As always, it’s gonna get thrown out. Else how could they sell boosts for the next expansion if you have to go back to Shadowlands.
Skip
/10char
I think dual-classing might be the futur of wow as they can’t just add new classes forever.
Except this will all be known. So if you choose to be terrible, thats on you, Not sure how that equals pride?
Why do you want me to feel bad about my choice though? I don’t want you to feel bad.
This is what this issue boils down to.
I think there is a compromise to be made, but keeping it all locked is no middle ground.
Optimal covenants can still clear them as well. What reason would there be to pick the sub optimal one, from a power reason? What makes picking that sub-optimal covenant meaningful?
And if power isn’t the reason, why do covenants need to be associated with power to begin with?
2 Likes
If you’re not cutting edge Method style playing, you’ll be fine with any covenant.
I’m glad you are here to tell everyone how to play. I know no one in my guild is fine with any of this, far from CE
1 Like
My compromise is to allow switching, but give loyalists to one a stronger version of their ability. You get switching, I get a reason to stay with one.
But I can’t get anyone to agree to even that so lock em up.
If this true from a perspective of player power, how is the decision truly meaningful?
Not everyone plays for pure power. Some will pick what looks cool or what they think synergizes with their Covenant the most.
Picking a sub-optimal Covenant could mean to someone ‘I got to Mythic +15, AoTC, or 2K rating using the build I wanted to build.’
Some people find the challenge in making sub-optimal builds work more engrossing than picking the path of least resistance.
How many times does it have to be said that abilities can be fun or not fun, and they shouldn’t be tied to your covenant choice regardless of whether they are the better option?
It’s not just a ‘do the best’ issue. It’s also a love my character issue.
1 Like
It would accomplish that if they make the abilities unlocked to all, but the soulbinds locked as some soulbinds buff some abilities.
Which is one one of my compromise.
The thing is you make it sound like a punishment not really a way to be open about it. People can’t agree the way you’re selling it.
Nah, I’m fine with that. If we wanna apply numbers to it:
Loyalist: 80 DPS ST, 120 DPS AoE
Mercenary: 100 DPS ST, 100 DPS AoE
It more or less evens out, but the merc is more flexibile. If Blizzard wanted this system, I’d be fine with it. Obviously it’s more complicated than the numbers above, but if they balanced power like that, then I’m perfectly okay with it.
So why do covenants need to be locked to facilitate that style of play? Having them unlocked would be more conducive to that style.
I would be down for loyalists to earn other non power buffs such as speed outside combat, longer food potion buff duration, etc rather than a stronger version of the ability.
Edit: Stupid forum layout.
Making these choices flexible makes them more inconsequential. It is the antithesis of making a hard decision.
1 Like
I can change from fire to frost on a whim. I still feel good about being a mage.
I want to feel good being the best (fill in the blank covenant) I can be.
1 Like
So in other words you want no real compromise.
If someone is playing to get satisfaction out of “making something suboptimal work”, having restriction or not on whatever that thing is doesn’t impact that.
Do you think a player who chooses to plays arcane for mythic Nya’lotha progression feels like his achievement is diminished because he had the ability to swap to fire between fights if he wanted?