And you are right, respeccing your class no one will lose anything on. But Covenants is not your class however.


    Well that's your opinion. My opinion is that BfA wasn't good enough, while Legion was near perfect. So they can, it's just the eye of the beholder.
    Of course players opinions matter, thats silly.
    Covenants are just talents with a fancy name. There is litteraly no difference. Well, unless you count the one week respec timer in the Shadolwnads talents.
    But again, being able to respec was always a choice before and no one ever said: Hey, lets make it so that no one ever switches to tank becuase we got too many of thoes already!

    Legion was absolute shit by the way. BfA might not have been great but it was a clear improvement in every way.

  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    Of course players opinions matter, thats silly.
    Eh, thats not what we talk about. We talk about you saying people are being egoistic for playing the game as it is intended. While you want it changed. Who is most egoistic?

    Of course players opinion matters, but that wasn't the thing we were discussing here.
    Covenants are just talents with a fancy name. There is litteraly no difference. Well, unless you count the one week respec timer in the Shadolwnads talents.But again, being able to respec was always a choice before and no one ever said: Hey, lets make it so that no one ever switches to tank becuase we got too many of thoes already!
    Covenants are the rental power of Shadowlands. It got similarities to both Artifact Weapon and Azerite Traits. Could you use Furious Gaze on a Rogue, or could you use Mark of Aluneth as Frost Mage? Nope. And your comparison is silly.

    Legion was absolute shit by the way. BfA might not have been great but it was a clear improvement in every way.
    BfA was an abysmal effort of trying to be as successful as Legion but failed in every aspect of the game. By the way.

    See how you say BfA improved. So they do have the quality to improve according to you. So which is it?
    Last edited by Doffen; 2020-09-24 at 05:36 PM.
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    Eh, thats not what we talk about. We talk about you saying people are being egoistic for playing the game as it is intended. While you want it changed. Who is most egoistic?

    Of course players opinion matters, but that wasn't the thing we were discussing here.

    Covenants are the rental power of Shadowlands. It got similarities to both Artifact Weapon and Azerite Traits. Could you use Furious Gaze on a Rogue, or could you use Mark of Aluneth as Frost Mage? Nope. And your comparison is silly.


    BfA was an abysmal effort of trying to be as successful as Legion but failed in every aspect of the game. By the way.

    See how you say BfA improved. So they do have the quality to improve according to you. So which is it?
    That was what you talked about and yes, they are just like talents.
    Litteraly the same thing. "Rental power", "borrowed power", call it what you want but it's just talents time gated so that you can only do stick to one role and one type of content every week.

    It's to try and milk more money out of players, not make the game better in any way.

    This is why people like Mike Morhaime left Blizzard. It's no longer about good design, just monetary gains as fast as possible without any passion what so ever.

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    That was what you talked about and yes, they are just like talents.
    No, that specific argument was about people being egoistic by wanting to play the game as it is intended in Shadowlands. Then you started about talking about players opinion matters, but that's not what we discussed in that particular topic.
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  6. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    No, that specific argument was about people being egoistic by wanting to play the game as it is intended in Shadowlands. Then you started about talking about players opinion matters, but that's not what we discussed in that particular topic.
    Go back and read your own posts.

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    Go back and read your own posts.
    Yeah, I was going to tell you that but I wasn't going to be so pedantic about it.

    It's two different topics in one conversation. Confusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    And you hating it and wanting it gone is what then? Considerate and reflective? You saying this to everyone who likes the Covenants shows big disrespect to their opinions.

    You are not any less selfish than others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    I don't disagree with what you want or what your opinion is, but those who wants the Covenants to stay as they are will be the ones that plays the game as it is intended. So not egoistic. If we talk about who is making that "egoistic" opinion, that's on Blizzard, not the players.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    "Intended"? If paying for the game but you'd be unable to play it was the "intended" way to play would you feel that was a good change to WoW?
    The point is that the covenant system is poor design. So poor that it takes what was feeling like a rather ok expansion and makes it almost unplayable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    My or your opinion doesn't matter here, it is intended to be played on live like it is on beta, yes. There is no way around it. Whether we like it or not is not relevant on that matter. The point is that you think it's poor design. If it makes it unplayable is up to each and one of us. I don't share your opinion, and while people share yours, some share mine. The thing is that the latter group is the one who likes it how it is intended. So how are they more egoistic than the other group?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggrophobic View Post
    Of course players opinions matter, thats silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    Eh, thats not what we talk about. We talk about you saying people are being egoistic for playing the game as it is intended. While you want it changed. Who is most egoistic?

    Of course players opinion matters, but that wasn't the thing we were discussing here.
    I did it for you.
    Last edited by Doffen; 2020-09-24 at 07:07 PM.
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    Yeah, I was going to tell you that but I wasn't going to be so pedantic about it.

