nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   MMORPGs (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102107)

Son Goku 11-10-07 08:21 PM

Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
You know? I don't normally cry foul, or get in these nerf type discussions; but in this case I just have to. Not just because some of the stuff they nerfed on hunters and other classes gave less of an advantage then locks get with chain fear (or chain fear combined with DoTing); but because of the apperent change of argument only after other classes have stood before the nerf axe aldready. Taken from a "blue" post made by Blizzard themself, when the argument of locks in 2v2 arenas came up:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/

Quote:

2vs2 is unfair
There already was a similar post a few days ago, but this one definitely confirms that they don't really plan to do anything to balance 2vs2 arenas.

Quote:

Quote from: Tharfor (Source)

I'm not saying you're wrong. There are a number of changes, adjustments, and tweaks that could be made to make warlocks less powerful in smaller scale PvP ... but by your logic alone we can say that the strength of warlocks is diminished as the scale of the PvP increases.

I'm not saying it's right that warlocks should be so powerful as a solo class simply because the balance is aimed somewhere else, but that's the way it is and it has been said that little to no balancing will be done for 1vs1 or 2vs2 scenarios. It was even announced recently that there was almost not going to be a 2vs2 arena due to balance concerns.

The bottom line is that warlocks are a powerful solo class - but I don't remember anyone claiming that they would be anything else and it is only natural that some of that powerful solo ability would transfer across to solo PvP, even if it was originally intended to be a PvE strength.

Lets be honest here, every argument for nerfing of hunter's pets (attack speed normalization of every family of pet, including rare spawns like broaken tooth) around the slowest raptor 2.0 attack speed was a 1v1 scenario, when the pet was used to interupt spell casting. However, putting each one of those nefs in place, without, and I will selectively modify the specified class in this dev's post just to illustrate the point

Quote:

I'm not saying it's right that hunters should be so powerful as a solo class simply because the balance is aimed somewhere else, but that's the way it is and it has been said that little to no balancing will be done for 1vs1 or 2vs2 scenarios. It was even announced recently that there was almost not going to be a 2vs2 arena due to balance concerns.
Pets only attacked one target at a time, leaving them much less useful in a gank situation, where 8 players gank the hunter forcing them into melee.

Why do I bring this up? Because of the seeming change in argument on when and where to apply the concept of game balance. Class after class has fallen to the nerf axe, warriors and druids also, but now when it comes to locks, this is the argument that is given. Why? Because they favor locks above all other classes? Because they chose to use the argument of game balance to make every other class less powerful, but conveniently change the argument when it comes to this one class?

If this is their standing, then every single nerf they made to any class in the past, should be reviewed against this principle of

Quote:

I'm not saying it's right that insert x class beyond just locks should be so powerful as a solo class simply because the balance is aimed somewhere else, but that's the way it is and it has been said that little to no balancing will be done for 1vs1 or 2vs2 scenarios. It was even announced recently that there was almost not going to be a 2vs2 arena due to balance concerns.
and former nerfs counter adjusted to make them retroactively fall in line with this rationale and argument, else locks should be held to the same argument, same standard, and same logic as any other class when game balance issues come up.

Besides lets face it, many things that got adjusted like pet attack speed only effected spell casting where something isn't an instant caste. However, chain fearing, combined with life taping and DoTing, effects things to a much greater extent. Even if spells are interupted, any instant caste or melee attack is still possible (whether ideal or not). When feared, one can't do anything at all[/b]. If these other things were an "unfair advantage", and same thing goes with applying diminishing returns to a skill that might shut out a whole school of magic (though leaving others open); then something that makes a character unable to do anything but run in fear, while continuing to have it's life drained, should definitely be counted as unfair.

In either case, when the question of game balance is applied, the standards should be consistent for all classes. The argument to aplly a balance or not, should be based upon a measure that is impartial to all. There should not be 2 seperate standards, one for x class, and y for every other class.

OldOfEvil 11-10-07 08:53 PM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Quote:

When feared, one can't do anything at all.

There are things that will break Fear.

Equipment

* Faction Insignia With the exception of hunter, warrior, and shaman, all other classes can break Fear once using [Insignia of the Alliance] or [Insignia of the Horde].
* [Glimmering Mithril Insignia] Blacksmith Trinket grants 30 seconds of fear immunity.
(greater list below)

Racial Traits or Class Abilities

* Forsaken Forsaken has a racial trait Will of the Forsaken which breaks fear and grants 5 seconds of fear immunity.
* Hunter Beast Mastery spec'd hunters may break fear with The Beast Within.
* Mage Frost mages may use Ice Block to break fear once.
* Paladin Paladins may use Divine Shield to break fear once.
* Priest Draenei and dwarf priests can use Fear Ward, which absorbs one 'charge' of Fear.
* Shaman Shamans may use Tremor Totem which can dispel fear or use Grounding Totem which can absorb fear.
* Warlock Warlocks with Felhunter may use Devour Magic to dispel fear on themselves.
* Warrior Warriors can break fear when in Berserker Stance with Berserker Rage and Recklessness. Fury Warrior can break fear with Death Wish in any stance.

