Do restrictions automatically make choices more "meaningful"?

[facefist]

By definition restricting choice make it more important or meaningful. It's fine not to like that but it doesn't change the fact that choice without restriction doesn't mean a lot.

Having to choose between a lot of options you don't like doesn't change that either although it makes it less of an issue to care about.

I agree with this mostly, but I would add that the level of restriction doesn't affect the level of meaningfulness per say (which is what OP asked I guess). It all depends on the preferences of the one making the choice, i.e. a choice that has small but long lasting consequences (so your ability to re-choose is restricted) can be less meaningful than a choice with big consequences yet which can be re-chosen quickly.

An in-game example would be talents versus something like conduits. Choosing between a single target and aoe talent can be extremely meaningful in a top raid environment, if the boss requires both high aoe and high single, and if their difference is high. If there is similar conduit yet the difference is 0,2 %, then the talent choice is far more meaningful for that particular person then the conduit choice is, no matter if the conduit choice is more restricted.

[MatPandaZ]

I agree with this mostly, but I would add that the level of restriction doesn't affect the level of meaningfulness per say (which is what OP asked I guess). It all depends on the preferences of the one making the choice, i.e. a choice that has small but long lasting consequences (so your ability to re-choose is restricted) can be less meaningful than a choice with big consequences yet which can be re-chosen quickly.

An in-game example would be talents versus something like conduits. Choosing between a single target and aoe talent can be extremely meaningful in a top raid environment, if the boss requires both high aoe and high single, and if their difference is high. If there is similar conduit yet the difference is 0,2 %, then the talent choice is far more meaningful for that particular person then the conduit choice is, no matter if the conduit choice is more restricted.

Meaningful doesn't need to be positive. Adding restrictions that influence choice *does* make something more meaningful. May not make it more fun, or a choice you want to have to make, but if they restricted you to 1 character in game then your choice of class is much more meaningful.

[facefist]

Meaningful doesn't need to be positive. Adding restrictions that influence choice *does* make something more meaningful. May not make it more fun, or a choice you want to have to make, but if they restricted you to 1 character in game then your choice of class is much more meaningful.

I think you pretty much missed the whole point of my post, so I'll lay it out more clearly for you: I said that the level of meaningfulness of a choice depends on many factors, which one of them is the level of restriction, but that we cannot simply say that a more restricted choice is also more meaningful. This obviously works when comparing "two different levels" of choices (e.g. choosing talents and choosing conduits), and not when having a "one level of choice" (e.g. choosing your class)

For example, a more restricted conduit choice can be less meaningful than a less restricted talent choice.

[Wuusah]

I think you pretty much missed the whole point of my post, so I'll lay it out more clearly for you: I said that the level of meaningfulness of a choice depends on many factors, which one of them is the level of restriction, but that we cannot simply say that a more restricted choice is also more meaningful. This obviously works when comparing "two different levels" of choices (e.g. choosing talents and choosing conduits), and not when having a "one level of choice" (e.g. choosing your class)

For example, a more restricted conduit choice can be less meaningful than a less restricted talent choice.

In the end the most important part is what changes that choice leads to. If conduits are so perfectly balanced that no matter what you pick, your performance will always be the same, then it doesn't really matter what you pick, even if you could never respec. That is not only because of the same performance, though, but also because conduits usually don't have an impact on how you play. If they were perfectly balanced then there would be no change depending on your choice, because it's just numbers, at least for potency conduits. Contrary to that, covenant abilities are still very meaningful decisions even if they were by some miracle perfectly balanced, because they change the way we play our class to some extent. And they change the game to some extent as well by giving us some different unique minor content depending on our choice.

[Krakan]

These restrictions are only added to gatekeep Mythic raiders/world first players from completing the content too quickly and screw over the other 99% of the player base.

Ion is OBESSED with mythic raiding and doesn't care if he destroys everyone else's fun just to slow down mythic raiders. it's sickening.

Ion needed to go 2 expacs ago, he has done nothing but drag the game down and lose profits. You'd think Activision wouldn't want someone who consistently makes them lose money in charge of their biggest consistent revenue generator, but I guess not.

The irony is the guilds hes trying to slow down will only be sped up with this system as they use broken builds and a army of alts to destroy the content in maybe a week and a half if hes lucky as they then immediately create a meta players will need to be since like it or not the warcraft community runs off monkey sees monkey do.

[ZazuuPriest]

the change that brought respecs into D2 also significantly changed the leveling experience. Before respecs were a thing you had to intentionally weaken yourself by not spending your points in early levels to get the best endgame builds. Respecs changed that completely. Now you can start with an early game build and then respec to a midgame build and then respec to an endgame build. So yes, restrictions can be very meaningful in games.

The lack of respecs forces players to plan their char. It forces players to hold back gratification for the big payoff at the end. Respecs throw the need for planning and the payoff away. Instead it's instant gratification all the way. You are strong in early game, you are strong in midgame, you are strong in endgame.

The less restrictions there are on respecs, the less of a "build" you have and the more of a "loadout" it is. Talents were once your build and they are now your loadout. WoW completely lost the "build" aspect in the latest years. It's all a loadout these days and that's why people complain so much about Shadowlands because for Shadowlands Blizzard wants to bring the aspect of having a "build" back. Whether that's a good idea for an MMO is questionable.

The only thing not being able to respec did was make people need to be rushed (aka skip all game content) and then get carried for a few hours to level up enough to wear all their gear. That didnt make literally anything meaningful unless you think standing in a corner soaking xp while someone else plays the game meaningful. Super nice try though

[Wuusah]

The only thing not being able to respec did was make people need to be rushed (aka skip all game content) and then get carried for a few hours to level up enough to wear all their gear. That didnt make literally anything meaningful unless you think standing in a corner soaking xp while someone else plays the game meaningful. Super nice try though

not everyone played online and not everyone let themselves get rushed.

And people still want a rush when they play online because they want to quickly get to a high level with that char.

Having respec or not has nothing to do with rushes.

[Kithelle]

It depends.

For a single player RPG, restrictions are a good way make choices meaningful since your choices directly impact your character gameplay/progress.

In a multiplayer game like WoW, such restrictions are brutal. If your decision/choices are impacting the wellbeing of 19 other people, then those 19 other people have one of two options - 1) either accept you as you are with your pathetic choices and carry you along; or, 2) discard you in favor of someone who made the right choices.

Either way it is a horrible experience. You are forced to either reroll or quit or try living as subpar.

Or you could you know...be a decent person and not worry about a ability because it isn't the perfect choice. If your game is really suffering THAT much because of one ability that doesn't make a massive impact on the game then maybe it's more user error?

But everyone plays at the top 1% where pushing limits is crucial right? This forum is just filled with WoW experts who're the best of the best of the best that absolutely push it to the max and go for world firsts

Makes me laugh sometimes, "WoW isn't a RPG anymore" they add RPG elements "Being forced to make a choice sucks, I want it all...and I want it now!"

[ZazuuPriest]

not everyone played online and not everyone let themselves get rushed.

And people still want a rush when they play online because they want to quickly get to a high level with that char.

Having respec or not has nothing to do with rushes.

supporting your arguments on the backs of the 0.01% of people who dont play the game like everyone else. Makes sense. Respecs have literally everything to do with needing to be rushed.

[Zogarth]

In order to answer if it is a meaningful choice, one first has to answer what the meaning of playing WoW even is. Of course, this varies based on person to person, but that doesn't mean the game isn't designed with what to choose to begin with.

WOW is a multiplayer game before an RPG. Nearly all the endgame content revolves around playing with other people, and the systems are designed to incentivize people to go as far as they can in the content. To progress from normal to heroic to mythic. To get a higher rating in pvp.

The game is designed around not necessarily being in the top 1% but to strive to be in the top 1%. It pushes you towards being the top 1%. At least most of the game does. Then they have things like covenants that put a wrench in the cogs. It adds another barrier in interacting with the progression path Blizzard has created and the culture they have nurtured for years.

If WoW cared about being an RPG then it just wouldn't add a single RPG-like mechanic but restructure the entire game around it. They would stop caring about balance entirely and focus far more on customization. Player housing would be in focus, raiding content would be story-driven with more focus on cutscenes than intricate boss mechanics.

No, WoW is a game not about player customization but player progression. It's about improving your character's power throughout an expansion. The rest if fluff. The greatest reward for player customization is earned through progressing your character's power and beating harder content. So when they make beating the content harder by putting up artificial barriers it hurts the entire structure and natural progression path.