    It's two different topics in one conversation. Confusing.








    I did it for you.
    You gotta be kidding me, right?

  9. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    The example of flying that preach brought up where they never delivered on the "better gameplay". Even now Pathfinder is wearing out its welcone.

    Garrisons were a trainwreck followed by the dumpster fire of the Harbor. And lets not forget the abomination of apexis grind.

    Legion legendaries caused tremendous disparity in performance between players for a ridiculously long time, with no ability for the player to influence the RNG until deep into the expansion.

    Order halls and artifacts were hit or miss, with some being deeply amazing and bolstered by existing lore, with others being halfassed...like the hunter lodge.

    Netherlight Crucible was layered RNG that got heavily criticized after the RNG mess of Legendaries.

    Azerite armor was heavily criticized throughout BfA beta, but still went live. Essences are STILL the biggest barrier to alts since they were introduced.

    And now we're on to soulbinds and conduits and covenants. And guess what's going to happen? It's going to launch in a poor state, then not get fixed until 9.2 or 9.3, where blizzard repeats the line of "We learned a lot from......."

    This isn't just about Preach, btw. I only used him as an example because he's well known and he said it well.
    Out of your list, I'd say that, overall, only AA and Garrisons were pretty much overwhelmingly considered failures/blunders. I also wouldn't really consider flying/pathfinder a system. Garrisons are a system, but not really to the same degree that the rest are. It wasn't a primary force for character power the way Artifacts or essences were.

    This doesn't mean, however, that everything else on this was a beacon of perfection by any means. However, with most of them, the issues come back down to philosophy as opposed to them being outright failures. That philosophy is pretty much the same/similar to what we find the in Covenant discussion. At it's core, the fundamental philosophy for most against the current state of Covenants is about absolute freedom. The belief that no player should be restricted access to a means to improve their performance. That no player should be weaker/perform worse than another due to anything but skill. This aligns with their frustrations over Legiondaries and NLC. Things that had nothing to do with skill could make one player "better" than the other. Player A got Prydaz while Player B got the BiS dps gloves, as an example.

    There are others, however, that simply enjoyed the system for what it was. They didn't see legiondaries or NLC as failures or detriments, but rather interesting system that spiced up the game. They might feel either system could have been implemented better, but overall they enjoyed them. That's the same situation they now find themselves in with Covenants, as they support covenants as a system.

    I know it's not all about Preach, but he has, whether he wanted it or not, kind of become the figurehead for his side of the argument. I also know that Blizzard aren't necessarily masters of balancing things. They have had plenty of failures in their past to warrant concern. However, it's important to remember that everyone has a different definition of what makes the game fun and what systems are/will be bad. Just because one group of people heavily criticized legiondaries doesn't make that indicative of the wider playerbase.

    Keep in mind, no side is really wrong here. At it's essence, this boils down to two sides debating about what they find to be more enjoyable. The only reason I take issue with Preach or certain people like him is that they can at times present information in a way that's very politician like. With Preach, I know at the end of the day, he's worried about a catastrophic situation with covenants and power disparity.

    That's a legit concern to have, as things need to be balanced otherwise what's the point. However, how many videos or discussions do you see him, or others like him, having where they go over the places where things are rather well balanced? Where they do thorough analysis of data to ascertain ways to improve the weak spots as opposed to just decrying how bad it is to his audience? Then when does that under the guise of speaking for all players, it can really feel like he's doing all this because he'd rather see the system dismantled over being balanced.

    Regardless, we've found ourselves in a situation where Blizzard has told us what is going to happen. What I would hope is that all the people that have the ability to do proper testing spend their energy now making sure Blizzard has the information needed to properly balance things. Cause for better or worse, this is the system we will have for now. I'd rather it have pretty good balance by the time raids launch than debate over whether or not it should exist.

    Also, I too have enjoyed having a conversation with someone who doesn't just kick and scream and name calls lol.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by themaster24 View Post
    Out of your list, I'd say that, overall, only AA and Garrisons were pretty much overwhelmingly considered failures/blunders. I also wouldn't really consider flying/pathfinder a system. Garrisons are a system, but not really to the same degree that the rest are. It wasn't a primary force for character power the way Artifacts or essences were.

    This doesn't mean, however, that everything else on this was a beacon of perfection by any means. However, with most of them, the issues come back down to philosophy as opposed to them being outright failures. That philosophy is pretty much the same/similar to what we find the in Covenant discussion. At it's core, the fundamental philosophy for most against the current state of Covenants is about absolute freedom. The belief that no player should be restricted access to a means to improve their performance. That no player should be weaker/perform worse than another due to anything but skill. This aligns with their frustrations over Legiondaries and NLC. Things that had nothing to do with skill could make one player "better" than the other. Player A got Prydaz while Player B got the BiS dps gloves, as an example.

