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.