View Full Version : Monk skills pertaining to PvP...
TheBlueGhost
22-08-2009, 01:33
From what they have shown us in the game play videos the Monk looks to be a very dangerous foe when it comes to pvp. From only five active skills they have shown us, the Monk has projectile relfection (invulnerability?), cripple, knock back, and two distance closing skills. Seven-sided strike especially seems dangerous because of its present casting range and that the Monk is invulnerable during the strike. It just seems to me that unless some of these skills are nerfed or at least given a cool down for pvp play, the Monk will have an edge over the other classes.
Your thoughts....?
Runestar
22-08-2009, 02:23
7 sided strike seems mechanically similar to assassin's dragon tail (in that they both teleport you to a foe and attack). Was it ever an issue in D2?
I will need to know more about impenetrable defense before I can comment, since it is still unclear to me how it reflects projectiles. Does it automatically reflect X ranged attacks per casting, does the damage of each attack factor in somehow (ie: if the damage is too great, the attack is not deflected), will I need to do anything extra like tab a key at a critical moment to deflect it...?
TheBlueGhost
22-08-2009, 04:09
First off, this isn't D2 we are talking about. But in comparing dragon tail to seven-sided strike there are two major mechanical differences: duration and invulnerability. Dragon tail closed distance and dealt damage almost instantaneously while seven-sided strike closes distance, does damage, and offers invulnerability all over 2.5 to 4 seconds (est. from the few game play videos available).
In D3, where many more hero skills are passive %crit boosts, short in duration, and under cool downs of their own; along with pots most likely having cool downs and elixirs only lasting a few seconds, every second attacking, moving, and healing will count in pvp. While the other classes do have comparable skills in terms of closing distance, projectile reflection, and slowing effects, it appears that the Monk will have more of those kinds of skills (plus lengthy invulnerability) and will be able to garner more seconds then others, possibly making him overpowered vs. them.
Runestar
22-08-2009, 06:25
Where does it show the invulnerability bit? I was unable to discern anything along that line from the video.
That was my first impression too actually, but we havn't even seen half of everyones skill set yet so it's kind of a moot point.
MysticDragon
22-08-2009, 07:24
When it came to D2 PvP, it was mostly the casters that were the most successful. The majority of melee builds weren't that great or at least not nearly as good as the more common caster types.
TheBlueGhost
22-08-2009, 07:41
Where does it show the invulnerability bit? I was unable to discern anything along that line from the video.
You will notice in the videos when seven-sided strike is used by the Monk, the monsters that are not immediately destroyed just stand there and take the rest of the strikes. This is caused by the monsters not being able to target the Monk. And when the AI of enemies in games cannot target their opponent, 9 times out of 10 that means the target is invulnerable.
I played the monk today. You have a valid conscern, but remember that the monk has mana. I could only use Seven Sided Strike twice in a row before completely running out of mana. If it tells youy anything, my favorite tactic was to SSS into a pack of foes, use Divine Flash to blind them, then start laying the smackdown. The combos cost no mana to use. they're the monk's basic attacks, pretty much.
I didn't get much cause to use the shield. I will experiment tomorrow.
Uncle_Mike
22-08-2009, 10:19
I didn't get much cause to use the shield. I will experiment tomorrow.
Keep the information coming ;) I assume that PvP isn't enabled in Blizzcon playable demos?
Well, it depends on how they balance things. Wizard has Slow Missiles, Teleport and Mirror Image too. When you see them you think the Wizard must be imba in PvP too, but it all comes down to balance.
From what they have shown us in the game play videos the Monk looks to be a very dangerous foe when it comes to pvp. From only five active skills they have shown us, the Monk has projectile relfection (invulnerability?), cripple, knock back, and two distance closing skills. Seven-sided strike especially seems dangerous because of its present casting range and that the Monk is invulnerable during the strike. It just seems to me that unless some of these skills are nerfed or at least given a cool down for pvp play, the Monk will have an edge over the other classes.