    There are others, however, that simply enjoyed the system for what it was. They didn't see legiondaries or NLC as failures or detriments, but rather interesting system that spiced up the game. They might feel either system could have been implemented better, but overall they enjoyed them. That's the same situation they now find themselves in with Covenants, as they support covenants as a system.

    I know it's not all about Preach, but he has, whether he wanted it or not, kind of become the figurehead for his side of the argument. I also know that Blizzard aren't necessarily masters of balancing things. They have had plenty of failures in their past to warrant concern. However, it's important to remember that everyone has a different definition of what makes the game fun and what systems are/will be bad. Just because one group of people heavily criticized legiondaries doesn't make that indicative of the wider playerbase.

    Keep in mind, no side is really wrong here. At it's essence, this boils down to two sides debating about what they find to be more enjoyable. The only reason I take issue with Preach or certain people like him is that they can at times present information in a way that's very politician like. With Preach, I know at the end of the day, he's worried about a catastrophic situation with covenants and power disparity.

    That's a legit concern to have, as things need to be balanced otherwise what's the point. However, how many videos or discussions do you see him, or others like him, having where they go over the places where things are rather well balanced? Where they do thorough analysis of data to ascertain ways to improve the weak spots as opposed to just decrying how bad it is to his audience? Then when does that under the guise of speaking for all players, it can really feel like he's doing all this because he'd rather see the system dismantled over being balanced.

    Regardless, we've found ourselves in a situation where Blizzard has told us what is going to happen. What I would hope is that all the people that have the ability to do proper testing spend their energy now making sure Blizzard has the information needed to properly balance things. Cause for better or worse, this is the system we will have for now. I'd rather it have pretty good balance by the time raids launch than debate over whether or not it should exist.

    Also, I too have enjoyed having a conversation with someone who doesn't just kick and scream and name calls lol.
    You didnt find the rng acquisition of legendaries and their passive overwhelming performance an issue?
    Nor the azerite which even blizz admitted had a series of problems culminating in them putting only bis traits on nyalotha.
    Or essence and corruption acquisition which were all fixed eventually but really too late.
    Blizzard did. For all of them.


    The thing is regardless of wether i play super casually and a system doesnt affect me, thats not an argument to say its ok. Its bad. Objectively bad, even though subjectively i didnt mind because i didnt interact. And i mean actual meaningful interaction not slapping it on,not understanding or caring when to press it and enjoy the game's polish.
    Last edited by Popokolara; 2020-09-24 at 11:57 PM.

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    Yeah, I was going to tell you that but I wasn't going to be so pedantic about it.

    It's two different topics in one conversation. Confusing.








    I did it for you.
    You are a prime example of someone who loves arguing against both sides of the argument on principle, without really taking a stance yourself. Not saying you need to be part of the binary pro-con system, but it's obvious by now you like arguing more than actually making a point.

    You also claim that, basically, there is no such thing as objectivity, and that our subjective opinions on the state of the game don't matter because they collide with what's intended by our blizzard overlords.

    A system can be objectively bad, no matter how you personally use it or if if doesn't affect you.

    And for my major point of concern: The whole discussion is about whether or not blizzard should stick to the way they intend the game to be played. The fact that they do have a vision is a moot argument in this discussion.
    We are all paying customers who have been invited by Blizzard themselves to provide feedback, and that's what's happening right now.

    You have no point. You seem to love arguing for its own sake. You cherry pick others responses to your posts to slightly change the narrative.

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by LazuOG View Post
    You are a prime example of someone who loves arguing against both sides of the argument on principle, without really taking a stance yourself. Not saying you need to be part of the binary pro-con system, but it's obvious by now you like arguing more than actually making a point.
    Yeah, that's called being reflective. You however is a prime example of someone who only think for what you want yourself and can't see the other side of the coin. I know that's hard to grasp, but seeing the other side of it, as in the opposite of your own opinion is a good thing.

    My stance on this, which I have said several times is that I like the choice the Covenants gives. To free them up would be a detriment to the whole idea of the Covenant. But that doesn't mean that I can be with the other side that are afraid of tuning not being good enough.
    You also claim that, basically, there is no such thing as objectivity, and that our subjective opinions on the state of the game don't matter because they collide with what's intended by our blizzard overlords.
    Then you didn't read what I wrote. The way the game is intended got NOTHING to do with our opinions in the specific argument we had. It's how the game is meant to be played. But obviously you have not understood what me and the other poster argued about.
    A system can be objectively bad, no matter how you personally use it or if if doesn't affect you.
    Yes, a dictatorship can be objectively bad. To choose a Covenant and having a choice is something entirely different. It's very subjective.
    And for my major point of concern: The whole discussion is about whether or not blizzard should stick to the way they intend the game to be played. The fact that they do have a vision is a moot argument in this discussion.
    We are all paying customers who have been invited by Blizzard themselves to provide feedback, and that's what's happening right now.
    Yeah, and I said that player opinions are of course important. But that was not the discussion here so it's only you who now try to just argue, something you blame me for.

