Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks
I'm not reaching in the least; chain fearing and DoTing up is cheap, and DoTs should break fear. No less cheap, then if every person who got chain feared and DoTed (without their own faction being there to back them up), were to type /afk in a BG and accept the 15 min deserter debuff, then eat upon being thrown out, to avoid letting the kill happen.
In either case, I would never care to hear the argument of game balance applied to ANY class ever again. It's a wash. The real argument is that Blizzard can change the game any way they wish, at any time, even for purposes of screwing over specific chars, or giving others breaks they'd never give to some; and there's nothing that can be done about it. OK, it is their code, so they do have the power. But lets at least be honest in the implications of the dev's own words about the applicability or selective non-applicability of the idea of "game balance".
That developers own words convince me of one thing. People like him have no reason or gumption to be impartial in the least, by the guy's own statements. And no benefit of the doubt should ever be read into it, as long as his logic is reflective of the measuring rod, by which decisions are made wrt whether "balance" does or does not apply. As far as I'm concerned, that dev's own words put their foot squarely in their own mouth wrt this; and there is absolutely no way I could be convinced otherwise, as long as that "we can nerf, nerf nerf from one class to the next, but then selectively say "yeah I agree with you, but game balance was never meant to apply here[/b], after it's said and done for others. Now ever other class, on every other nerf ever considered to date, could have had the "it was never meant to apply there also", and then what. There is nothing "balanced" about being either selective, or partial in deciding when balance applies, and when it does not.