Your thoughts....?
I think it's too early to say that, we don't know much about Diablo 3. Right now i'm thinking how cool would be a fight between Monks, and how runes will affect the Monk's abilities, especially Seven-Sided Strike.
chassler
22-08-2009, 16:21
Note that Blizzard said monks were fragile. I can imagine a barbarian using his ground stomp and then 2 smash the monk to death. SSS won't be the ultimate and overpowered PvP ability. Just teleport/leap away, or for a witch doctor the damage will be shared to the pets. The invurnebility thing only seems to reflect projectiles which means wizard can simply cast a blizzard or a cyclone to ruin for the monk. :thumbup:
Darkflight
23-08-2009, 09:52
I think the Monk will probably have to go in and out of combat alot in PVP, running around and trying to be close to enemies only when attacking. His enemies will have to try to catch the Monk between all his fancy moves, and if they do catch him he is pretty much instantly dead.
From what I heard so far I think the Monk will be VERY challenging to play in PVP.
HappyAssassin
23-08-2009, 16:46
Do the monk's "combos" require a charge up? Burning palm looked like it took 3 hits to charge. I hope he doesn't rely too much on charging up, or the charges have a longer duration. Charge-up martial arts were worthless in D2...
Do the monk's "combos" require a charge up? Burning palm looked like it took 3 hits to charge. I hope he doesn't rely too much on charging up, or the charges have a longer duration. Charge-up martial arts were worthless in D2...From what it seems, it's like them, but not dependent on hits, which killed it in d2.
Rather, you can punch air twice, then the third will be the final "release".
Might work out well.
At least it has a dflight that ISNT buggy :)
Hi!
Well, it depends on how they balance things. Wizard has Slow Missiles, Teleport and Mirror Image too. When you see them you think the Wizard must be imba in PvP too, but it all comes down to balance.
Just to point out of this: it's slow, not slow missiles. It slows everything except the caster and his party i assume.
The thing is every class wil have really hard hitting skills and skills to stay alive. I think it makes pvp fun if people are required to use "counter skills" to avoid being owned by certain skills. For examle in this SS wizard could use mirror image and blink with multistrike creating tons of images to hit. Most likely they will be alot cheaper for the wizard than the SS for monk and if not some of the images must certainly stay alive after the SS so he has them to fight also.
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I sort of skimmed through the thread, didn't fully read every post.
I think one thing that you all are forgetting is that the monk isn't going to be using mana. We know nothing of what resource system he will use, but I think that it is safe to say that in a PvP setting he won't be able to spam his skills, especially those that some here are claiming make him invulnerable.
Also, SSS is in essence an AoE attack. If you remember in a recent interview Blizzard said that when a Barb uses an AoE attack, especially against a single opponent, it costs him a great deal of fury and leaves him more or less unable to do much more than normal melee attacks until his fury is replenished. I think that it is safe to say this will be true for Monks as well. Even if SSS does make the Monk invulnerable for its duration, using it against another player will likely leave him resource starved and vulnerable.
Why are you concerned with balancing when Blizzard haven't balanced any of the skills yet? They haven't made half of his skills, let alone completed the skills for the other chars. When they do a final balance it is reasonable to discuss PvP issues but not before resource systems and incomplete builds and no balancing at all
Lots of people play RPG's for PvP and thoroughly enjoy it. However, Blizzard screwed up with the class balance in WoW. Because of this, and the wonderful balance they gave us in D2, we know that it can either be good or bad. This is why it is a main concern for people interested in Diablo 3.
You have to remember other melee classes in D2. You had MA assassins, Fury Druids, Zealots, Concentration Barbarians, and a few others that had a Physical Damage Close Combat Focus. Fury Druids and MA assassins fit the Monk playstyle the best. Their defense wasn't anywhere near the effect that Barbarians or Zealots had, and it was more based on maxing block and having a strong offense. I think the monk is going to fill that niche, as Blizzard seems keen to make the Monk hit hard but need "breaks" or not hold up to the fray as well as Barbarians.