    You have no point. You seem to love arguing for its own sake. You cherry pick others responses to your posts to slightly change the narrative.
    The only one who argue to argue here is you. Give me one example of me not having a point. And when people move goalpost and I still keep track of the initial discussion is not my fault. The post you now quoted was about that a poster claimed I wrote something he himself wrote, and since he was so very pedantic about it, I had to correct it.

    This post of yours reeks of an individual that can't stand others opinions so you take one post out of context and try to label it as non-argumentative. Pathetic. If my opinion was with yours, you would have made this post to the other poster.
    Last edited by Doffen; 2020-09-25 at 06:55 AM.
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    Yeah, that's called being reflective. You however is a prime example of someone who only think for what you want yourself and can't see the other side of the coin. I know that's hard to grasp, but seeing the other side of it, as in the opposite of your own opinion is a good thing.

    My stance on this, which I have said several times is that I like the choice the Covenants gives. To free them up would be a detriment to the whole idea of the Covenant. But that doesn't mean that I can be with the other side that are afraid of tuning not being good enough.

    Then you didn't read what I wrote. The way the game is intended got NOTHING to do with our opinions. It's how the game is meant to be played. But obviously you have not understood what me and the other poster argued about.

    Yes, a dictatorship can be objectively bad. To choose a Covenant and having a choice is something entirely different. It's very subjective.

    Yeah, and I said that player opinions are of course important. But that was not the discussion here so it's only you who now try to just argue, something you blame me for.


    The only one who argue to argue here is you. Give me one example of me not having a point. And when people move goalpost and I still keep track of the initial discussion is not my fault. The post you now quoted was about that a poster claimed I wrote something he himself wrote, and since he was so very pedantic about it, I had to correct it.

    This post of yours reeks of an individual that can't stand others opinions so you take one post out of context and try to label it as non-argumentative. Pathetic. If my opinion was with yours, you would have made this post to the other poster.
    Is it possible for the covenant system to be bad or good or its only subjective?

  14. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by Popokolara View Post
    Is it possible for the covenant system to be bad or good or its only subjective?
    In it's current form, mostly, it's highly subjective. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's objectively bad. Let's take Azerite Armor. I think it's bad. Some people however like it. Is it then objectively bad or not?

    And let's take the Covenants. In beta atm there are some outliers. Some people say one Covenant will do 30% more throughput than the rest. I would say that's objectively a bad thing within that system. But how the systems itself works, how could you say if it's objectively bad or not? The design is a design blizzard likes and want to go through with. It's a design some players like and a design some players dislike.

    So you tell me, is it possible for it to be objectively bad? Can you give reasons for why it could be?
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  15. #275
    Quote Originally Posted by Popokolara View Post
    You didnt find the rng acquisition of legendaries and their passive overwhelming performance an issue?
    Nor the azerite which even blizz admitted had a series of problems culminating in them putting only bis traits on nyalotha.
    Or essence and corruption acquisition which were all fixed eventually but really too late.
    Blizzard did. For all of them.


    The thing is regardless of wether i play super casually and a system doesnt affect me, thats not an argument to say its ok. Its bad. Objectively bad, even though subjectively i didnt mind because i didnt interact. And i mean actual meaningful interaction not slapping it on,not understanding or caring when to press it and enjoy the game's polish.
    No, I did not find legion legendaries to be a be particularly massive issue, and my mains first and only legendary for the longest time was Prydaz. Did blizzard eventually make them easier to acquire? Sure, at the end of the xpac, by allowing you to buy an item that would randomly generate a legendary. Because it wasn't that big of a problem in their eyes. They didn't allow players to buy specific pieces until the BfA pre-patch

    Azerite Armor was an absolute bungle, as I've said in some of my previous posts. Also notice how Blizzard began making to changes to AA almost immediately, because it was a proper failure. They continued to make changes through every patch because they could not get it straight how to properly fix it.

    Essences were perfectly fine at launch, minus getting certain essences, like BotE. The biggest issue was for alts, which is not something that I would say make the system a failure. Overall, essences were pretty well received. The only change made to them later on was to make them alt friendly.

    I didn't touch on corruptions because the Sircowdog did not bring them up. But absolutely, Corruptions launched as an absolute shit show. A last minute attempt to replace War/Titanforging that had some insane outliers that should never have gone live.

