I don’t want any players to feel punished. If anyone should be punished, it should be Blizzard for failing to balance their own systems. I don’t see the same disconnect here that you do. It’s not okay for anyone to suffer-- if people suffer, that’s Blizzard’s fault and they should be held accountable.
There’s no need to balance in a system with no consequences.
I do hold the position that if Blizzard changes their stance on Covenants, I lose very little. However, this is the system that Blizzard has put forward, and I’d like it very much if it succeeds. I’m not arguing for anything to be changed, and I honestly wouldn’t argue that it should be put back if they made it swappable, I’d just play the game.
I like the system they’ve already established, and I feel like the non-squeaky wheel should also occasionally be heard.
Why does it matter whose fault it is? Assigning blame doesn’t change that the people who chose wrong are still going to be gimped until it’s fixed if it gets fixed and are still going to feel bad for it.
I wonder why… i noticed it disappear the first time I posted it as I was the first reply to the thread… the second post was the one you replied to and now it is gone as well as my follow up convo with you.
Because it’s not my system, and I’m not responsible for it-- nor is any other player. Even if I like the system and support it, it doesn’t mean that I also support Blizzard failing and making people feel like crap.
That’s fair, but still: that’s a failure on Blizzard’s behalf. If they fail so hard that people feel that bad about their choices, they deserve whatever they get.
I enjoy this game, mostly. I want it to be good, and I want it to be good for others as well. I don’t want Blizzard to get a free pass for lazy design by making it so that you can just swap everything by hitting a tome.
Again, I’m not requesting for anything to be changed. I’m not trying to push anything on anyone. This is the system that Blizzard is going with, and I like it. If they change their mind, I’ll be a little disappointed, but it still probably wouldn’t affect me too badly. Mostly just that they’re giving up on something that could be cool.
Edit:
It’s a forum run by Blizzard, they probably just bugged out and ate your post. You’d get a green notification if you got reported.
I don’t think simply making them all easily swapped is a free pass or lazy design.
They can still balance them out in that scenario. But honestly, given how tightly they tune high end content, and how much variation they’ve had with balancing classes/ specs - I don’t think “proper” balancing is possible.
I’m not sure if it’s because of a lack of skill, or if it’s just literally impossible with 36 specs.
As a big role playing fan, it wouldn’t impact me AT ALL.
I don’t understand how people having freedom and options impacts an individual’s personal choices.
The meaning behind my religious faith isn’t diminished because others are free to pick and change their religion when they want. The significance of me staying in a monogamous committed relationship isn’t invalidated because other people can jump from partner to partner willy nilly. The value of my meaningful choice to stay loyal to a covenant isn’t impacted but others switching from content to content or boss to boss.
Would I like some decent rewards for the loyalty? Sure! But restricting others adds absolutely nothing to my gameplay and enjoyment of WoW as a role player.
Is this like arguing there’s some kind of “choice inflation” when the market is flooded by multiple ways to experience something and that some how yields diminishing returns?
If I can be pushed to change my decision because there’s no consequence to changing, it devalues the decision.
I get you’re just analogizing, but this really doesn’t even compare on the levels you’re referencing it to.
I’m not restricting anyone. I like the system where restrictions are in place, across the board. I like the restriction being applied to me, as I can only speak for myself.
I’m not going to do some dumb “So restrict yourself challenge!” either-- if they open it up, I’ll probably min/max in the same way I don’t use dead talents. It’ll be disappointing, but I’ll play the game just fine.
It’s absolutely lazy design. Properly balancing to make them all equally appealing would take a lot of work, and doing any less is inherently lazier.
Could be. I’m not arguing that it wouldn’t be incredibly difficult.
Conviction of your choice is important, I think. If one meanders because the road allows them, would they find a way to do it even the road was roped off? If you’re having a blast with your selection, that’s what’s important. Who is pushing you to make a change? (ha…got Man in the Mirror vibe…anyway)
Thank you for your insight. Different approaches to the game is good, I think. And I’m glad you seem to be enjoying the prospect of what SLands brings to the proverbial table.
It’s a game. If I’m being screamed at to change my Covenant-- or, more likely, being moderately pestered-- for a run, or some content, I probably will. There’s nothing in the game that can justify me bringing down the group because I think my ability is neato, not when there’s no consequence for changing it.
Some would. By and large people operate within the systems presented to them, even IRL, as long as there’s not too much friction applied to following that system. That’s why piracy became so prevalent, and why Netflix neutered piracy. In that case, piracy is/was illegal, acting as the ‘rope’. The system-- ‘road’-- was so crappy that people found ways around; piracy. Netflix and other services worked to fix the system and make the boundaries less stifling.
If the system was such that there were no consequences for piracy, pre-Netflix, you’d be stupid not to. That would be your boundary-less road. You’re not encouraged to act according to the system, you’re actively encouraged not to follow it.
What in the world makes you think they are going to be able to do this? There are 48 active spells, and thousands of soulbind/conduit combinations. Meanwhile we haven’t got tank or healer balance even close in years when there are only 6 of them.