Erm. PvP in WoW is far more balanced that it ever was in DII. You cannot seriously say that DII has any sort of balance in PvP.
I think your perspective of balance may be skewed in favor of WoW. WoW had "balance" in the terms of one class has certain advantages over another and weaknesses towards a third class, and so on. D2 had it so that any class could beat another, at least that was my experience of it. I played many different classes and learned the potential of each.
I tried the same on WoW only to find out that a class that my "main" character had troubles with, had troubles of its own, usually with the class that my main had no problem with. For example, my main was a paladin at one point. I had troubles with Warlocks and Shamans, so I tried warlock & shaman eventually and found out that hey, despite the fact that my paladin wipes the floor with Rogues, these classes eat stunlocks constantly and just die. There was a constant "grass is greener" philosophy no matter what class you played, whereas D2 allowed you to find your favorite class and be comfortable with it.
In other words. DiabloII had character builds that were pretty much unbeatable by anything were it pre 1.10 burizons, Sorceress or Enigma wind druids. That does not spell balance to me.
I have seen lots of rogues owning paladins by the way. You cannot really compare DII PvP to WoW PvP due to diversity of wow pvp compared to DII and that WoW PvP is foremost balanced to grp PvP.
I beat Enigma wind druids on my barb, my Zealot, my orb sorc, my Fury Druid, my bone nec, among other things. Same deal with pre 1.10 burizons, I beat them with my Fury Druid (I beat Eagle & WF zons on that guy) and beat them with my own amazon that used a cruel mat bow. I'm sorry you had trouble with those builds, what did you play, melee necro or something?
As far as wow having a diverse pvp scene, are you referring to warrior/druid dominating 2's for all of Burning Crusade? How about PMR dominating 3's in BC and Wrath? How about Cleave vs Euro vs 2345? How about War/Rogue/Druid 3's? How often did you arena and what brackets did you play in? The idea of WoW pvp being diverse is laughable at best.
In other words. DiabloII had character builds that were pretty much unbeatable by anything were it pre 1.10 burizons, Sorceress or Enigma wind druids. That does not spell balance to me.
I have seen lots of rogues owning paladins by the way. You cannot really compare DII PvP to WoW PvP due to diversity of wow pvp compared to DII and that WoW PvP is foremost balanced to grp PvP.D2 pvp is somewhat balanced, but there are some that actually are still powerful.
Necs and windies top them, but windies (and sorc) fall to sin, which fall to barb, which fall to din, falling to nec, to zon, to druid, etc.
They tend to go round and round, each class able to counter another, or itself >>
Yea right... sure you beat them in that 1 time out of 100 if they would be equally skilled. Stop trying to pretend there are no dominating PvP chars in DII. You do not beat any Dedicated WW barb with melee char for example. That is already huge flaw in balance.
In DII you usually use 2-4 skills PvPing with some char. In WoW you use 20 skills. Thats the main difference. And now you are talking about Arenas? I thought we were talking of 1vs1. Warrior & Druid has hardly dominated anything than melee teams by the way. Even if WoW PvP is not that diverse it still is 100x more diverse than DII ever was.
Stop trying to claim that there are balance in DII. It is way over dependant on items, builds and class atleast without any PvP "rules". There have only been like few patches that altered DII PvP balance while WoW is being patched all the time and PvP balance is being carefully monitored. There are pros playing WoW PvP after all.
Besides you can build your char in WoW for dueling or even vs spesific class just as in DII and be pretty much unbeatable. Ret Pallies, DK:s, Feral druids and skilled hunters and rogues are very tough vs anything. (Not sure about Ret pallies after the big nerf)
There isn't a single dominating class in d2. O.o Pallies try and come close, but they fail.
There isn't a single dominating class in d2. O.o Pallies try and come close, but they fail.
And some classes do not come even near that close.
But how do you beat WW barb with a melee char?
