That’s actually a good idea.
I’d be perfectly fine with that, actually.
Give more benefits to those that are actually loyal, and less to ones that flip around…
That actually makes a lot of sense, and I’m not being sarcastic here that’s a great idea.
The people who are upset with Covenants now would still be upset if this were the system, strictly because there would still be a drop of power locked behind committing to one Covenant.
I personally prefer Covenants stay the way they are now and you actually have to choose, but if there were to be some sort of compromise I think what would make the most sense is to make all spells available to all covenants and the aesthetic/tooltip of the spell would be different based on the aesthetics of the covenants.
So for example if there was a slowing attack, maybe for Night Fae it would look like vines reaching out and attacking the target, but for Kyrian it looked like holy chains, but they would mechanically be the exact same spell.
I personally still would not be happy with that, but at least it would shut these people up. I would hope at least.
1 Like
oh god scroll up bud.
We have to deal with this system even tho we clearly see it has gaping issues. just like azerite.
Writings on the wall and it dosnt take a psychic to see the future isnt " fun "
have it affect the story. not the player. not the game.
Also, when has the story really ever been important ? We had choices during bfa but clearly that didn’t pan out…
Wait, what if YOU just think about your Covenant and stick to one? Just because Covenants are swappable, it doesn’t mean that you have to switch it out every other day. It’s just an option that you don’t necessarily have to take. On the other hand, if nobody gets to switch, the people who actually care about “beating” the game won’t have any options at all.
It was suggested ages ago, Blizzard isn’t going to change.
That’s how the dev team operates, whether it’s flying, or garrisons, or covenants, or azerite, or whatever.
They announce what they’re going to do, and they stick to it. They don’t care about what the players think.
Sadly I think the people that are upset would be upset no matter what.
1 Like
nah the elitist will complain after having picked the wrong covenant that their stacks are lower and need catch up
Uugh… a pity.
It’s really no pleasing them… sigh.
What’s compromise? Obviously a word they’ve never heard of.
This is also true. If/when Blizz caves and makes Covenants easily swappable people will just move on to the next thing to complain about 
Think about it this way:
How would not being Covenant-locked harm casual players?
1 Like
you think this is a elietist issue?
just wait…
its gana affect the whole player base. with horrible repercussions.
" LF rogue ( kyrian ) PST! "
you people are telling us to just suck it up or unsub…
great compromiser
casuals would be forced even MORE to swap
It would lose importance.
There are people outside of the top 100 raiding guilds who enjoy being good at the game lol. They might not be rushing for CE every tier, but optimizing a character will still make their lives easily, regardless of what difficulty they play at. Do none of those people deserve to have a playable game?
2 Likes
Because being able to choose as I said reduces the value of the choice. I can repeat the same thing to you all day but for some reason you are deciding to ignore this very basic fact. Any choice, if able to easily undo that choice is not meaningful in any way. It instantly becomes unimportant what you choose.
But if they weren’t locked to a single covenant, what exactly would be stopping them from swapping if there wasn’t any penalty in doing so?
If you have a neutral stance then you shouldn’t care what stance anyone else takes
They could no longer bask in their joy at other players being unhappy with locked covenants.
2 Likes
Because you guys are failing to see that the STORY is supposed to be important, too.
And being able to switch around freely would negate the IMPORTANCE of said choice.