#PullTheRipcord

[Àryã-proudmoore]

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

But in Diablo 3 you can swap at will and people STILL just follow the math / guides. We have a clear counterexample for this. People are going to be lazy and follow the math no matter what, it’s a ceteris paribus condition no matter what you position is.

The only question is if we’re going to make the meta have tradeoffs (sure you can be a nightfae warrior, but your ST damage is going to lack) or if we just let people swap so they never have any weaknesses in their character whatsoever, and all that matters is tuning and physical dexterity. That’s the only relevant consideration here.

@Àryã-proudmoore

If we could freely make meaningful choices, tons and tons of casual players (who dwarf the top 1%) would be able to make choices for themselves and have fun experimenting and testing things out in their own rather than being pushed towards the meta.

Yeah but that never works out in practice. It’s a nice thought, but lazy people gonna be lazy. Also freespecs are the opposite of meaningful choices because they’re consequence free.

Some people will continue to follow the sims, but only SOME of them.

But TONS and TONS of casuals would be able to make choices for themselves. Not out of laziness, but because of the meaning they define for themselves and their characters.

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

Also freespecs are the opposite of meaningful choices because they’re consequence free.

There are still consequences. When you’re in combat, you can’t swap them. THe consequence being that you can’t use the others. Consequence can still exist just like with talents. And talent choices are very meaningful to many classes and specs depending on if they’re raiding, M+ing, and/or PvPing (and even moreso based on the match-ups).

[Anncilla-illidan]

I laughed so hard when I heard there was going to be covenant specific legendaries. They again put themselves in a situation where they cant win. If they covenant specific legendary is the best, people will flip out because they will have to switch. Which means most of them are going simply going to be weak and a waste of time. And none of that would matter if you could simply switch.

[Logoshunter-proudmoore]

@Gromgarr-azgalor

If you split the classes and specs into very specialised entities and make them mandatory to bring to a raid, you make it automatically more exclusionary.

As opposed to now where if an individual player just lacks a certain reflex threshold they’re trash? One system allows you to bring bad players if you really need the class, and the other system just excludes bad players forever.

@Gromgarr-azgalor

You cant bring your friend Jimmy, when you need a Venthyr shaman, but Jimmy unfortunately is a Necrolord Shaman.

Ideally you wouldn’t have to use covenants for this, and you could just bring “a shaman”. But if covenants are broadly AoE / ST for simplicity, and raids (even if not every fight) should need specialists in both, then Jimmy gets his spot in virtue of his utility on my model regardless, so I don’t see the argument here.

@Gromgarr-azgalor

Now, if you want to say that the fights shouldnt be tuned so hard, that you can still bring Jimmy, even when he doesnt have the needed specialisation, then your whole argument falls apart because then those specialisations are worthless anyway.

All specializations should be needed. That’s the point. I don’t care if they have to make AoE specializations needed by just flooding the room with adds during certain intervals of a bossfight such that lacking AoE just kills you or something, cheese is fine if it fosters good MMO design.

The question is whether bossfights are tuned around 10 people automatically respecing to be their best or 7 people being optimal specs because respecs aren’t possible. Sure 10 optimal specs will have the fight easier. Happens when you stack the deck I guess.

[Orctang-area-52 (Orctang)]

@Edyta-stormrage

the game isn’t balanced

This part of your sentence makes it perfect!

[Logoshunter-proudmoore]

@Awkward-frostmourne

What would be your ideal level of power difference? Because we’re got racials, which fit the description of what you’re asking for, but their power is so low that the difference between racials is for the most part a rounding error with the difference between the best racial for Warlocks being 1.9% overall and the difference between the best Alliance and best Horde racial being 0.09% (or 6 DPS).

It’s not a matter of power difference. If you can just look at a racial or a class kit and say that “X is Y% more powerful than Z in all circumstances” then something is wrong.

Ideally I’m thinking like 30%-50% discrepancy minimum in particular situations such as ST or AoE for example, so Rogue is like a 1.3x for AoE, 1x for ST. You have classes that are 1x for both ST and AoE but have great raid buffs like Shamans with Heroism. Old school warriors with unique buffs and debuffs could affect things, there are so many variables you could tune things on, and we’re in a rut where we just demand people be roughly equal in ST or AoE in virtually all situations.

@Awkward-frostmourne

Kyrian were actually predicted to be the best on launch, but Blizzard nerfed Pelagos at the 11th hour and the additional mobility that Soulshape gave Warlocks (a class that’s always struggled with it) and the ease of Soul Rot vs Scouring Tithe allowed NF to skirt over the edge.