Seriously trying to compare DII and WoW is apples and oranges.
And some classes do not come even near that close.
But how do you beat WW barb with a melee char?
Seriously trying to compare DII and WoW is apples and oranges.I don't have a clue about WoW's pvp system, so I'm not trying to compare anything.
However, D2 pvp isn't always as broken as people claim.
Yes, WW is very overpowered vs melee and smite, but it isn't uncounterable by something. There is no #1 pvp char. Many threads have been made and flamed to oblivion over this, and still no conclusion, because there can't be. All classes fall to the other 7.
No, smiter > barb, sorry.
If there is nr.1 char in world of no rules - then smiter, hammer.
No, smiter > barb, sorry.
If there is nr.1 char in world of no rules - then smiter, hammer.Proven fact, barb > smite. :whistling:
Even then, the barb isn't top class, though he beats what would be the top class. ;)
Ur wrong, sir. Ever heard of Exile?
Uncle_Mike
30-09-2009, 14:39
Yes. You hear of ww? ;)
Guys please, this is a D3 sub.
if you want a ww vs smite discussion make a topic in the D2 PvP forum.
Beating ww barbs as melee was easy, you just need to sit still and shift + zeal or shift + fury. It was even easier if you shift + smite on your zealot because of the high defense, huge chance to life tap, and always hitting the barb as he whirls through you. If you couldn't do this, you were just too impatient and whiny to begin with.
Steering back towards the topic however, I compared the two games because I still think d2 had a better class balance due to these facts:
1) A skilled player can make up for a few missing spots in gear.
2) With enough strategy, any build can go toe-to-toe with another class and have a chance at winning, you aren't limited by your favorite class.
3)In wow, classes had counters, it was not even across the board.
4)Keep diablo balanced like diablo.
If you have any opinions to argue with these facts, feel free to pm them to me so you don't dirty up the thread, I'd love to talk theorycrafting with you.
Vouch the second part of the post. D2's system was bad in ways, but in no way a horrendous OP situation.
2) With enough strategy, any build can go toe-to-toe with another class and have a chance at winning, you aren't limited by your favorite class.
This holds true to WoW as well. When did you play WoW and how much exactly? I guess years ago if you think Shamans counter pallies.
I cannot help it, but you really do sound like real bad at WoW PvP.
Could you post strategy how I beat every class with my Poison dagger necro and enchant sorc build also?
>.>If only I knew a WoW skill to point out the irony.
How about a hunter who only norm attacks? :)
How about a hunter who only norm attacks? :)
What do you mean exactly? Why would hunter just norm attack?
What do you mean exactly? Why would hunter just norm attack?
Why would a nec just poison dagger?
EDIT: That one build being bad doesn't make the char bad. Necs themselves are viable, no matter how bad / good a dagger nec is. :whistling:
That applies to WoW as well.
WoW has drastically moved away from the "class counter" thing which it was in classic.
Sure some class builds are better vs some other class builds just, but that is just as in DiabloII.
So...did we just agree? O.o
Even d2 has some that shine vs others, but can ultimately 1v1 any class.
*note, not all builds from all classes are going to kill every other build. For instance, don't hold your breath on that defiance/vigor/meditation/holy shield/cleanse paladin. Even still, a regular hdin or smiter are viable builds.
I started playing wow in 2005, I quit 2 months ago.
The whole poison dagger necro analogy doesn't work. You don't see any class in d2 completely based on low tier skills, well, maybe smiters. But still, you don't see a firestorm-only druid, you don't see a bash-only barb, etc.
You proved my point when you said some class builds are "better". A build is a playstyle in wow. Use shamans for the example. Resto shouldn't be more viable or less viable than enhancement or elemental, or the other way around. They are playstyles and each should have their role and not have an overwhelming class counter. Blizzard got to this point in raids, by marginalizing buffs and making it so you invited people because of the person, not their class. If only the same were in PvP where each tree was readily accepted on an arena team. It shouldn't be a chore to find an arena team that wants an enhancement shaman, a shadow priest, a feral/balance druid. That is where WoW's balancing failed. People didn't pick up Enhancement shamans because of their weaknesses vs other classes and it wasn't fair to the people who liked the playstyle. The spec became close to desirable recently but if you keep tabs on patch notes, they're nerfing them again.
