Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central > MMORPGs

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-13-07, 05:32 PM   #13
Dvahlish
Registered User
 
Dvahlish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne-Australia
Posts: 272
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldOfEvil
Yeah, they bitch about Fear, but Rogues Stun Locking your is just fine.
You know...I used to hate fear aswell when coming up against a lock.
The same way I used to hate a pallys ability to bubble, heal and hearth.
How did I get over it?
Rolled a pally and a warlock....

Im fine with it now
__________________
Guns dont kill people, Magic missiles do!
Dvahlish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 09:15 PM   #14
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medion
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.
So does fear. And a paladins main stun doesn't break on damage and is the longest stun in the game as I recall. A well geared retnoob can kill you on his hammer stun if hes lucky with crits.
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 09:20 PM   #15
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Son Goku
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.
So stuns can't be applied again? Good to know. I guess I was playing another game where a rogue can stunlock me for over a minute if he wants...

Or if I'm a warrior, a mage can ice me down away from him permanently if he wants.

Or a hunter can kite me around forever while being immune to any CC.

But that fear that lasts a few seconds, and can be broken by a million spells/trinkets/abilities/minor damage that I become immune to after the third cast, thats the one I'm really scared of!
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-07, 10:19 PM   #16
lIqUID
whip yo ass!
 
lIqUID's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 653
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

this game would be so much more fun without crowd control. I easily get past locks with my undead rogue, but my pally has a hell of a time not getting feared to death.

in PVP fear should be broken by ANY damage done, just like polymorph, sap and scattershot.
__________________
Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that wants to require every citizen to prove they are insured, but does not require them to prove that they are citizens!

i7 930@3.8ghz on Noctua NH-U12P
Evga x58 LE
MSI GTX 480 formerly known as HIS HD5870
128 gig Crucial m4/80 gig Intel X25-M ssd/500 gb WD
750 watt Corsair TX
Coolermaster HAF-X

if my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour you're gonna to see some serious sh!t.
lIqUID is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 06:39 AM   #17
Son Goku
Registered User
 
Son Goku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 439 East District, Mount Paozu
Posts: 1,714
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja Prime
So stuns can't be applied again? Good to know. I guess I was playing another game where a rogue can stunlock me for over a minute if he wants...
A palys stun has a cooldown on it. They can not just keep stunning and stunning. I also remember having to wait for the CD, and when in raids, when a couple locks are banishing multiple targets, the same paly can't stun to break the next one right in a row due to the CD.

Quote:
Or a hunter can kite me around forever while being immune to any CC.
This is pattently false; and I can speak as one who's current main is a hunter. I'm marksman spec now for raids, but I was BM, and am well aware of enrage pet and the beast within. However, this forever you speak of simply isn't there. Enrage pet has a duration of 18 secs, which is not forever. Also, it has a cooldown, as does intimidation (pet stun). Look at the mention on my main's talent trees for BM (though he doesn't have points there anymore), and see specifically what it says on duration and cooldown.

http://www.wowarmory.com/character-t...7Thul&n=Gotten

Under the skills people could mention, the text/tooltip, clearly shows, as can be seen on that page clearly shows that the effects duration is 18 secs long (hardly forever), and can not be recast for a 2 minute cooldown.

Lock cooldowns simply aren't restrictive like this.

Now as to the fear, it can be chained, and I do not care how many items with a long cooldown respective to the spam of fear are created. This wouldn't be balanced, until the trinket for instance could break fear on the same CD the lock can caste it. But I'll say this, if that devs response holds, then I'd be OK with the status quo remaining here, only if other nerfs to other classes get removed. If locks get to keep this, then hunters should be able to get their un-nerfed, non-normalized attack speed broaken tooths back. If they can't, it's time to hold that dev to task on the whole issue of game balance when locks are brought up too. Or I'll give the other mention to someone elses post, as I agree with someone else who posted latter.
Son Goku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 06:44 AM   #18
Son Goku
Registered User
 