Yeah I didn’t consider Pelagos, I was just looking at the covenant abilities and saw that NF was really strong.

@Awkward-frostmourne

The core problem comes down to not all utility being created equally. For example, Shamans bring Lust. But so do Mages.

Yeah that should never have happened.

@Awkward-frostmourne

The bigger problem is that outside Mythic Raids, most group content is really small and thus incentivizes bringing classes with as much relevant utility as possible, like Druids, Hunters and Mages.

Yeah hunter pets should never have had heroism, and major utility like heroism should come at a baseline dps cost.

@Awkward-frostmourne

“Not technically permanent, but really annoying to change”. Most people will treat Covenants as a permanent choice, since it’s annoying to change, but it’s technically not.

The problem with semi permanence then is that you’re just going to get people asking why it’s not easier and easier to change. Like if you haven’t set it as a “set in stone” design pillar that you shouldn’t be changing this stuff all around, and it’s unchangeable, people are just going to take any intermediate constraint you put on it as “arbitrary”.

[Logoshunter-proudmoore]

@Awkward-frostmourne

I can’t tank or heal as a Warlock

I wouldn’t mind tanking or healing Warlocks as long as they gave up something permanent and costly to get that utility.

@Chisquared-proudmoore

The best idea I heard was to have all abilities available for all covenants. You still pick one covenant - but each of the abilities is skinned to match your chosen covenant.

I agree with that. I’ve agreed with that several times (this is an old thread) over the course of this thread. Power could be untied from story / aesthetics if what the devs are really after is a sense strengths and weaknesses a player chooses for their version of their class.

@Chisquared-proudmoore

Wrong - you create meaningful choice by allowing players to make choices on a content by content basis.

No because then you just choose the optimal thing for each content. Picking the dumb and obvious thing isn’t a choice because you never suffer any opportunity cost!

“Hey guys I’m going to be doing massive AoE content, what should I do? Oh hey I think I’ll just spec AoE. What’s the cost? Strong ST damage. Oh there’s no need for ST damage because I’m all AoE? Great! All upside for me!”

The meaning of a choice is what you alternatives you gave up to make it. And if the alternatives were suboptimal for the content you were running, then you haven’t traded anything of value or meaning in picking what you pick. It’s just braindead.

@Chisquared-proudmoore

Removing the restrictions is what gives players choice.

No removing restrictions removes consequences, and there are no choices without consequences.

@Àryã-proudmoore

But TONS and TONS of casuals would be able to make choices for themselves. Not out of laziness, but because of the meaning they define for themselves and their characters.

Yeah and I’m saying that doesn’t happen. If it were so then people would meaningfully pick the covenant they want NOW and not follow the sims NOW, or in Diablo 3, or in any other game where this has ever been brought up in the history of gaming. What you can do is make choices cost you something, and that’s as good as design will ever get.

@Àryã-proudmoore

There are still consequences. When you’re in combat, you can’t swap them.

That is such a trivialized view of consequences that it’s an immediate /headdesk.

Yes, you go into combat, get whooped, spec to what wins, get into combat again, win, spec back to whatever you were doing before. Such consequences, much wow. I’m impressed by the costs associated with that really weighty choice made by the player.

@Àryã-proudmoore

Consequence can still exist just like with talents. And talent choices are very meaningful to many classes and specs depending on if they’re raiding, M+ing, and/or PvPing

No they’re not meaningful because there are correct choices for each set of content. That’s the opposite of meaningful because opportunity cost is ZERO in each content you make the decision.

Now if you had to make one set of talents that would would give you a power level in each content, the meaning, i.e. the cost of the choice is what you give up in power for content X, to do better at content Y. That’s an actual cost that a player has to think about paying.

If you just pick the best choice for content X, then you’ve given up nothing for content X because all other choices were inferior. And you haven’t given up anything for Y or Z because you just switch to the optimal choice for Y or Z when you do Y or Z. At no point has your choice actually had any cost you cared about paying.

It’s like saying that choosing between a million dollars and 200,000 dollars is a meaningful choice.

[Àryã-proudmoore]

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

If it were so then people would meaningfully pick the covenant they want NOW and not follow the sims NOW,

They don’t now because they know they may want to PvP and Raid in the same week. The 2 week time gate doesn’t offer them the ability to test and experiment for themselves - which for many people is what provides the meaning in their choices.

Your definition for “meaningful” is not the same as everyone elses.

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

No they’re not meaningful because there are correct choices for each set of content.