That is the source of my suggestion for D3 pvp balance. Make it so each tree is readily welcomed in pvp and not frowned upon. Make it so one class can easily go toe-to-toe with a chance to win while the opponent has that same chance. Make skill and personality the two things that matter, not class or playstyle or spec choice.
There's obviously going to be people who like the Monk playstyle, just as there will be Barbarians, Witch Doctors, Wizards, and whatever the 5th will be. Just make it so that no group or team says "We don't want to invite a _____! _____ and _____ counter them too easily!"
An approach to this balance is to place yourself in the shoes of the class. There's 50+ people on the D3 development team so there should be someone that likes to pvp from each class. Sit the monk guy down with the team and think like this:
Monk vs Barbarian: Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. If he's as good as me, we have a good fight and it's 50/50. If he's worse, I win. If he's better, I lose.
Repeat that for every class until each one is comfortable saying "Hey, I can have a fun time pvping without having to run from or avoid anyone! There are challenging fights everywhere and there's no break to any class that I choose to play as, I can pick what I feel like playing and have fun all the time"
Precisely. D2 was almost a perfect balance, but it was somewhat.
Even the d3 classes are close enough that Bliz might get full (or as close as possible for a big game) balancing for pvm and pvp.
I honestly think the class with the largest amount of disadvantages in a pvp setting was Fury Druids. They couldn't teleport in form and their method of travel (feral rage) depended upon them hitting something. Paladins had charge, Barbarians could teleport, same with assassins, and all the other classes were predominantly ranged. Granted, if the druid got close, you felt it. However, that's a big if. They also had a disadvantage in melee because Paladins and Barbarians both had uninterrupted attacks. Only Jab zons were close to having this disadvantage, but being an amazon, you could carry a bow on switch and guided arrow still hit hard because you built your character for maximum physical damage.
The funny thing is when Blizzard designed Death Knights in WoW, their thinking process for designing the class was that they wanted it to have an answer for everything. No other class had that, and when Wrath released, DK's were overpowered and the common answer was "it is a hero class, of course it is overpowered." But that is what I thought about D2 classes. Each class had its own unique answer for everything coming its way. Whether it was to play aggressive or defensive, use this skill or that, you still always had an answer. Unfortunately the answer for my favorite class (Fury Druid) was to only duel other Fury Druids and to make a Zealot for killing everything else.
Druids did feel it, but strangely, Enigma gave them the windy druid, which is usually the #1 choice for eliminating the oh-so-OP HDins O.o
Would be nice to have tele WW druids though.
Unfortunately Windy druid had a completely different feel to it than Fury, and wasn't my thing :P
Some of us like melee, some of us like ranged. Thankfully in the Diablo franchise they're both viable.
Thank god for desynch WW's :whistling:
Werewolves or WW barb/sin?
Remember to desynch as a werewolf you need to either sacrifice a ton of life for r/w or use get vigor somewhere. You can't rely on feral rage in pvp :hammerhead:
The Balance before 1.10 was screwed for long time untill Blizzard decided to give everyone Teleport and Battle Orders with the Runewords and even then, only the rich people can afford those.
Bashiok said himself that they do not think it is good design to give other class skills to everyone.
I do not care about grp PvP in DIII much, it is not my thing. Since you seem to compare that.
I meant WW druids ><
And not to get into the o-skill thing, but Enigma made so many things possible >>
D3 doesn't need to give tele to everyone, but that alone wasn't what balanced things out.
The Balance before 1.10 was screwed for long time untill Blizzard decided to give everyone Teleport and Battle Orders with the Runewords and even then, only the rich people can afford those.