Son Goku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 439 East District, Mount Paozu
Posts: 1,714
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Quote:
Originally Posted by lIqUID
this game would be so much more fun without crowd control. I easily get past locks with my undead rogue, but my pally has a hell of a time not getting feared to death.

in PVP fear should be broken by ANY damage done, just like polymorph, sap and scattershot.
See, here I agree. How many forms of CC can continue to function even while damage is taken, such as by DoTs, health drains, or other means. The only others I can think of off top of my head are stun (which like with a paly has more then a few sec CD) and frost nova, which to best of my knowledge doesn't seem to have one. However range can still attack when novaed, unless at least before this patch it was a hunter stuck in it's "no kill zone" between melee and range (adjusted in 2.3).

Sheep? A sheeped target regenerates health, while polymorphed and the effect is broaken when damage taken.

Freeze traps? Someone hits it, or one ends up trapping a DoTed target, instant broaken.

Most every form of CC is broaken when damage is taken, or the ability to respond (frost nova) isn't totally locked out to all classes. This one should be held to the same rules of damage breaks it automatically, as most any form of CC.
Son Goku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 08:06 AM   #19
OldOfEvil
Parrots + Xanax =
 
OldOfEvil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 662
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Now your reaching.


Most of the warlocks damage is going to occur via dots. When Mages and Hunters have to rely on dots, then we can talk about your CC being a little more forgiving on when it breaks.
__________________
i5 3570k | Sabertooth z77 | GTX 680 (320.49) | 16GB DDR2 | Win7 x64 Pro
OldOfEvil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 04:20 PM   #20
Medion
 
Medion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barksdale AFB, La
Posts: 1,238
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja Prime
So does fear. And a paladins main stun doesn't break on damage and is the longest stun in the game as I recall. A well geared retnoob can kill you on his hammer stun if hes lucky with crits.
I have a lock. Fear does not break on damage. DoTs have zero change to break a fear, while direct damage has a chance to break fear. Also, you can re-apply fear an infinite amount of times (limited by mana). In theory, you can fear/dot someone until they are dead.

A Paladin's stun is a one-shot type deal. And, a Ret Paladin isn't going to kill you during that stun unless A) they horrible outgear you AND B) they get REALLY lucky.

Bottom line is, comparing Warlock fear to a Paladin's stun is beyond assanine. It's just plain stupid.
Medion is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-07, 06:11 PM   #21
Son Goku
Registered User
 
Son Goku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 439 East District, Mount Paozu
Posts: 1,714
Default 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.
Son Goku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 06:19 PM   #22
Dvahlish
Registered User
 
Dvahlish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne-Australia
Posts: 272
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Heres the thing...
Its a a game.
And since we arent the game developers, we either play it the way its designed to be played or we go and play another game.

Heaps of races have traits that I find annoying when coming across in battle, but instead of complaining...think of it as a challenge.

Balanced or not...we obviously dont have much say in it, so lets just play and enjoy it yeh?
__________________
Guns dont kill people, Magic missiles do!
Dvahlish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 06:39 PM   #23
Son Goku
Registered User
 
Son Goku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: 439 East District, Mount Paozu
Posts: 1,714
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Well whatever say depends on how much they care about public relations. But that dev's words prove one thing; there is no concept of "balance" which is applied in balanced measure, with said rationale behind decisions made. The words of that dev, are deserving of flack IMO.
Son Goku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-07, 08:06 PM   #24
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Blizzard changes arguments wrt game balance questions, when it comes to locks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medion
I have a lock. Fear does not break on damage. DoTs have zero change to break a fear, while direct damage has a chance to break fear.
What game are you playing? Go ask a developer on blizzards website. Hell it was in the patch notes like a year ago. DoTs break fear, its based on damage done, so DoTs break them less, but unless you're the worst player ever and have geared for no +damage, your dots will break fear, usually in less than 5 seconds.

When I was affliction, I would rarely get more than 5 seconds worth of fear with DoTs on, but then I am well geared and understand the game mechanics, which clearly you do not.
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saturday Crapshoot: Quest For Glory 4 1/2 News Gaming Headlines 0 06-09-12 11:10 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.


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