So when a rogue stuns his target during a setup, it’s clearly an offensive usage. But it also prevents him from taking any counter pressure, so it’s also clearly a defensive usage.
So what is that spell now? Offensive? Defensive? Both? But how can it be both, when only the intention counts?
Same for spear, even when you use it without an offensive intention, it still does good damage which has to be healed or can be used later on to have an easier kill target as it is already down in hp. As DK you mostly used AL as offensive spell and combined it with other cds, as it was your only window to kill something. Outside of that, barely anybody died.
But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been used to generate counter pressure. Or to use the offensive + aggressive playstyle of the enemy team in that situation to get the maximum use out of the cooldown. So even when it was offensively used, you could have planed the defensively use of it to protect your teammates, as they could have run around the next pillar to keep alive.
Kidney isn’t a good example since its a singular functionality spell (a stun/lockdown only). It isn’t a significant source of auto-damage unlike AL. The intent behind using it can vary obviously. This goes back to my emphasis on dual/multi functionality.
Spear is probably a better comparison, but then again both these abilities were introduced with the SL borrowed power fiasco and were met with disdain by many as they saw these make their way into talent trees in DF.
This part is where I’m trying to convey that the level of effort to use AL vs the level of effort from most classes required to avoid it is invariably disproportionate. This is not healthy for the game. In a sense, I’d also agree that spear isn’t also, but it tends to have more mechanical advantages (if we were to delete the auto damage portion of it - if it still exists). AL would probably be seen similarly as well if it didn’t have its damage portion.
Is it not? Wasn’t there a talent called Internal Bleeding or something that will apply a bleeding to the target you kidney?
But fine, then take Shadow Dance. What is the intention there? Or Shadowstep?
Ah, so we got to the point where you are saying it’s fine for RMX to be the most broken comp ingame, because you need more skill to get the maximum use out of it, than you need for other comps?
This statement is so absurd from a balancing point of view. The level of effort has literally no place in such an argumentation as it shouldn’t matter. If you prefer to play a class that is harder to master then other classes, that is up to you but it shouldn’t decide if the design of a spell is fine or not.
…
So far I really don’t get your point. On the one side you say, a spell needs a clear intention or a clear usage (damage or grip) to be fine, but there a lot of spells that have several intentions based on how you use it, often multiple intentions combined.
Only because AL might have been used mostly offensive from your experience, doesn’t mean there aren’t other intentions nor that it should be nerfed, if other spells with multiple uses aren’t nerfed to a clear intention as well.
I think that’s trivial than what you make it to be.
Shadow Dance isn’t specifically auto attacking/cleaving targets down within a certain radius. There is a sequence of actively pressed buttons usually used when this CD is popped to make it worthy.
Is that really the implication you got from my thoughts?
I think it should. Harder to master isn’t necessarily the same as applying a magnitude of pressure within a short amount of time by pressing 1 button. I’m solely addressing basic & fundamental aspects of gameplay being overshadowed by abilities that are doing way too much for little to no effort. If you’re making a comparative statement saying “well X button does the exact same as Y button peripherally” therefore it seems to be fair that X needs to remain in the game or get buffed, I don’t think I’d want to encourage this conversation any longer since its pointless going back and forth.
Exactly. It gives you the option to sap (cc → offensively/defensively), or cheap shot (stunlock → off/dev), it heals you but also increases your damage.
So the spell allows you multiple intentions, often all of them combined.
When you come up with “the level of effort”? I come up with that to show why this statement should never be part of argumentation.
But what you aren’t adressing is, that
classes have different intention of how hard they want them to be played
classes often don’t have other buttons they could use for it. Not everybody is playing rogue or mage.
Easy example: Unholy dks have based on my knowledge more cds to combine for their burst then most other classes. A fury war can write a macro to get most of their cds used at the same time, because most of them are off gcd.
Does that mean, since a DK need 5 times the globals it should do more than 5 times the damage, as it takes a lot more effort to set it up?
Or what about Soul Reaper? Since you need to plan the enemy hp level 5 seconds before, doesn’t it mean it should automatically erase someone from existence when it really drops below 35% when SR is about to explode?
That’s because this is class defining. Rogues have always been the epitome of “control” in this game. The ability allows the rogue to make follow up plays conveniently as it should.
The level of effort argument is to showcase the extremity of Abom limb when its repeatedly doing something that is supposed to have a CD paired with a sizeable damage component. Including rog/mage in this argument isn’t relevant because we’re talking specifically about one ability here.
While that is true, this has always been a huge spec-defining characteristic for it. It’s portrayed as a pet class that is dependent on its ghouls/pets & diseases for relentless pressure based on sub-mechanical plays and frequently rotating CDs. Its almost like making a comparison between a modern day aff lock to a fire mage global + setup intensity. Apples to oranges.