Bashiok said himself that they do not think it is good design to give other class skills to everyone.
I do not care about grp PvP in DIII much, it is not my thing. Since you seem to compare that.
The point CTA and Enigma being cheap and common set aside...
What's your point? What do you want balance to look like in Diablo 3? Are you going to play monk?
Arena is just easy to bring up because that was the popular pvp in WoW. I illustrated 1v1 problems as well though.
I was just pointing out that it is not that wise to compare DII and WoW PvP and claim that
the other has wonderful balance and the other has screwed up balance when they are totally different games and have different PvP, Mechanics and diversity.
There are lots of people who would roll on floor laughing when you say that DII had more balanced PvP.
All I want is PvP where the best builds do not come from bugs or from some overpowered mechanic.
On a sidenote. If you think DiabloII has fantastic balance, there is a disapointment for you in DIII since it will be impossible to balance it that well since it will be way more diverse. Or then it will be patchfest just as WoW is.
Bring them on. I'll still point out the fallacy in their opinions. Some people view certain classes completely countering others as "Balance" but I believe that is illogical. I don't need to repeat that, I stated it quite clearly in this post (http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7305246&postcount=43).
And for the record, there are lots of people who would roll on the floor laughing when anyone says WoW had more balanced PvP as well. The only real way to look at it is objectively.
You didn't answer my questions. What do you want balance to look like in Diablo 3? What classes are you wanting to play? Would you like an even chance against everyone or would you like to always get stomped by a certain class, regardless of gear? What is your opinion of a fair balance?
You do not get stomped by certain class either in wow if you are good, and of course no one wants that, do not be stupid.
You didn't answer my questions. What do you want balance to look like in Diablo 3? What classes are you wanting to play? Would you like an even chance against everyone or would you like to always get stomped by a certain class, regardless of gear? What is your opinion of a fair balance?
And on what you said, you obviously never fought a rogue as a warlock in BC, or as a shaman in either expansion. The only chance I ever had 1v1 against a rogue on my shaman was after I hit 2k in 5's and had best in slot gear in every slot, including the shield. And that was only to beat the mediocre ones. I had a rogue on my team and blew every cooldown I had to attempt to kill him and he still won.
How about warrior vs druid? ever heard of roots? Or warrior vs paladin, the long time counter for warriors were paladins. Stuns, bubble, plate, heals, blessing of freedom.
You're kidding if you're going to ignore class counters in wow, that's what wow's "balance" was completely based on. Oh I get it, I won't be stupid, I'll just reroll death knight because that's the only class on wow that was designed like classes on d2: to have an answer for everything.
But please, answer my questions so we can return to the topic.
And on what you said, you obviously never fought a rogue as a warlock in BC, or as a shaman in either expansion. The only chance I ever had 1v1 against a rogue on my shaman was after I hit 2k in 5's and had best in slot gear in every slot, including the shield. And that was only to beat the mediocre ones. I had a rogue on my team and blew every cooldown I had to attempt to kill him and he still won.
How about warrior vs druid? ever heard of roots? Or warrior vs paladin, the long time counter for warriors were paladins. Stuns, bubble, plate, heals, blessing of freedom.
You're kidding if you're going to ignore class counters in wow, that's what wow's "balance" was completely based on. Oh I get it, I won't be stupid, I'll just reroll death knight because that's the only class on wow that was designed like classes on d2: to have an answer for everything.
But please, answer my questions so we can return to the topic.
I have beated all those class combinations with those classes you mentioned and have lost to some classes.
You can beat Rogues as warlock sometimes very easily. I have 80 warlock. and 2 lvl 70 ones. Roots do not do much vs warriors really anymore, it just regenerates their health if they are Arms. You can beat Paladins as warrior as well especially if you are prot. You could also spec Resto as shaman and rofl every time you saw a rogue because of the Earth shield.
