I am trying to get you to explain the rationale behind this specific opposition. It's almost as if you support the belief that every class should be pigeon holed into a specific role by virtue of relative strengths.
Let me give you an example that is close to your heart - Assassins. Assassins could be built effectively as casters (traps) and effectively as melee.
Why can't Wizards be allowed this nature of dual potential? Why can't they be allowed to both be a ranged nuker class and a melee class? Especially if balanced so that they can't competitively excel at both at the same time?
Melee Assassins can kill casters very easy but they cant kill good barbarian or smiter.
Also to konfeta and other guys : considering my power knowledge of game mechanics can u please calrify this blue post for me:
Blizzard Quote: (Source)you once said that all characters will be balanced (ex: wizard can tank just as much as a barb, etc.) is that still true?�vincentbellino
I�d like to see that quote. I think what was said is that all classes are equally �DPS� classes, and all equally viable.�Diablo
But no, I don�t think a �tanky� wizard build could withstand the same amount of damage a �tanky� barbarian build could.�Diablo
Their skills and traits are fundamentally different. You could build a tanky wizard, but it wouldn�t play the same as a barb�Diablo|||That's.... the best you could come up with? Not an argument, not even an apology for blatantly not reading posts and raging at us for "not reading;" but a statement stating that melee builds between different classes will be different, which was one my original positions on melee Wizards since they announced they were giving them melee skills?
Hey, I bet one could dig up a quote about how Monks can take less damage than Barbarians. Clearly Barbarians > Monks in melee..|||I think what that qoute is saying is that barbarians will focus on high armor, high hp and high resistances to reduce dmg while the wizard will use skills like slow time, diamond skin frost armor and energy shield to temporary boost defences to avoid dmg.
Wizards defence = temporary armors, slow, freeze, stuns, mobility. = defensive abilities.
Barbarians defence = high numbers, hp, armor, defence. = Tank.
In a PVM situation, a wizard can be surrounded, but not for a long time = Shield up, Go in, deal ton of dmg, retriet.
Barbarians can be surrounded and can tank for a longer period. In fact, he depends on it, since the more dmg he takes, the more dmg he will inflict. = Go in, tank, build up fury, deal ton of dmg.
This is at least how I imagine it to be. They will play differently. It's hard to say what way will be superior in a PVP situation.|||Yeah, I would expect the Wizard to avoid a significant portion of damage through spells. There are passive toughness booster, but they would be there to give some ability to not fold over in a few hits when the defensive spells are not up.
In PvP, assuming balance in numbers, the true test of Wizard viability would be whenever they can deliver damage. Reliance on short term duration spells makes playing against Wizards a priority to force wasting the spells and then kill them while they are down. If a melee Wizard can't slow/lock down or catch up to the enemy player, they will be kited by everyone from the get go. Even Barbarians/Monks, which would be a funny sight to behold. If there was a design flaw in melee Wizards I would be wary of, it's that. But not something as ridiculous as "only viable melee should be Monk/Barbarian, so Wizard melee builds autolose because they have half the total survivability and half the total damage output on their best day."|||If I may speculate a little bit, I think that a fight between a barb and a melee wizard will look something like this:
The Wizard will pop some defencive skills and explosive blast ect and engage the barbarian. Save teleport for retriet. In the beginning of the fight, before the barb has build up enough fury, and before the shields and slow time of the wizard is gone, the wizard will probebly deal a little more dmg than she takes. Then, when the diamond skin and slow time is gone, and the barbarian have enough fury to perform some of his more deadly attacks, the wizard must retreat with teleport.
Now is the window of oppertunity for the barb. If he can catch the wizard before he runs out of fury, and before the wizards CDs are done he can probebly take her down pretty easily. If not, the wizard can just engage again with her protective skills and try to finish the barb off in the same old fashion.
A smart barb might however run for his money once he sees that the wizard pops diamond skin and slow time and try to avoid the wizard until her defencive abilities are on CD.
The melee wizard will actually have an advantage over a regular caster since a regular caster will always try to hit the barb with ranged spells. This will generate the barbs fury fast and he will have alot of fury for his mobility skills and probebly alot left once he catches the wizard. A smart melee character will not touch the barb inbetween fights, giving him less fury to use once they engange each other.
But of course, this is just pure speculations. But it is always fun to speculate right?|||Quote:
Melee Assassins can kill casters very easy but they cant kill good barbarian or smiter.
What are you smoking and what's the number for rehab?|||Sass, please return to acceptable postings. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment