Dear Blizzard,
I would like to give my opinion about the Shadowlands interviews Ion had with Preach and Bellular. Specificaly about the covenant parts. But before I get to it, let me tell you a story my psychology professor once told us at the university:
Once there was a religious cult recruitement seminar. The room was full of people and the recruiter started praising how awesome the cult is. One person in the audience however started doubting everything he said and argued with the recruiter. In the coming debate, he absolutely debunked everything the recruiter has said and made him look like an absolute fool with pure logic. Despite all that, 90% of people in the audience signed up for the cult after the seminar.
The point of the story is, that those people who signed up had already decided they will sing up prior to the seminar, and therefore were deaf to the logical arguments why they should not do it. THAT IS YOU BLIZZARD. You have already decided, that covenant abilities are a good thing and despite 90% of players telling you how bad of a system it is, you will still push on doing your thing and not listen to the players.
Therefore even doing those interviews is just a PR stunt saying âWe are listening to the communityâ. When in reality you are not.
I am totally looking forward to this scenario in mythic raiding: âHey dude1, what is your covenant?â âNight fae.â âOh, alright, so you are going to sit this boss out, because dude2 has Kyrian and after that we gonna swap the two of you, because Night fae is better for the next bossâ ⊠THIS IS STUPID! Covenant abilities have no place in mythic raiding, where bosses are tuned tighter than nuns legs.
90%? I can also pull numbers from my bucket. I say 0.5% of the players has actively telling them itâs a bad idea.
Your analogy can be put the other way around, the crowd is the gamer who feels victimized not being optimal at all times, and therefore decided that locked convenants are bad for the game.
Its a statistical sample with acceptable margin for error. And its way more than 200 people.
For explanation getting response from 1000 people gives you a representative response for a sample of 10 000 000. With a 1% error margin, meaning that if you get 90% negative response, then the real opinion of those 10 000 000 people is somewhere between 89-91% negative.
Thatâs all this boils down to.
If they donât do interview people say youâre not communicating with the community, and when you do interviews people say youâre just telling people what they want to hear.
Well, Rdruid in MDI was like 0.0001% of the playerbase yet when the power was showcased suddenly most +10 PUGs had to have a RDruid (and not really a RDruid with specific azerite traits and the skill to use them as in MDI).
All modern online competitive games are meta-driven and thatâs the players behavior. Wherever itâs good or not itâs a separate topic, but you canât make a game system that assumes that meta-gaming doesnât exist. They tried and failed every time.
Ion said they want to balance and rework whatâs needed now before launch, thatâs good, but doesnât solve the problem, just makes it less impactful or obvious on launch. You canât really balance a teleport vs speedy fox or covenant abilities for hybrid classes that play more than one spec. And I donât want a situation where you can play with the group only if you made specific choices because they provide a clearly noticeable advantage.
@Dettox: Sample size is not the only determining factor⊠Those expressing their views have to represent all relevant groups. For example, when we Finns elect our parlament, it takes a representative sample of about 1013+ people to cover enough folks to give about ±3% accuracy as to how much votes a certain party likely gets. BUT if the samplers only asked 1013 male Finns who live in Helsinki and earn at least 10 000 euros per year, the result would be utterly faulty.
Itâs a point where they want to try something out, and players are concerned.
Most players donât play content that this would majorly impact so I say itâs simply dishonest to say â99 percentâ even preach said people at the higher end are the ones complaining.
Which is a minority in itself.
This doesnât solve the problem affecting these players. But when u immediately shout false information will not get blizzard listening
Self-selection is a completely disqualifying factor when considering the validity of a sample.
If we had a thread now suggesting that all WoW cooking should go vegan, who would show up to vote? Yeah, not me. Iâd just roll my eyes and not waste my time.
Well with more people coming out against than for them, and since the rest of the playersbase is unkown its better to presume them as neutral until they say otherwise. Thus there is probably more people against than for the current covenant system.
Except they are listening and the changes to the game coming in SL confirm that. There is a lot going right in SL but people are upset that blizzard isnât giving in on this one thing even though they confirmed that they will if it doesnât live up to their idea.
I agree, the unspoken majority should be treated neutral. But you assume that people writing on these forums are representing the neutral mass in this question. That assupmtion is most likely wrong since people who are unhappy about something are more likely to get their opinion heard. If youâre happy with something you donât feel as motivated to go somewhere and tell people. Therefore those who are unhappy with the current state are overrepresented on these forums.
The 90,000 in your example quit because Blizzard never listens. I believe this is another one of those cases. People will be declined from M+, sat from raids and have to reroll covenants for pvp.
This is going to be a crapshow of legendary proportions.