Other Notes

* Paladins and Priests may dispelled fear on their team-mates.
* A high shadow resistance can also stop fear, or cause it to break early.
* Taking damage increases the chance fear would break early.
* As of 2.0, all crowd control effects (with the exception of Sap) have a chance each second to break earlier, and their duration is capped at 12 seconds. The chance increases with resistances and the level difference between the target and the caster.

Diminishing returns:

- Fear and seduce both count toward diminishing returns. We get a maximum of three total. In PvP, the maximum time fear/seduce can last is as follows:

First fear/seduce can last up to 12 seconds.
Second fear/seduce can last up to 6 seconds.
Third fear/seduce can last up to 3 seconds.

- After one seduce, this leaves a possible combination of two fears, one fear and a seduce or two more seduces; each can last for half of the time of the previous fear/seduce -- most of the time they don't.

- Fear is a 1.5 second cast without interrupts. With melee interrupts, it can take upwards of 5 seconds to get off, if we get it off at all. Seduce is a 1.5 second cast and is channelled. If the succubus gets hit, seduce stops.

- fear and seduce can both be resisted and this counts towards diminishing returns. Deathcoil can be resisted as well.

Fear is also the Most Nerfed single ability or spell:

Patch 1.2 12/18/04

Fear: Players now have an increasing chance to break free of the effect, such that it is unlikely the effect will last more than 15 seconds. (nerf)

Patch 1.31 3/22/05

Fear - Mana cost changed to a percentage of base, which results in an increase in cost. (nerf)

Patch 1.41 5/5/05

Seduction (Succubus) - Is now considered a Fear effect for purposes of diminishing returns. (nerf)

Patch 1.50 6/7/05

Warriors: Deathwish - Is now usable while under a Fear effect, and will also remove an existing Fear effect. (nerf)

Patch 1.70 9/22/05

Fear will now cause creatures to flee immediately, even if they are already moving. (PvE fix)

Fixed a bug where Fear and Curse of Recklessness, when used together, would prevent targets from casting spells. (PvE bug fix)

Druids: Druids should now be able to shapeshift back into caster form while Feared. (nerf)

Patch 1.80 10/10/05

Pets no longer break off attacks when their target is affected by Warlock Fear. (not much of a change really, but it can aid fear in breaking sooner).

Death Coil - Cooldown reduced, mana cost increased, and now causes a short Fear effect that is not diminished. (DC buff - 3 second horror effect, 2 minute cooldown)

Patch 1.10 3/28/06

Death Coil - The horrify component no longer affects undead creatures (they've seen it all before. (PvE nerf)

Patch 1.11 6/19/06

Fear: The calculations to determine if Fear effects should break due to receiving damage have been changed. The old calculation used the base damage of the ability. The new calculation uses the final amount of damage dealt, after all modifiers. In addition, the chance for a damage over time spell to break Fear is now significantly lower. Note that Fear continues to be roughly three times as likely to break on player targets as on non-player targets. (nerf)

Patch 1.12 8/22/06

Howl of Terror: This spell now uses the same resistance checks as the Warlock spell Fear. (nerf)

- In addition, fear and seduce both have "heartbeat" resists and can break at any time, whether damage has been applied or not. In PvP, all CC's have a maximum time of 12 seconds. (nerf)



Anti-Fear/Charm Trinket (Alliance)
Druid: http://www.thottbot.com/i18863
Rogue: http://www.thottbot.com/i18857
Warlock: http://www.thottbot.com/i18858
Mage: http://www.thottbot.com/i18859
Priest: http://www.thottbot.com/i18862
Paladin: http://www.thottbot.com/i18864

Anti-Fear/Charm Trinket, with resilence! (Alliance)
Druid: http://www.thottbot.com/i28235
Rogue: http://www.thottbot.com/i28234
Warlock: http://www.thottbot.com/i30348
Mage: http://www.thottbot.com/i28238
Priest: http://www.thottbot.com/i30349
Paladin: http://www.thottbot.com/i28236

Anti-Fear/Charm Trinket (Horde)
Druid: http://www.thottbot.com/i18853
Rogue: http://www.thottbot.com/i18849
Warlock: http://www.thottbot.com/i18852
Mage: http://www.thottbot.com/i18850
Priest: http://www.thottbot.com/i18851
Paladin: http://www.thottbot.com/i29592

