View Single Post
Old 11-10-07, 08:21 PM   #1
Son Goku
Registered User
 
Son Goku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 439 East District, Mount Paozu
Posts: 1,714
Default 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.
Son Goku is offline   Reply With Quote