    Lastly, you do not have to be "super casual" for the systems to not bother you, or for you to find them ok. I know it's hard for some people to understand, but not everyone shares the same philosophy regarding WoW or game design, including people who do the same content as you. There are plenty of players, from casuals to Mythic raidres, that generally would express that most of the systems have either been great to not a big deal. Just because you took issue with these systems, or because you don't value the opinion of those that didn't the same kind of issue, does not make your opinion the definitive fact.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Popokolara View Post
    Is it possible for the covenant system to be bad or good or its only subjective?
    Covenants, as a system, can definitely end up finding itself definitively on one end of the spectrum, or could continue to find itself stuck in the middle. Ultimately, we won't really know until it goes live and we spend time with it. For all we know, those who are supporting it's current structure might come out after a month or two and say the system is crap and needs to be changed ASAP. Likewise, it's equally possible that those fighting for it to be dismantled now might find after a month or two that the system is as bad as they had heard, even potentially realizing they like the system they once despised.

    I'm sure that's not the answer you, or most of those sharing a similar mindset as you, want to hear. However, at present, many of us only have the words of a small group of WoW content creators to go off. Some speak of covenants as if they will break the game, while others say they think it's perfectly fine as is. Keep in mind, that blizzard has done a lot more in the way of listen to the overall player feedback during this Alpha/Beta. It's fairly likely that, overall, players on Alpha/Beta have not felt the issues that some of the content creators have expressed. I'd be willing to bet that if the overwhelming majority of testers were telling Blizzard that Covenants were unfathomably bad, they would have #pulledtheripcord. You can believe that or not, but with as much as blizz as gone back and forth this testing cycle, frequently listening to the overall feedback (i.e. see elemental shamans), I'd put my money on their data showing most people on beta find Covenants fine as they are.

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post

    - - - Updated - - -


    Choosing a Covenant is almost like choosing your spec in start of Legion. They even did a comparison to that in interviews. WoW was always casual and simple in this regard until 2016 you mean. So yes, WoW was this way, and has been for the last 4 years.
    No, it hasn't. In Legion, you could still switch and level up your alt spec/artifact weapon whenever you wanted. You would be slower in progressing your other specs, but the choice to switch whenever you wanted was there. It really wasn't a meaningful choice, especially when they ended up capping the progression.

  17. #277
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Proton View Post
    No, it hasn't. In Legion, you could still switch and level up your alt spec/artifact weapon whenever you wanted. You would be slower in progressing your other specs, but the choice to switch whenever you wanted was there. It really wasn't a meaningful choice, especially when they ended up capping the progression.
    And how long did it take to have the other spec up to speed? A few weeks, months even. Changing Covenants take how long? And like I said, it's almost like choosing spec in start of Legion. Almost. And the thing about it has been this way for 4 years was a direct response to "wow was always easy this way". Which is untrue seeing we got both Legion and BfA.

    Note, this is only in the start of Legion, after 5-6 months powering up was very easy and fast. It wasn't me who did the comparison, it was Ion Hazzikostas. It's the design they got for Covenants so I guess it is a reason for that comparison.
    Last edited by Doffen; 2020-09-25 at 04:26 PM.
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by themaster24 View Post
    Lastly, you do not have to be "super casual" for the systems to not bother you, or for you to find them ok. I know it's hard for some people to understand, but not everyone shares the same philosophy regarding WoW or game design, including people who do the same content as you. There are plenty of players, from casuals to Mythic raidres, that generally would express that most of the systems have either been great to not a big deal. Just because you took issue with these systems, or because you don't value the opinion of those that didn't the same kind of issue, does not make your opinion the definitive fact.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Covenants, as a system, can definitely end up finding itself definitively on one end of the spectrum, or could continue to find itself stuck in the middle. Ultimately, we won't really know until it goes live and we spend time with it. For all we know, those who are supporting it's current structure might come out after a month or two and say the system is crap and needs to be changed ASAP. Likewise, it's equally possible that those fighting for it to be dismantled now might find after a month or two that the system is as bad as they had heard, even potentially realizing they like the system they once despised.

    I'm sure that's not the answer you, or most of those sharing a similar mindset as you, want to hear. However, at present, many of us only have the words of a small group of WoW content creators to go off. Some speak of covenants as if they will break the game, while others say they think it's perfectly fine as is. Keep in mind, that blizzard has done a lot more in the way of listen to the overall player feedback during this Alpha/Beta. It's fairly likely that, overall, players on Alpha/Beta have not felt the issues that some of the content creators have expressed. I'd be willing to bet that if the overwhelming majority of testers were telling Blizzard that Covenants were unfathomably bad, they would have #pulledtheripcord. You can believe that or not, but with as much as blizz as gone back and forth this testing cycle, frequently listening to the overall feedback (i.e. see elemental shamans), I'd put my money on their data showing most people on beta find Covenants fine as they are.
    You do not find the idea of:
    "Sorry mate you do 30% less dmg. Why? because rng. Your ability to play the game? How is that related to performance????? You speak nonsense good sir."
    problematic?

