Their abilities aren’t the same- so whichever is strongest for Hunter.
Not choosing now, wish I didn’t have to choose ever.
1 Like
They’ve already said you can switch just that it wouldn’t be easy as switching in a rested area instantly.
Similar to a marriage, you can leave but if you leave it wouldn’t be easy to move into a new relationship instantly. (Since that was your example)
part of Rp is also the world around you not just yourself.
The fact is that they already have said there will be a system in place for people to change.
I would say that I could consider it a smaller effect on me than a min/maxer but to say that a fully flexible system isn’t a sacrifice for the RP player at all is not objectively true.
Agreed- there have already been sadistic players that have stated their value in the system is in the fact that it punishes the min/maxers.
Also - I said that objectively, I lose nothing.
For you, you may subjectively lose something of value, especially if you fall into the sadistic camp.
But as a casual player that enjoys role-playing - a flexible system has absolutely no impact on my enjoyment of the game subjectively or objectively. Literally nothing would change or be different if others had the option to enjoy the game the way they preferred to play it.
1 Like
Objectively, No.
Well not everything is simple and exists as a Yes/No (one-thingism)
Most min/maxers still have an element of RP in their game and the opposite is true. While I and many others prioritize RP, being powerful is still a priority. Making choices meaningful doesn’t work if there effectively is no choice or all choices at once.
It has no impact on YOUR game.
However, it does in fact objectively have an impact on the game for both RP and Min/Max to take away meaningful choice. Case closed 
But players wouldn’t have all choices all at once.
In a flexible system they would still only be able to play as one covenant at a time per piece of content (like specs, essences, talents, etc. now). The consequence being that they wouldn’t have access to the other 3 for that content.
A players’ choice of those would be meaningful when considering their group composition, role, and content type. In a restrictive system - the single choice they make at the start of the expansion becomes watered down and less meaningful - especially if they just picked whatever simmed best.
And like I said - nothing objective and/or tangible changes for my RP gameplay if the system is flexible. As I mentioned - subjectively, for you, it may be different and have an impact - but on a purely objective basis, it doesn’t. You don’t have access to less things, nor would your gameplay change in anyway - just like mine doesn’t change from an RP view.
1 Like
I’m in the role-playing side of things. I explained it best here:
3 Likes
Oh and btw, here’s the definition of Objectively:
in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
I don’t think you were using that word correctly - because the only impact that having a flexible covenant system would have for people be would in a way that involves/is influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
2 Likes
Have you played other RPG’s?
The best ones that have the most play and attention are ones that consistently employ meaningful player choice and it does make a difference.
Skyrim is a really strong example. There are many times where you have to choose one thing or another and after you make that choice there is no going back and it changes the direction of the game completely. Such as joing the rebellion or killing certain NPC that don’t respawn.
Read taht deffinition again and tell me you are using it properly. Under Your opinion that it doesn’t change the game for RP players… S you are using objectively incorrectly because I have in fact proved that it does change the game for us which is in fact objective.
Meaningful choice is not subjective and has an impact objectively on all parts of the game and all types players.
I’ve been playing RPG’s since Everquest.
The statement made above is accurate.
Objectively - having a covenant system where players can freely swap does not impact my gameplay.
Subjectively - if I want to force everyone to play the game the way I want, then a flexible system would impact me. But that’s only because that would involve my selfish feelings and opinions.
2 Likes
Your argument is only valid for you which proves that it is subjective.
Incorrect - no player, regardless of how they enjoy the game would be impacted objectively with a flexible covenant system. If they like to play as only one covenant - they can do that. If they want to swap around - they can also do that. If they like to only ever press one button - they can do that. If they like to min/max, they can do that.
Nothing that excludes personal feelings or opinions would change for ANY player with a flexible system.
2 Likes
Lmao you can’t be helped. Your me centrist point of view hinders you from understanding that your argment is in fact self contradicting.
Like I said - I don’t think you understand what objective means.
1 Like
I thought the same thing. You even shared the definition. Not sure what else anyone can do to help him.
The crazy part is you linked the definition and then contradicted yourself. It is clearly YOUR OPINION that it affects nobody.
I don’t know you know what objective means
2 Likes
Yet you’ll never get to mythic raiding to where it will be needed…
Tell me what you can’t do in a flexible covenant system?
2 Likes
Nothing. Everything that I can do in a restrictive system, would still be doable in a system where we could change freely.
2 Likes