It’s less about feelings and more about creating the same scenario as Legion and BFA. Where at the start of the expansion, players are restricted in some way shape or form instead of having access to everything and spending time experimenting and creating builds that suit their playstyle.
It’s going to be a big turnoff for a lot of people. I have no idea why Blizzard is going 4 for 4 in terms of this borrowed power system that players clearly don’t like.
I dont think you understand what you posted.
The trouble you’re running into is that words are used sequentially to form meaning and that in many cases if you don’t read all the words you are not going to be able to figure out what was being said.
Overtime players will build up quite an investment in a Covenant. Losing that investment to be forced to start all over again with a different Covenant because of some “radical redesign” is not going to sit well, even with you.
Dude, you argued that we shouldn’t care about this because
Before this, you list examples of this within the game
My argument was an example of another impermanent object ( ie Life )
Obviously I’m being hyperbolic but my point stands.
Oh and telling someone they can’t read when you obviously have your own problems with reading comprehension, makes you look like a fool.
Just some friendly advice.
So it sucks that Kyrian is the strongest now and it also sucks that they will try to balance the other options to be comparable? Mind boggle.
Then again, why can’t I get access to an immunity or ms effect on my fury warrior… Why am I “trolling” for asking to be able to create the build I want. But your style of creation is fine.
The argument isn’t that they will balance it, the argument is they wont do it well/ are unable to within their specified criteria (like 1-2% of each other lets say)
They probably will not. But some players don’t want perfect balance either. They want to be op. Warlocks are already complaining that the sky is falling because affliction got brought in line.
Radical? No one wants radical changes. But if an ability is 15% better, and gets nerfed by 10%, you might argue thats a radical change. But it’s what needs to happen.
And that’s not a problem to you?
That they can’t change some players desire to be op and “stomp noobs?” Not really, what do you want them to do?
I want the game to be balanced, thought that was pretty obvious.
Not sure how caving to people who want a power dynamic that’s unreasonable to all other classes in an MMO is an alright gameplay style to you.
You can’t balance it the way it is. You’re going to have to rehaul the ability all together if you want Necrolord to be viable in PvP. Same with Night Fae. I know, mind boggling.
If you want to build that way, then you are more than welcome to play Runescape. But in WoW, classes are built in a way to be a long term decision until you make the choice to change them. Which news flash, you aren’t punished for doing so. You’re thinking it’s a 1:1 scenario when it’s not even close.
I want balance as well. I don’t want them to cave either. But unfortunately, more often than not, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Are you referring to chakram or fleshcraft?
So… exactly like covenants are being designed…
So how are we not being the squeaky wheel?
I’m confused, are you for or against splitting power from covenants, because according to this last statement, you’re on our side.
Your side? No, I have no problem with semi-permanent decisions having impact on gameplay. As Jalen just said, race, faction, class or spec have done this for 15 years. Adding one more layer is not game-breaking.
And I’m definitely not on the side that is throwing out click bait dps variances between covenants while ignoring their application or utility.
Chakram
Nope. They’re being designed with a punishment attached to it. I can change my class without my main being locked away for a week.
How is it not viable for pvp? How is wild spirit not?
It will just take you that same week to level your alt and another week to gear it. But I guess having to gear your alt is “punishment” too.
Viable does not mean what you think it means. Viable just means capable of working successfully. Which is so vague, it’s pretty meaningless. What constitutes success in your mind?
If you ask for a button press to be “viable” and the dev makes it do something when you press it. He’s fulfilled that ask.
You should probably use language that accurately represents what it is that you want.
So layering broken system after broken system is fine to you?
This feels like a “shut up and eat what I give you” kind of argument to be honest.