Effort needs to be correlated with reward, but with tradeoff terms and spec identifying attributes being applied as well. Doesn’t necessarily mean someone should explode because a user took all the complex steps to set themselves up to do some astronomical amount of damage. There are more factors at play, but the simple argument behind Abom limb is that it was doing far too much than it should have therefore causing deviancy.
Sorry, I am done here. You pick multiple reasons that might help you to defend the stupid change of the spell and when I am trying to show you, that it is that way for other classes as well, you come with such arguments?
Literally no point in discussing with you!
The intention of a DK is to grip people and kill them, that perfectly fits with Abom Limb design. Based on your talking about “spec-defining charateristic” we should actually buff it to grip more often and do a lot more damage. I mean, they are a mini Arthas, so they are designed with a raid boss in mind, they should be like a raid boss then, right?
Anyways, don’t expect me to answer anymore. Your argumentation always just swaps based on your needs, that is not objective by any mean. You want the ability to be nerfed, no matter with what you can justify it.
I find this very inauthentic - this line of thinking mainly. Some classes perform differently based on distinctive strengths/weaknesses.
But you do you. Seems like you have a completely different perspective and are using comparative scenarios that should not be taken into account when designing classes from previous templates that were deemed to be enjoyable/effective.
What felt enjoyable and effective is very subjective. I mean, we had in Shadowlands and BFA the least PvP participation ever, when we don’t count the seasons where PvE player got benefit from doing arena.
Based on that we will always have the same meta with RMX, Jungle and some Lock and Warrior comps on top of everyone else. Balance should get as most specs enjoyable and effective into A tier as possible, not just one third of the specs while the rest must pray to be some what viable.
Your point of view is exactly how to not design classes. That is how you design frustration that will end up in people quitting the game, as they can play better balanced and enjoyable games for free.
Right but it should be achieved with proper balance and plausible design. You can’t introduce fragments of what other classes have and instill those to try and create semi-prototypes of other classes just because one class doesn’t function similarly. To me, abilities like spear, abom limb, high passive healing/defensives are what minimize game depth and increase toxic experiences in arena gameplay - hence why we’ve seen expansions like BFA/SL imo.
How is AMS passive? Or Death Strike? How are those cooldowns different in usage compared to Dark Pact that can even been used during cc? Or Mage Barrier, Priest shields, or any other actively used defensive spell?
And you think we didn’t had in toxic experiences in expansions before? DH during legion? Auto Bubble during Legion? Turbo and RMD during WoD? And so on?
So on the one hand you say we should adapt from those expansions as they are examples of what is enjoyable/effective but when we look back, we will always find toxic gameplay.
And the game depth can only come into the game with more classes have effective options like Rogue and Mage, so how does that fit with removing spells from the game?
These nerfs were a bit overkill for sure. They should not have gone with 50% reduction for DS and should have left AMS/AMZ alone. I’m particularly saying that the abom limb nerf was a step in the right direction.
Every expansion had some dirty things that needed some cleanup. There wasn’t a single expansion that was “perfect” by any means. Design elements on the other hand were possibly at their peak versions in a few expansions for a lot of classes. The idea of using previous class design templates is so that a lot of the intrinsic spec defining gameplay aspects are retained instead of introducing new abilities that are creating abhorrent experiences as a result of pressing 1 button.
Completely different way. They can nerf AMS even when I don’t see why they would do that, but leave DS alone as it is basically the only line of defense versus melees, which can also counter it quite easily and have MS passive effect on top of it, which already reduce its value by up to 50%.
Yeah, but this time they started with an A-tier spec based on random bg experience, before the season even started, instead of focusing onto the S tier classes that are as immortal as DK but also have more utility, cc and dmg.
But not enough with that, instead of tuning it wisely and try small amounts first, they shoot with a bazooka onto birds.
Not to mention that DKs are, based on their absorb and healing defensives, instead of reduction & avoiding defensives already double punished with MS and dampening. I mean, do those effects reduce the effectiveness of Evasion or Cloak of Shadows or Feint wall or Vanish?
You need to take into consideration the way dampening works now, also, MS effects. These changes to DS make it so that DKs are paper vs melee. I wouldnt mind if they replaced the loss with something else. Honestly take spell warden away and give us a CD that buffs DS. Or makes it an leave an absorb… idk but yea, besides its not even like half the cast dont have a disarm, there is a lot of counter play to DS.
I disagree, i think most pvpers are pretty up to it. I bet a ton of DKS rerolled when the nerfs got announced. I was leveling my warrior and i saw a couple of MM hunters in bgs whereas before i saw none.
“The latest batch of fotm is nearly ready, sir”.