Mariell

Just a question for any more informed player out there. I know I don't have that much experience with monster design (other than beeing a dungeon master for a D&D tabletop group for years) but when looking at this game I think I see so many obvious flaws in the basic design that I simply must have missunderstood something. I guess based on the assumption that the developers intended this to be a good PvE and PvP game at the same time.

1) My experience is that with a melee character you hit a monster in PvE for the same amount of damage that is listed on the stat screen. Meaning monsters really don't have any armor worth mentioning. The same is true for spell caster classes essentially. Meaning that when we move to PvP armor suddenly cuts physical damage in half, while spell damage is the same. Isn't it obvious that this is going to cause a major problem with balance in some way? Hunters are mages are both ranged classes for raids. How do you make them both fairly equally effective for PvE without giving the mage too high damage for PvP or the hunter too low damage in PvP?

2) Bosses don't seem to have understood that they can pick crit increasing talents. Meaning one of the major goals is to stack +defence so their small crit chance is reduced to 0. Also meaning that when your crit immune tank enters a BG he's still finds himself 2-shotted by a Fire mage. Its silly. Is there any reason not to simply give monsters 20-25% crit chance just like players? So that a character that feels tough in PvE will also be a tough character in PvE? Monsters don't seem to crit very well with their spells either.

I did read about the resilience stat for PvP though it does appear like having something that effectively can reduce crits by a noticable amount against players with 35-40% crit chance is bound to conflict with PvE when +defence is balanced so its tricky and takes great sacrifice to reduce crit chance by a meager 5%. So why not give bosses at least 25-30% crit? Is there any reason at all?

Well I suppose there are more examples though it does appear like making the PvP and PvE game so totally different is an odd approach if you want to have PvP and PvE at the same time. Sure this late the rules system os probably a mess (with all the weird combinations of buffs, consumables, and items already implemented) and not possible to fix. But can it be the case that this game wasn't intended to even have PvP whent he rules were devised?

I guess now when it has both PvP and PvE. Balancing will have to be for PvP primarily. Since its much more personally disheartening to experience beeing killed over and over again by more or less lame attacks. PvE is still team based and imbalances really not that big a problem if the group still wins.

(Note: I didn't really get Burning Crusade so not sure if Blizzard took a more serious approach to balancing PvP/PvE. Though the patch before christmas kind of lead me to belive that they didn't care as much and I kind of cancelled my account).

 

Plea

Even if the group wins, in pve that is, people complain. I recall rogues being extremely hostile against warriors a while ago, and now warriors against druids. It's human nature we cannot change. Wow being mainly a pve game, it's normal to see fixes on pve more than on pvp.

 

◊ Maniq

Mind. Bleeding. Blood. Everywhere.

I can read this post and find several fundamental flaws in it, whilst locking it.

Not constructive, correct or reply worthy really.