Thats a fallacy. There’s no single “correct” choice because no one person sets the “standard” for what makes the choice “correct”. You sound like you use throughput as your standard, but someone else might use utlity, or just plain fun as their standard. And another persons standard can change throughout a single play session - so there’s no way a single person can ever label any given choice as “correct” for the entire player base.

That’s the weakness to your whole opinion about “meaningful choice”. You’re imposing your definition of “meaning” as though you have some authority to set that standard.

You don’t.

[Thòrhammer-proudmoore (Thòrhammer)]

@Timbaeslice-frostmourne

.

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

It’s like saying that choosing between a million dollars and 200,000 dollars is a meaningful choice.

Thats a bad example.

In reality it’s more like choosing between 2 types of tools for a job.

Both may be able to do the same task, but varying in quality and speed.

What’s “best” depends on many factors. If you assume 100% optimal use, perhaps you can make that determination, but in an MMO that’s just not the case. Humans and in-game variables wont ever allow for 100% optimal use.

Say you want to cut a piece of wood straight. You have a circular saw and a router.

For one person that can cut straight, the circular saw might be best. But for someone who can’t, using a router with a jig might be the better option even though it’ll take them longer. Or maybe a third person just doesn’t really know how a router works, will still cut slower than the other 2 people using a circular saw, but that’s what they go for.

That same third person COULD try the router and learn to use it, have fun doing it, and that choice would have meaning - but if that person is restricted, that meaning gets negated.

Sounds like you just want to impose your way of playing the game on everyone else.

The cool thing about pulling the ripcord is that you still could. You like making a permanent decision? Then just don’t change your first choice. People do it all the time in real life. Some people don’t bother using power tools and use only hand tools. Some people don’t use convenient disposable razors and stick with the old fashioned straight razors.

I would argue their choices means MORE because they could switch, but opt not to, rather than being forced into sticking with their first preference.

[Emnyte-stormrage]

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

Yeah hunter pets should never have had heroism, and major utility like heroism should come at a baseline dps cost.

If bloodlust is taxed from DPS why would you ever bring more than one? Why would elemental or enhance shamans even exist in that universe?

[Gromgarr-azgalor]

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

As opposed to now where if an individual player just lacks a certain reflex threshold they’re trash? One system allows you to bring bad players if you really need the class, and the other system just excludes bad players forever.

There are different difficulties in dungeons and raids. Everyone can find a place in accordance to their skill level. And if they want to play in a group of friends, they can just be of a different skill level and be fine with it as a group.

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

Ideally you wouldn’t have to use covenants for this, and you could just bring “a shaman”. But if covenants are broadly AoE / ST for simplicity, and raids (even if not every fight) should need specialists in both, then Jimmy gets his spot in virtue of his utility on my model regardless, so I don’t see the argument here.

Now i need you to tell me how much you want broad you want to make your system. Is the only difference in ST or MT? Because then, basically nothing changes, because you pick your few best folks for ST and a few of your best folks for MT and move on. If you want all specs to be mandatory, you have a design task thats virtually impossible AND on top of that you require 36 spots in a raid. Not to mention that every M+ group will lack mandatory “niches”.
So maybe, like, 10 distinct niches? This would then again make certain specs obsolete again, because Jimmys Enhancer Shamy might be pretty good at ST, but that Moonkin over there is a lot better at it still.
I dont think you really have thought this through. You have a nice idea of everyone holding hands and playing without a worry about numbers and killing bosses just because a certain specialist filled a slot in the raid. This isnt going to happen.

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

All specializations should be needed. That’s the point. I don’t care if they have to make AoE specializations needed

All specialisaations is 36. Even in your wildest dreams you cant seriously consider this a real possibility. If you only mean the Multitarget specialisation, it will be just like today. A few specs will have the option to choose the Multitarget specialisation, but one will be the best at the job and will be picked over the others.

If you could picture your idea in more concrete points, i would be glad to hear it, but at the moment, this just seems completly disconnected from reality.

[Awkward-frostmourne (Awkward)]

That was how it used to work and the end result of some classes doing significantly worse but providing unique buffs that overcame that weakness is that ONE of those classes/specs were mandatory and two or more were complete garbage.

Having 3-4 Warlocks, Mages or Warriors? Sure, no problem, can easily fit another one in.

But sorry man, we’ve already got a Shaman, don’t need another one.

[Chisquared-proudmoore]

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

No because then you just choose the optimal thing for each content. Picking the dumb and obvious thing isn’t a choice because you never suffer any opportunity cost!