You have troubles in DII some classes and builts vs some others. You will have troubles vs WW barbs with other melee classes, You will have troubles vs wind druids if you rely on elemental damage. You will have real bad troubles as orber if your opponent wears dual ravens and that cold absorb shield. Just as in WoW
Stop comparing to WoW to DII now. Its idiotic and makes me feel like a moron when you force me to.
I already answered your question, and Im not sure what class I want to play yet.
I'm lost to death in all this WoW talk :S
What do you want balance to look like in Diablo 3?Somewhat similar to diablo where there are classes that can counter others (BvC, block necs, etc) but it's not a 100% guaranteed win (bvc VS a nec). I doubt I can put that in a WoW perspective, but the barb is designed to take down a caster, yet here's a caster giving him a genuine good duel. If Blizz can balance it like that, without mirroring (no bone spirits after all and tele ww is out), then it'd be "balanced".
What classes are you wanting to play?I'm definitely going to focus on a Monk, and I can see them being an anti caster build. Even then, I don't imagine them tanking a barb and bringing him down 100%. However, I don't want to lose 100% to a barb. Sins in D2 could out whirl a barb, but only if handled correctly, and it certainly isn't guaranteed. Nevertheless, they stood a chance unlike the zealer vs smite example.
Would you like an even chance against everyone or would you like to always get stomped by a certain class, regardless of gear?I'd like an even chance as best as possible, but naturally there will be advantages that come more from play style than actual game imbalances. For instance, the fast, light melee is generally better at fighting casters. Casters would be better vs melee builds. The fast caster is good vs a slower one, etc.
What is your opinion of a fair balance?A roughly even playing ground where some class advantages exist, but not a debilitating one. There should be a good duel, even if it's slightly up hill, but doable. (some nvd / dvn matches where people use this as a bragging right.)
HappyAssassin
02-10-2009, 00:39
lmao at the smiter vs. ww debate getting started in a D3 thread. Didn't that die when people figured out how to kill mcm's "unbeatable" barb killing smiter on D2pk? This forum has a short memory (or I missed something).
On balance, I think class disadvantages are absolutely crucial. If every class has an even chance, the only difference is how flashy they look killing each other. What you want is a situation where, all things being equal, both guys have a 50-50 chance, but all things are never equal - that's where the fun is. The huge class disadvantages lead to the most innovative and interesting builds/duels/competitions, and I don't think they should be disposed of in the interests of some arbitrary "fairness." You'll never get true fairness in a game like D2 - just look at the debates over balance in a supposedly carefully balanced game like WOW. Crappy players will always claim that certain matchups are impossible. Imbalanced classes are only a problem at the top level of play and then - surprise! - no one whines about them and most people have a strategy to handle them.
I think Sass has it right, some matchups should be 80-20, or even 90-10 (on average), but there should always be a chance to win.
PS- I hope the Barb vs. Monk is stupidly hard. I can't wait to build a barb killing monk. I hate barbs. God I hate them.
PPS - @ Sass there were like 4 sins who could out whirl quality barbs on my realm when I played, that hardly counts. And all we could kill was BvCs - if they put on a shield the duel was over. Still some of the most fun duels I've ever had. 1000x more satisfying to beat a cocky BvC head to head than trap some poor sorceress for the 100th time.
Eh, personally I think you're always going to have the camp that likes disadvantages to balance out a game and the other side that likes it to be even. Despite 50-50 chances I feel that each class can still have a unique play style.
I do agree that it is more satisfying to beat a class that has advantages over you. Whenever I beat a hammerdin as melee I felt like "Well, I've accomplished my goal, I can retire now. The impossible has been achieved." And I didn't have nearly the same feeling when I beat other squishier classes that I could sorb/resist to kill. I felt the same way in WoW when I beat a rogue on my enhancement shaman. It even got to the point where people would stop to watch and see if I could beat them. If they lost they were belittled for the next 5-15 minutes by anyone that saw it. In the same case, I didn't feel accomplished killing rogues on my paladin because I could kill 3 of them at the same time if I wanted to. Same thing in D2, it wasn't incredibly fun killing 3 different sorceresses in the game because they all didn't have max block and the still pitifully slow 6 frame FHR.