This doesn't mean that WoW shouldn't have RPG elements. It already has a lot and there is nothing more with adding more. The issue is when they try to fuse RPG-elements into incompatible core mechanics. If they added covenants but didn't tie a lot of player power to it no one would complain. You could do a lot with covenants without breaking the progression path. But sadly it seems like Blizzard doesn't care about that.

So when people ask if something is a meaningful choice it of course comes down to who you ask. But to just reject the fact that Blizzard has created a game about being the most powerful and not understanding why people think the power tied to the choice matters is just delusional.

[Wuusah]

supporting your arguments on the backs of the 0.01% of people who dont play the game like everyone else. Makes sense. Respecs have literally everything to do with needing to be rushed.

you never ever NEEDED to be rushed. It was, is and always will be a luxury that you either paid for or had a friend do (or did yourself if you had two copies of the game).

Just stop spreading your bullshit. I played that game religiously for half a decade and then on and off afterwards. Rushing was done because people didn't want to go through all the acts again after they did that more than enough times already on many previous chars. Rushing is still done for the same reasons that it was done before respec existed. Respec has nothing to do with rushing.

[Fayenoor]

Or you could you know...be a decent person and not worry about a ability because it isn't the perfect choice. If your game is really suffering THAT much because of one ability that doesn't make a massive impact on the game then maybe it's more user error?

Or you could be you know... be the decent person and pick the RIGHT choice instead of picking the wrong choice based on your selfish needs and make 19 other people suffer for it.

I would rather be a team player and pick what the team needs over what I want, just because I want it. That's just me /shrug
To each their own.

If you can find 19 other suckers willing to live with your selfish choices, you should definitely do so.

[Baconeggcheese]

I'ma just post this here cause the other thread got closed and this is basically the same thread and I had already typed it.

I just hope they don't "pull the ripcord" and make it possible to switch as often as you want. That completely destroys any sense of identity, meaning or weight in the Covenant decision and just makes it another button or thing to min/max with no "fun" involved. It's mechanical. This feels much worse than whatever performance impact it has (so long as the performance between the choices isn't vastly different). It should be much deeper than a simple mechanical choice.

Granted, if they don't get the balancing right, the issue will occur anyway and everyone will feel forced to go with the "best" choice but we haven't seen their final numbers yet. As I said I'm cautiously optimistic, because they did delay the launch and said that this was one of the things they're heavily looking into.

We'll see.

Guess it kind of depends what "pull the ripcord" looks like. We can sit here and imagine all sorts of different ways that the power can be separated from the covenant choice, which is ultimately what people want when asking for the ripcord to be pulled.

I have no issue with them making it Aldor vs Scryer levels of difficult to swap between covenants, as long as most if not all of the power is detached from that choice. Then I get to pick the one I most identify with and play through that story and have that armor and mount and my lil weekly special activity and all that stuff to immerse myself in, while not having all these other power related choices unnecessarily tacked on and taking my choice away from me.


Also to be clear, there is no balancing this. Blizzard has never in the history of WoW managed to balance a single one of these systems, and this system is several of those systems at the same time.

Worse than that, if we ignore soulbinds and conduits for a moment even though that's where most of the power will ultimately come from... just the covenant abilities in and of themselves are impossible to balance. Why? Because they're not homogenized and are presenting the literal same choice as my legion talent example from the previous post. Except even worse because they're trying to make the same ability work for different specs.

Take warrior, condemn is both a single target and aoe ability for fury. Arms can't aoe it, so its just single target and 2t with sweeping strikes. Prot can't do anything with it besides ST and afaik doesn't really want to cast it.

Now they have to balance that mess against say... ancient aftershock that is purely an aoe ability across the board, and is a 1.5m CD vs condemn being spammable.

And then they have to balance spear of bastion against all that somehow deciding what the value of the utility it provides is.

And then they have to balance Conqueror's Banner against all that while conqueror's banner has a myriad of things to consider with it being a ground effect with a limited radius that you have to stand in for 20 seconds while ramping up its bonus on a 3 minute cd. All that before also considering that it buffs 2 additional players as well which they have to take into account when balancing it which they can't control for at all and can have dramatically different values depending on who is getting that bonus.

There is no balancing all that, you can get that idea out of your head right now. Best case scenario is for them to each have their own niche where they're strong enough that you would want to swap between them whenever that niche comes up. Which inherently can't be a small difference between them, and puts us right smack back into the literal same issue as putting single target talents next to aoe talents from legion.

Now add in soulbinds and conduits.

[Mosha]

In order to answer if it is a meaningful choice, one first has to answer what the meaning of playing WoW even is.....

Think we are diving a little too deep into a very simple question guys lol

[Zogarth]

Think we are diving a little too deep into a very simple question guys lol

It isn't a simple question though. It is super complex and multifaceted to determine what makes a choice meaningful and in what context it can be considered meaningful.

[Blayze]

Take AoE abilities, for example. The Arms Warrior has a few, and can talent into some more.

If you had to pick one, and lost all the others, that one could be made more powerful. Either way, it'd make facing different Arms Warriors in PvP more engaging if you weren't sure if they'd taken Cleave, Whirlwind, Sweeping Strikes, Shockwave or Bladestorm, and had to play around the ability they *did* pick.

And that's just one ability choice.

[Mosha]

It isn't a simple question though. It is super complex and multifaceted to determine what makes a choice meaningful and in what context it can be considered meaningful.

The question isn’t if it makes it meaningful. I see a ton of people here confusing this with something it’s not. The question was does it make the choice MORE meaningful. As in having that decision hold more meaning with a restriction than if it didn’t have one at all.

So the question wouldn’t be asking “is choosing your hairstyle meaningful” it’s asking “Is the decision to choose a hairstyle more meaningful with restrictions than if there wasn’t”

- - - Updated - - -

Or you could be you know... be the decent person and pick the RIGHT choice instead of picking the wrong choice based on your selfish needs and make 19 other people suffer for it.

I would rather be a team player and pick what the team needs over what I want, just because I want it. That's just me /shrug
To each their own.

If you can find 19 other suckers willing to live with your selfish choices, you should definitely do so.

If your raid is struggling whatsoever because of a single ability someone opted to choose then your group needs to work on a whole hell of a lot more than talent choice.

[MatPandaZ]

I think you pretty much missed the whole point of my post, so I'll lay it out more clearly for you: I said that the level of meaningfulness of a choice depends on many factors, which one of them is the level of restriction, but that we cannot simply say that a more restricted choice is also more meaningful. This obviously works when comparing "two different levels" of choices (e.g. choosing talents and choosing conduits), and not when having a "one level of choice" (e.g. choosing your class)

For example, a more restricted conduit choice can be less meaningful than a less restricted talent choice.

If the whole point of your post was to say that comparing two things that the only metric you look at for how meaningful it is, is the level of restriction... I don't think a single person would argue that and makes your post pretty irrelevant. No wonder I missed the point of your post.

[Indil]

there was never a meaningful choice in wow, never will be as long as there are raids and the class balance needed for those.
Neither there was in classic, or tbc, or wotlk, cata, pandaria, wod etc.
They literally made up this meaningful choiche thing out of their asses

[dcc626]

Not necessarily.

A very recent example of this is azerite traits and essences. Azerite traits were restricted by a reforge cost and essences you were able to change freely. Did that make azerite traits more "meaningful" than essences. No. Absolutely not. In my opinion.

Now the word "meaningful" is used a lot currently. This is of course a very subjective word. For some people it can be "meaningful" to look at a wall.

For me, restrictions are not meaningful if they are made simply for the sake of having restrictions. Azerite traits were not more meaningful than essences. Ion even said that the reforge cost was a mistake. Restrictions are only meaningful if they are placed in the right context. In my opinion. Otherwise it's simply a pointless. In my opinion.

Right now we can have 50 characters per account in WoW. Would the game be more meaningful if they made a restriction so we could only have 2 characters per account?

call it whatever you want to. it is a choice, because YOU CANT HAVE ACCESS TO EVERYTHING. Feel free to yell at walls or call devs idiots. the only thing yuou can do is either play by the rules given, or not play at all. anything else is pretty useless.

of all the things people might be able to change their minds on, free swapping covenants isnt it. i wouldnt be surprised if they NEVER let us free swap. "lolol wait for 9.2".

enjoy your accountwide essences btw.