    Second if you play competitively and you are not bothered by a system - that keeps you 30% behind other people due to pure rng of: Sorry this character has been marked for suck like leggos did - yea mate something doesnt click. You CARE for performance yet you do not Care for being 30% behind? Maybe we use casual differently? i dont know what to say here. Regardless you can remove the word casual and point stands. The argument is:

    " a system doesnt affect me, thats not an argument to say its ok. Its bad. Objectively bad, even though subjectively i didnt mind because i didnt interact."

    Doesnt matter if my feeeeely is i dont mind. I know people with CE who are hard time carried. They are still casuals. Just cause they get Ce regularly because they are great to have around doesnt make them non casuals. Casual is the way you treat the game.
    A system has a purpose to fullfill. If i raid only heroic and i dont care corruptions are off the scale that is not an argument about "its fine". Same as legendaries. They would not bother adding the vendor if it wasnt an issue.


    btw a lot of the "they listened" you see is
    1. fixing problems they created themselves that made absolutely no sense and 100% convinced it was a diplomatic show. i am talking about destructible conduits. I mean it was a full no life grinding fill your bahs gallore which was in stark contrast with EVERYTHING they are pushing for.AND VOILA! the solution is......exactly aligned with the rest of the systems they push. What a coincidence!
    2. classes broken since BFA BETA. but i guess lets give them a trophie.

    I have been playing wow 15 years. This is the first time i am not hyped for an expansion and treat their words with such cynicism btw.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    In it's current form, mostly, it's highly subjective. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's objectively bad. Let's take Azerite Armor. I think it's bad. Some people however like it. Is it then objectively bad or not?

    And let's take the Covenants. In beta atm there are some outliers. Some people say one Covenant will do 30% more throughput than the rest. I would say that's objectively a bad thing within that system. But how the systems itself works, how could you say if it's objectively bad or not? The design is a design blizzard likes and want to go through with. It's a design some players like and a design some players dislike.

    So you tell me, is it possible for it to be objectively bad? Can you give reasons for why it could be?
    Azerite was bad. blizzard admitted themselves. I have some real quality advice here. Take your argument, take is logic. Put it in a situation where the opposite of its intention is true. If it doesnt work its a SHIT argument.
    Example:

    "Let's take corruption system. I think it's bad. Some people however like it. Is it then objectively bad or not?"

    Yep doesnt work.


    Covenants:

    Cons:
    Punish people doing multiple types of content.
    Go against the lore.
    Have grand imbalances even now and of the things like utility are not balancable by numbers.
    The lockout transfers responsibility of actual gameplay control into responsibility of what choice you made. In other words remove combat difficulty to add forced suboptimal choice. This has ZERO affect on lower content and serious implications on higher content. Mythic/high pvp/key pushing is incompatible with it.

    Pros:
    Creates a long non existant sense of roleplay in the game (which i actually dont buy. Which is a placebo. Its a fake "toss a nice title on my name and i feel im doing something when i really am not doing anything but tricking myself im special". Dnd would cry at the miserable con that is covenant roleplaying
    Adds the classic rpg choices matter ( Which is a completely incompatible system for MYTHIC and PVP competitive difficulties. Single player rpg games dont have 400 pull bosses and a 20man team in the room coordinating)

    The only benefit it holds is offer placebos to people who want to feel they do something but are really not doing anything. Its the lazy mediocre man's miserable revenge on those who actually achieve either in combat or outside it because they are the ones who cant really accept that its fine to do neither and just enjoy the AAA production that the game still has.


    Thats why i dont like it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    And how long did it take to have the other spec up to speed? A few weeks, months even. Changing Covenants take how long?
    YOU NEVER ARE ABLE TO FREELY SWAP BECAUSE WHEN YOU SWAP YOU NEED TO SPEND WHOLE RESET IN WRONG COVENANT
    Did equiping my shadow artifact invalidate the use of my disc for A WEEK? no it didnt.
    stop
    making
    nonsensical
    arguments
    and
    comparissons
    Last edited by Popokolara; 2020-09-25 at 07:12 PM.

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Popokolara View Post
    Azerite was bad. blizzard admitted themselves. I have some real quality advice here. Take your argument, take is logic. Put it in a situation where the opposite of its intention is true. If it doesnt work its a SHIT argument.
    Example:

    "Let's take corruption system. I think it's bad. Some people however like it. Is it then objectively bad or not?"

    Yep doesnt work.
    And why doesn't it work? Take your own advice and think about that. Blizzard said themselves they were happy how it turned out. By your logic then Corruption was objectively good.

    Covenants:
    Cons:
    Punish people doing multiple types of content.
    Go against the lore.
    Have grand imbalances even now and of the things like utility are not balancable by numbers.
    The lockout transfers responsibility of actual gameplay control into responsibility of what choice you made. In other words remove combat difficulty to add forced suboptimal choice. This has ZERO affect on lower content and serious implications on higher content. Mythic/high pvp/key pushing is incompatible with it.