Anti-Fear/Charm Trinket, with resilence! (Horde)
Druid: http://www.thottbot.com/i28241
Rogue: http://www.thottbot.com/i28240
Warlock: http://www.thottbot.com/i30343
Mage: http://www.thottbot.com/i28239
Priest: http://www.thottbot.com/i30346
Paladin: http://www.thottbot.com/i28242

Anti-Fear Class Spells!
Hunters:
The Beast Within: http://www.thottbot.com/s34471 (Requires 40 points in Beast Mastery. Must have a point in Bestial Wrath)
Bestial Wrath: http://www.thottbot.com/s19574 (Requires 30 points in Beast Mastery)

Warrior:
Death Wish: http://www.thottbot.com/s12328 (Requires 20 points in Fury)
Berserker Rage: http://www.thottbot.com/s18499
Recklessness: http://www.thottbot.com/s1719 (CANNOT BE USED IN ARENA)

Mage:
Ice Block: http://www.thottbot.com/s11958 (Requires 20 points in Frost)

Rogue:
Cloak of Shadows http://www.thottbot.com/s31224 (You cannot cancel fear but you can be Immune)

Racials!
Dwarf: (Priest)
Fear Ward: http://www.thottbot.com/s6346

Draenei: (Priest)
Fear Ward: http://www.thottbot.com/s6346

Undead:
Will of the Forsaken: http://www.thottbot.com/?sp=7744

Diminishing Returns!
Off of http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/...pvpcombat.html

Slowing Spells & Diminishing Returns
A handful of spells were added to the list of spells subject to diminishing returns in PvP. It is our goal to set as few spells as possible to be diminished. We've identified this short list of spells as having durations and cooldowns sufficient to almost permanently slow or immobilize targets but without adequate controls or other limiting factors. When a spell with diminishing returns is used against a target in PvP, the first effect has full duration. On the second use of the same category of spell (e.g. slowing), that spell's duration is reduced by 50%. On the third use, the duration is reduced by 75%. On the fourth attempt, the target becomes immune to the spell. Spells must be used on the same target within 15 seconds of the *end* of the duration in order to be diminished. In other words, if a target hasn't had a slowing spell active on them for more than 15 seconds, the next slowing spell will have full effect.

All Credit: Malaena from Farstriders & Quench from Shadowmoon Europe



You were saying?

Bah! 11-10-07 10:17 PM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Lemme guess, you play a Warlock?


Sure, fear has been nerfed left and right since release...and it's still overpowered in Arenas and solo pvp. It's not just fear though, it's fear combined with the Warlocks other skills that just make them a cheap opponent in small encounters.

When the developers come out and say that you guys are OP in solo and small Arena content, there is no longer any defense...stop trying.

Ninja Prime 11-10-07 11:06 PM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bah!
Lemme guess, you play a Warlock?


Sure, fear has been nerfed left and right since release...and it's still overpowered in Arenas and solo pvp. It's not just fear though, it's fear combined with the Warlocks other skills that just make them a cheap opponent in small encounters.

When the developers come out and say that you guys are OP in solo and small Arena content, there is no longer any defense...stop trying.

I fail to see how fear is more powerful than rogue stuns, warrior stuns, druid CC or paladin stuns.

Son Goku 11-10-07 11:36 PM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
It's the chaining of fear. I used to play a paly, and have a rogue. The paladin's stun is on a cooldown. They simply can't chain it due to a CD, a lock can.

As to what can break fear, a lot of those things are also on cooldowns.

- A shamy has a tremor totem, however kill totem and there's a CD to caste another.

- There is fear warde, but again there's a CD

- the insignia, has a cooldown

- enrage pet and beast within (BM hunter tree, 41 pt requirement), cooldown

- pet stun (intimidation), cooldown

Fear however can be chained. Anything on a cooldown, how would one chain it? Now if they'd do one of 2 changes, it could put some balance to this. Either make it like other forms of crowd control, so that fear effects are broaken, the second damage is taken (either by a DoT or straight attack), much the same way a freeze trap, sheep, shackle, or other forms of CC is broaken. Or make a feared target regen health like a sheep does :) Another quick and dirty end would be to put a universal cooldown on all a locks forms of fear (though again that might touch more on the PvE side of things, then some other things).

But what we have now is a dev, after years where characters have seen nerf after nerf apply to their class admit that it is over-powered but say

Quote:

I'm not saying it's right that warlocks should be so powerful as a solo class simply because the balance is aimed somewhere else, but that's the way it is and it has been said that little to no balancing will be done for 1vs1 or 2vs2 scenarios.
Since when? And where was that argument over the years when any class has been up for a nerf prior to this post from one of the devs?