Strangely enough, that is my point. A 50-50 matchup without clear disadvantages would yield a more competitive game. There wouldn't be easy targets, everyone could potentially be a challenge. It would leave the challenges in the hands of the player, not the class. Instead of a percentage of top players playing a certain class, it would be top players because they're actually good players.
HappyAssassin
02-10-2009, 02:05
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I'm in the other camp because I didn't see all the top players using one particular class - there were good players of every class that could give anyone a run for their money. With this experience, I draw a sharp distinction between general and specific skill in the game. The mouse and keyboard "skills" required for post 1.10 D2 PVP were pretty basic but hard to master - you basically had to be able to namelock, hit keys correctly (and in the right sequence), read the map screen when it was lying to you and (in my case) draw perfect little triangles around the center of the screen. The rest of the game depended on the type of character you used and how you built it. For me, the exciting part was building characters and mastering their nuances, not mastering the fast-twitch part of the game (which took a little while, but once you got it, you got it). Ensuring that every skill tree works pretty well removes this challenge from the game, thus it removes one of the things that made D2 PvP so much fun - the constant meta-game between good players of the various classes. Now, I wouldn't mind a little more balance between classes for the sake of fairness or competitive play, but I would hate to see a system where every skill tree was a viable PvP class - that would make builds idiot proof, and there are enough idiots playing Diablo that I'd consider it a serious problem. It's boring on D2 now because the meta-game has run its course - I don't want the same problem to occur in D3 starting on day one.
Excuse the (slightly embarrassing) quick reply, I'm unemployed as of this week and I have nothing better to do.
Cheers!
Well, in D2, each skill tree had a role, depending on your build. For example, if you were a wind druid, you didn't put into SS at all. But if you were a shapeshifter, you could eventually get 1 pt in cyclone armor. Both trees still picked up summons though, kind of like how both trappers and MA sins picked up shadow masteries. I really like the system of 1 passive tree and two active trees that rely on the player to utilize.
However, from what I've seen in D3 samples so far, the three trees are going to have different playstyles and have their own passives/masteries in each one. That what gave me the wow paranoia of "oh crap, what if the playstyle I enjoy the most gets picked on a lot due to disadvantages?" Due to the way they're developing the trees, it feels like they're leaning towards the way classes were developed in WoW, where each tree has its role, but each playstyle has its counter.
I think the counter/disadvantage system works more in favor of poor players and less challenge because they can exploit weaknesses in a class just to kill them. It was like the Hammerdin in 75% fcr, zero fhr gear coming into a melee game to get easy gold. Or typically any caster coming into a melee game just because not all melee players carry resist gear, just so they can snipe off some easy kills. Fortunately you had an answer for those type of players in D2. You didn't in WoW, where the PvP balance was based purely on class counters and advantage/disadvantage. If you were up against a counter, there wasn't much you could do, the way the classes & game was designed it just rubbed it in your face the whole time.
I like pvp based on strategy, quick thinking, knowledge of the game, and enjoying the build/class/playstyle that feels best to you.
Oh, and don't worry about quick replies, I had today off because someone down at the DMV f*cked up and told my boss that my license was suspended when it wasn't.
PPS - @ Sass there were like 4 sins who could out whirl quality barbs on my realm when I played, that hardly counts. And all we could kill was BvCs - if they put on a shield the duel was over. Still some of the most fun duels I've ever had. 1000x more satisfying to beat a cocky BvC head to head than trap some poor sorceress for the 100th time.Lol, it'll never be a sure thing, but I do enjoy the occasional killing of a barb ;) I suppose that was my point.
I think Happy really summed things up well.
I am 100% sure that there will be counters in DII due to character customization diversity there will be. The more diverse it is, nastier counter it will be possible to build vs spesific build(s). Probably not as hard counters as absorb gear allows now thought.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.