    Pros:
    Creates a long non existant sense of roleplay in the game (which i actually dont buy. Which is a placebo. Its a fake "toss a nice title on my name and i feel im doing something when i really am not doing anything but tricking myself im special". Dnd would cry at the miserable con that is covenant roleplaying
    Adds the classic rpg choices matter ( Which is a completely incompatible system for MYTHIC and PVP competitive difficulties. Single player rpg games dont have 400 pull bosses and a 20man team in the room coordinating)

    The only benefit it holds is offer placebos to people who want to feel they do something but are really not doing anything. Its the lazy mediocre man's miserable revenge on those who actually achieve either in combat or outside it because they are the ones who cant really accept that its fine to do neither and just enjoy the AAA production that the game still has.


    Thats why i dont like it.
    And here you show that you don't even think about it objectively. "It's a placebo". "It's fake". You are only thinking about this subjectively so take your own advice: Yeah, does not work that way.

    YOU NEVER ARE ABLE TO FREELY SWAP BECAUSE WHEN YOU SWAP YOU NEED TO SPEND WHOLE RESET IN WRONG COVENANT
    Did equiping my shadow artifact invalidate the use of my disc for A WEEK? no it didnt.
    stop
    making
    nonsensical
    arguments
    and
    comparissons
    You can actually swap around a reset, so if you want it takes 2 days(If it's Monday night and you want to change, you can rejoin your Covenant in under 24 hours.). And while the comparison is there, Covenants are not a spec. It's a rental power system, just like the others we have had. Did we not have to farm to get those abilities in BfA and Legion? Yes we did. Again, take your advice and start reflecting. You needed to farm AP so that the Artifact Weapon got powered up. You couldn't just go Shadow if you were disc and then performing at the same level.

    Just want to point out a few things. You are not being objective at all. And you are only taking the "pros" and then talking about bad they are. Meaning you are not objective at all. So then you try to lecture people about it when you don't understand it yourself. Your post is easily summed up like this:

    "I don't like Covenants, it's objectively bad."
    "You who like it, are objectively wrong"

    The thing is, you don't know shit if Covenants are objectively bad. Stop belittling others about their opinion and discuss like an adult. Caps lock and writing sentences downwards is just making you look silly.
    Last edited by Doffen; 2020-09-25 at 08:24 PM.
    - Enough prattling. Let them come. We shall grind their bones to dust.

  20. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by Doffen View Post
    And why doesn't it work? Take your own advice and think about that. Blizzard said themselves they were happy how it turned out. By your logic then Corruption was objectively good.


    And here you show that you don't even think about it objectively. "It's a placebo". "It's fake". You are only thinking about this subjectively so take your own advice: Yeah, does not work that way.


    You can actually swap around a reset, so if you want it takes 2 days(If it's Monday night and you want to change, you can rejoin your Covenant in under 24 hours.). And while the comparison is there, Covenants are not a spec. It's a rental power system, just like the others we have had. Did we not have to farm to get those abilities in BfA and Legion? Yes we did. Again, take your advice and start reflecting. You needed to farm AP so that the Artifact Weapon got powered up. You couldn't just go Shadow if you were disc and then performing at the same level.

    Just want to point out a few things. You are not being objective at all. And you are only taking the "pros" and then talking about bad they are. Meaning you are not objective at all. So then you try to lecture people about it when you don't understand it yourself. Your post is easily summed up like this:

    "I don't like Covenants, it's objectively bad."
    "You who like it, are objectively wrong"

    The thing is, you don't know shit if Covenants are objectively bad. Stop belittling others about their opinion and discuss like an adult. Caps lock and writing sentences downwards is just making you look silly.
    1. They were happy with what? Legendaries? Azerite? corruption? FALSE on all 3 accounts by ion's OWN words.
    2.Its placebo and fake because slapping a name on it is not good enough to produce nuance. Answer the arguments. Dont jump around saying: you argue it bad therefore u are subjective hur hur You make ZERO -ZERO -ZERO arguments. Literally max shitposting useless opinions. Respond and explain how it DOEs have merit. If you cannot do that you do not have a an argument and therefore NO right to push/support an opinion. If you CANNOT understand you need to answer an argument with an argument you lack social skills as well and polute the forums. BTW the last 2 sentences are actually constructive. They show you the path to a better situation and how you can help me understand my possible error. Dare you take it? Or make menaningless spam again?

    3. you could do healing raid boss. Shadow pvp or shadow m+. Can you do that now? no.....
    Can you compue 1+1=2? You keep comparing
    weekly lockout
    with
    change on the fly just less progression.