Is not a matter of dumb and obvious. It’s not even a matter of optimal.

Many of us casuals enjoy trying out all the options. Not because we’re min maxing based on some algorithm, but instead because we just enjoy toying around on our own.

Making these kinds of choices is meaningful to us. The restrictions remove that meaning.

[Plantains-shattered-hand (Plantains)]

@Logoshunter-proudmoore

No because then you just choose the optimal thing for each content. Picking the dumb and obvious thing isn’t a choice because you never suffer any opportunity cost!

Thats a horrible way to think about it. This is a game and we like to have fun with the toys of the expansion without feeling obligated to roll 4 characters to max level, max ilvl, max covenant rank, just to enjoy the new toys.

An even bigger point is that its insanity to want to control peoples lives to this extent over a freaking game.

IRL people have different tools for different situations and never hear from someone “ picking the dumb and obvious thing isnt a choice because you never suffer any opportunity cost.” I have never heard such a crazy argument. Of course people still have choices.

1. Who do you yell at in real life for taking an umbrella or putting a rain coat out while it rains and tell them they never had a choice to begin with. There were two choices here to deal with the issue and you are telling them they never had a choice because of lost opportunity cost to get wet by not picking either because they picked a sundress yesterday and now for the rest of their lives need to wear it because they wont suffer any lost opportunity cost. Seriously did you really think about that?
2. No one is forcing people to do. anything they don’t want to.
3. With restrictions people feel more obligated to pick the bis covenant over anything else to get invited to groups so it hurts their chances of ever playing with the other toys.
4. The game is less fun now that we are restricted in doing things. Experimentation and exploration of abilities is basically dead.

I dont know why i bother I doubt anything would convince you that freedom of choice is a thing to be desired, especially for a freaking game

[Dalfurane-frostmourne (Dalfurane)]

Good lord 12k replies. This is on the cusp of breaking records set by The Race Which Must Not Be Named.

[Edyta-stormrage]

@Thòrhammer-proudmoore

I would argue their choices means MORE because they could switch, but opt not to, rather than being forced into sticking with their first preference.

Doesn’t that make it the antonymous with meaningful?

@Plantains-shattered-hand

I dont know why i bother I doubt anything would convince you that freedom of choice is a thing to be desired, especially for a freaking game

There are lots of things in this game that have freedom of choice, lots of things for you to change or alter. ONE choice that actually makes you blink and people lose their minds.

Convenience and flexibility makes things inconsequential and boring.

[Deos-thrall]

Instead of adding more soulbind rows, we should have got a second cov’s soulbind, and the ability to freely swap between our two covenants’ abilities.

Culminate by end of expac with ripcord fully ejected. 4 soulbinds, one from each cov, and full freedom to pick between any cov abilities – maybe even meaningfully mixing and matching class and sig abilities.

Just remember, Azerite gear wasn’t recognized as a garbage system until 8.2. Or did we really expect Shadowlands to be different from BFA?

[Plantains-shattered-hand (Plantains)]

@Edyta-stormrage

There are lots of things in this game that have freedom of choice, lots of things for you to change or alter. ONE choice that actually makes you blink and people lose their minds.

Convenience and flexibility makes things inconsequential and boring.

Yea you probably didnt read anything else i wrote in that comment. Point is that this is the least fun ive ever had out of any expansion due to these restrictions. Other games treat me better. You do not decide what I believe is fun. Dont even think you have that kind of power or that you speak for the community. Fact is that limiting options is what makes things inconsequential, boring and meaningless and saying that limiting options is better has severe logical flaws. And I wont repeat myself to you. You can go back to that post.

[Chisquared-proudmoore]

@Edyta-stormrage

Doesn’t that make it the antonymous with meaningful?

I don’t think it would. It’s more significant and meaningful when you do something out of free will rather than if you’re forced, scared, or restricted.

I think to go along with this, some kind of reward should be in place for players that opt for this path - committing and staying loyal to a single covenant.

[Àryã-proudmoore]

@Edyta-stormrage

Convenience and flexibility makes things inconsequential and boring.

All I’ve heard from guildees and community members has been how being able to swap covenants and conduits freely would actual help kill a lot of the boredom they’re feeling right now.

Which makes sense since those options would add a lot of diversity to players’ gameplay in addition to the extra story line content.

[Emnyte-stormrage]

That is especially true since a lot of covenants come with a spec lock as well. Fire mage night fae vs frost mage venthyr, for example. Elemental necrolord and enhancement venthyr as well.