I can agree on that one, but that has nothing to do with covenants.
Ostensibly they aren’t… but an old foe of ours
spoilers
Kel’thuzad is well being themselves and causing trouble and instigating this whole thing
I think you can level every battle pet you’ve earned and then you can freely switch those pets, at the power they’ve been leveled to, for every battle that you engage in.
That’s how people would like covenants to work.
But it does, because covenant choice is deliberately being designed to be punishing to players by limiting how they interact with content. Again punishing players has been primarily counter to the WoW ethos for the longest time.
There are cases where there are exceptions but they aren’t found in the US or EU versions of the game.
It’s a cool way to give your character extra flavor. A Venthyr paladin probably has a more sinister streak to them as opposed to the more traditionally good Kyrian paladin. I look forward to choosing Night Fae on my mage to make a statement that he is one that cares about nature.
huh, sounds like if it’s that easy that it might as well be one covenant and that players really don’t want the choices they keep asking for
i guess that makes this a worse game too were that theoretically the case, oh well
You start groups at 112? To do what?
I was referring to the Maw death thing.
Covenants are not a punishment imo.
Once you start doing real content you’ll work out the flaws in the system
3 Likes
Cant wait for 1 covenant to be optimal and 90% of the game playing it. Only for blizz to nerf it after putting in weeks of game time leveling it.
1 Like
Which players were asking to be forced to make a choice at the start of the expansion and then be locked into gameplay by restrictions this choice required? I don’t mean right now. I mean, before the announcement was made, I never saw anybody asking for “meaningful choices” that involved sharply restricting how one could play for an entire expansion.
I’m aware of what you were referring to. My point was that for many players and for the dev team covenants are being deliberately designed to be punishing. It’s not a side effect of the design, it is the design. They said so in the interviews this week that they wanted players to be deliberately disadvantaged in some types of content based on the covenant they choose. E.g. punishment was not a side effect at all, but literally the core design principle. Covenants are not intended to be “fun, interesting, or engaging” of themselves, that is intended to be fulfilled by conduits and soulbinds via the content around them.
Good reason to just pick what you enjoy.
Which players were asking to be forced to choose a class at the start of the game and then be locked into gameplay by restrictions this choice required? I don’t mean right now. I mean, before the game was released, I never saw anybody asking for basic rpg choices that belong in rpgs because they’re rpgs, sharply restricting how one could play for an entire expansion.
This is about the sort of perfection of game design that apparently some players would rather have than fun.
What happens to those who don’t really care for it
All covenants are just dailies too me that might come in slightly different colours
I’ll take fun any day of the week. I don’t care if it means Diablo 3 levels of absurd… if it’s fun I’d much rather that.
I didn’t know this. They really are gonna wait to fix it until 9.1 
Reminder the story could change, it’s not released and 9.1 is still a long ways off. But that’s how it’s looking for now at least. Don’t take it to the bank they are going to fix things though.
1 Like
It definitely doesn’t equate to a single covenant when there’s a lot more to covenants.
It also sounds like player agency was taken out of context of the request.
The consequences associated with player agency doesn’t need to be skewed across an entire expansion. It can be limited to a content by content basis. That’s how player agency was requested.