Personally, I think bliz should look at their stance in that there post, as

Quote:

The bottom line is that warlocks are a powerful solo class - but I don't remember anyone claiming that they would be anything else...
could get any hunter for instance to re-visit past history and ask about what was claimed with them also. However, in all cases the decisions, to balance, or not to balance, and where, should be impartial and equitable for all classes.

OldOfEvil 11-11-07 11:30 AM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bah!
Lemme guess, you play a Warlock?

I have a Warlock. I also have a Shadow Priest, 2 Rogues, a Warrior, a lowbie Paladin (horde) and at one time had a Mage who I deleted.


Quote:

Sure, fear has been nerfed left and right since release...and it's still overpowered in Arenas and solo pvp. It's not just fear though, it's fear combined with the Warlocks other skills that just make them a cheap opponent in small encounters.
Thats your opinion and criticism, not fact.


Quote:

When the developers come out and say that you guys are OP in solo and small Arena content, there is no longer any defense...stop trying.
The Devs say a lot of things..

OldOfEvil 11-11-07 11:39 AM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Son Goku,

I don't (personally) think any objective Warlock player who's put in serious time has come to hate fear. Yeah, their are times when it doesn't break, and you can get off those solid 10 second fears while you pummel them with shadow bolts. On the reverse side, it gets trinketed or canceled by one of the many abilities most classes have to counter it.. or, fear breaks early and you get whooped.

Problem is, as annoying as fear is, what else do Warlocks have?

even our "snare" -Curse of exhaustion- is talent trainable only, slows by movement by 30%, and takes up a curse slow which could more often be better used for something like Curse of Tongues or Curse of Agony..

We've got Death Coil, which everyone hates and people make up ridiculously **** about, like that it crits and heals for thousands.

In the end, when I'm playing my other classes I don't find warlocks to be any worse than any other class. Fear is annoying since you run around like an idiot, but otherwise, get in their face and lock em down.


sorry for the rambling post. Its late..

Sidric 11-12-07 09:33 PM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
lol people are still complaining about fear? back when I was playing I thought they nerfed it enough to appease those crybabies. I guess not :p

Medion 11-13-07 02:43 AM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime
I fail to see how fear is more powerful than rogue stuns, warrior stuns, druid CC or paladin stuns.

Wow. Paladins have one (1) stun on a 1-minute cooldown. That's it.

Sure, a Ret Paladin can spec for Repetence, another "stun" on a one minute cooldown, but that one breaks on damage.

jeffmd 11-13-07 04:12 AM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
if you are not as useless as a priest in 2vs2... quit your complaining and gtfo. ^^

Son Goku 11-13-07 04:40 AM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Problem is, those trinkets are useless when people can just be feared again. It's the chaining that really needs addressing, as it leaves others with no chance in hell.

But what really gets me here, is all the other nerfs. Take all the pet x normalizations hunters have had to endure from one patch to the next, as people would mention pets no less then fear. In all those cases, the argument of game balance comes up, and end of it. But now, what do we get, after nerf after nerf has been placed on others? A dev saying essentially "yes it isn't fair, but no one claimed locks are anything but a powerful solo class..." (well no one ever claimed hunters should be anything other then a powerful solo class, with all the same ramifications that devs statements would place in the argument either), "so game balance doesn't apply here. It's the making of a double standard.

Either the whole argument of game balance applies to all equally and in same measure, or it's a wash and something else. Very much that dev comes off favoring locks, and not other classes who stood at the crossroads of the nerf discussions hitherto. Yes, I've had more then a few laughs discussing that dev's statement with some other hunters.

Either game balance applies to all, or it should be applied to none. The whole argument can not hold as reason and justification to alter the game, unless it is applied to all, in an objective and impartial manner. Locks needing fear? Hunters need to be at range, which means either a pet that can't simply be ignored or a melee class to partner with who forces them to focus elsewhere. Take that away, and their practically useless, which is why the "gank them" tactic is so successful in shutting them down. But unlike a lock, they can't just fear targets off repeatadly, to regain range. Anything short of applying the idea of game balance in an equitable fashion, which favors no class; makes Blizzard look biased in favor of some, over others.

Whatever is done with this class, or any other though, unless it is applied in equal measure, accross the board, and impartially, at that time it ceases to look like "balance" is the real goal in said nerfs, and it begins to look like something very different. It is that, and that in the whole tone and demeanor of what that dev says, and his reasoning behind decisions made that, that really bothers me. Something simply can not be balanced by definition, if the concept isn't applied to all, but is rather only selectively applied to some, at the exclusion of others.

OldOfEvil 11-13-07 05:03 PM

Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by _fLaK_mOnKeY_
lol people are still complaining about fear? back when I was playing I thought they nerfed it enough to appease those crybabies. I guess not :p

Yeah, they bitch about Fear, but Rogues Stun Locking your is just fine.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.