#1 - 2012/09/01 05:25:00 PMRecently GC posted about how Devs cant be too open to public opinion. His reasoning basicaly boils down to (paraphrasing here) "no one wants to get nerfed, but we need to nerf ocasionaly". Yet that misses the point of many players complaints and dosent address the big picture.
Lets say you go to a resturant for a Cheese burger, and lets say you hate mayonees (I do). So you look at the menue and read what comes on the cheese burger, and there is no mention of nasty mayo. So you order it and when it comes out BAM a big ol nasty glob of mayo on your burger. So you say "Hey when i ordered this there was no mention of mayo on the menue". Then your waiter says "Oh, well we decided its beter this way". You say "Ok im glad you think so, but i don't like mayo. Can i have the burger i ordered instead?" To wich the waiter replies "No, see you'll like it better with mayo". To wich you reply "I think I know what I like better than you do".Then the waiter "Well we still belive its better with mayo so thats how its going to stay" Then you ask "Do you want me to be a customer?"
The point is balanceing dps output / healing is all fine and dandy but changeing the way a class plays isnt nesesary to do so. Nerfing the dps output of skill A from class A while buffing spell B from class B,is also a viable solution. Some would say that cant always solve the issue of balance as some classes may burst dps better than others. Its seems Blizzards aproach to solve this would be to bog the class down w/ more skills, spreading ther dps out. When a much easier answer would be to lower one existing spell and raise another.
But if balancing is the true concern then why is there such a difrence in the complexity and length (length being most important) of the classes rotaion/priority list? I have mained a hunter since i started playing, but have also grinded up a mage,boomkin, s.priest, and prot pally. Three of these classes will have half or less than half the priority list of my hunter when they reach lvl 90. That is not balanced.
YES YES I KNOW other classes such as DK are plagued with over complexity and i feel your pain.
But i don't believe the changes are always intended for balance. Lets think about it, after a decade of this game they haven't got it right? They feel classes need tweeking? No they believe that changes to the characters offers more depth into the game. It dosen't. When it all boils down to it we come to fight the bosses (or players) and everything else is just mashing buttons. Game depth dosen't come from learning how to play, it comes from playing. Memorizeing 25 keybinds is no where near as fun as cordnateing attacks with a group, in order to defeat a ten story tall monster.
Lasty why it is unfair for Devs to change my class drastically. Because 3 years ago I made this character based on how it was then. If someone would have told me that Blizzard will add FIVE new CDs to the character in two expansions, rendering it a game of wackamole, well i would have probably rolled a difrent class. And YES i still can, But all the time an effort spent of this character will be lost and that isn't right.
But if you still say you know best and the players can't decide whats more enjoyable to them, Then why OH WHY did you just FINALLY decide to get rid of Minimum range. Truth is (at least on that one) the players know best.
Heres a great way to look at this. I ordered my Cheeseburger (made a hunter) a while back, and now Blizzard just slaped some Mayo on it, and i dont like mayo, and your not going to convince me its better with mayo.