    Why its like CONDUITs are actually comparable to artifact traits. But thats too hard to grasp for you?
    4. Just because i criticise the pros doesnt neccesarily mean im subjective.

    See if theoretically i am right about those 6 prons+cons i would be obj. But i am wrong even about one i am at least partially subjective.
    Do you understand now the magnifence of a properly framed statement?

    I am discussing like an adult. I am inflamatory but that doesnt reduce or subtract from the meaning of my arguments at all. You are not inflamatory but say NOTHING of substance. Thats why i am belittling. Because you refuse to actually land on reality. You care more about my tone than my message. But you didnt care about the message before i got mean a well so.

    START MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE SENSE

    5. I make arguments. You sum my up excluding arguments.
    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????
    BING BING BING disingenious little rabbit detected.
    the more you lie the more you are the fool and not me. i take exactly what you say and use it against you. You EXCLUDE things i say.
    good job. The kaps is the remote hope you stop EXCLUDING things i say. its tough to deal with your shit i am trying things.

    comparing having all 3 choicessFREELY swappable but 1 is 100% while the other are 80 and 60, or 60 and 40
    IS NOT
    the same as having ONE CHOICE per week.

    DO YOU COMPUTE? Do you dissagree with the above statement. Yes or no.


    Covenants are not a spec they are indeed a rental power system that will be used in conjuction with a spec. If my one specs covenant is TRASH for my second spec the difference in power will be as if i havent put any points or have 2 traits in the alt spec and 18 on the main spec. YES that big YES right now there are specs with INEXCUSABLE covenant differences. YOU are the one who made the comparisson between how fast you can change them btw, and that is what i called out.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I am going to try the good guy routine.

    First i firmly believe that our ability to express ourselves is tied with the way we think, and subesquently inability to form logical trains of thoughts and assemble them as well structured arguments, means we have no proper basis for our opinions. It is very important if i hold an opinion that can support it. Otherwise it becomes belief. I am ok with belief in religious matters but not when we discuss a corporeal and identifiable entity such as covenants.

    If i make arguments which are flawed you will be able to easily counter them. If you have the right, of course, to dissagree with me. But your opinion is also completely worthless. Your freedom of expression has no value if what you say has no value, for example if you were mad and speaked gibberish.

    A subjective viewpoint that is a preference of course is not subject to this, its a personal incorporeal feeling.
    An opinion is by default subjective i think due to its very terminology. What can happen is that it can coincide with an objective viewpoint although it can be hard to achieve so.

    Here are my issues with the covenants.
    This first segment of observations stand in regards to higher tier of content:

    1. You are severely punished if you want to do multiple types of content or play different specs and you arent lucky enough to have the same covenant meta. Yes currently there are cases where the difference is horrible and cases where its np. Tuning is a much more direct and proper solution to this problem. The same problem exists for some soulbinds and conduits.

    2. Lorewise it is nonsensical as indicated by the very covenant which feels betrayed you didnt side with it send you to defend its brothers in arms and sacred duty for all times. Unless this is an ego game in which case it just renders the current faction figurehead's ego more important than a cosmic threatning crisis.

    3. The idea of roleplaying is about a character facing dificulties and taking choices on how to solve them. These choiceshave consequences. There is no such thing related to lore. The only choice and consequence in fact is purely your meta performance. Your actual combat abilities and the loot lockout.
    Imagine a roleplaying argument being a......restriction around loot lock timing? That is the essence of covenants. Its not a day or a full moon or something. Its a loot lockout.

    4. the argument of rpg builds and consequences on the mechanical level is derived from a good practice or a traditional practice in other rpg games. Those games are completely different beasts and vaguely resemble the environment of wow. Their many design characteristics that are not universal for all kind of genres are not compatible with mythic raiding, pvp and m+. You can complete the content but with a significant disadvantage. In some cases you just dont make the cut and add a ridiculous amount of tries and time before you can reach it again. In pvp might even be a hard cap.

    5. I believe that this idea of meaningful choice is again the focus of the above point. A non combat but general tactic decision having effects sounds very proper and responsible. Its way of currently being implemented is what i dislike. To me it feels like they just shoved it as an excuse for their time delaying system first, as if you were to remove it nothing would really change.

    If we needed to farm reagents for example to use the spells in a more DND traditional version it could feel right. But in the confines of an mmorpg system it feels fake. I know i use the word feel a lot. Its on purpose as some other people can be content with nothing but a title that has a lockdown. The problem here is that if you take those that feel important thanks to the time lock and removed it their sensation would suffer. If a time lock that owes its existence to a loot lockout is the only and full pillar of a roleplaying sense of identity or similar then i believe it is a shallow thing indeed. It certainly would be a cheap and dissapointing method in D&D which is considered the ancient source of rpg.
    Last edited by Popokolara; 2020-09-25 at 08:46 PM.

Posting Permissions

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