Gyson, that doesnt make alot of sense. First your talking about hard mode. Its supposed to be HARD(Shocker...). Now your saying its harder for melee then it is for mages, but....who cares ? I mean look you selected hard for a reason and even though this game is multiplayer its co-op. So your never in direct competition with anyone which you could then justifiably complain about. If you like playing melee and the game is TOO HARD for melee in hard mode then turn the dial down. The challenge level is completely up to you, and if they buff warriors then people will start complaining that hard mode is too easy for warriors.
I don't believe I ever complained about the difficulty of Hard mode, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I only pointed out why Hard mode was more difficult for certain classes than others - which is a problem in of itself, but I'll touch on that later. *
That the difficulty scales differently for Warriors (compared to Mages) between easy/normal/hard makes a comparison of a Warrior & Mage duo on Normal and a Warrior & Mage duo on Hard pointless. And yet I see a lot of
"Well, I'm not seeing a problem with my Warrior & Mage team, but I'm playing on normal difficulty." That's pointless feedback when the original poster specified he was playing on Hard mode. Warrior are closer to being on par with Mages in Normal mode. The same is not true, however, in Hard mode. And so reviews from Normal mode are not adding anything useful to the discussion when the original poster was not complaining about balance from Normal mode to begin with.
It's not a knock on Normal mode difficulty, it's just the simple fact that changing the difficulty setting has a larger impact on Warriors than Mages - and if the original poster is talking about his experience on Hard mode, everyone else should be doing the same.
* Now, there is nothing wrong with having certain classes being harder to play than others - but the game needs to make that clear from the start. That's why during character creation some games will have a warning specifying which classes are for more "advanced" or "beginner" play. If, however, you are trying to sell your game as being "classless" and equally approachable with a variety of builds, you better follow through on that promise. I'm not convinced D:OS does - chalk that up to too many balance debates and frequent class balance changes that were occurring right up until launch. I am under no delusion that in the 11th hour the developers suddenly achieved perfection in their balancing attempts.
Your also arguing that you dont want to have to use a specific skill or technique and that people shouldnt define what the role of a warrior is....but let me throw that back at you - I want to play a mage that runs into the middle of 10 monsters and kicks butt in melee range. How well do you think Id do ? Maybe I dont want the mage to be defined as a ranged damage dealer...oh wait, thats really kinda what they are designed to be.
Ok, you misunderstood what I was talking about. In fact, I specifically said "viable within reason". Your examples are not what I would define as "reasonable". I suggest re-reading what I wrote again.
I was also criticizing extremely specific examples being used as arguments, like suggesting everyone should have one character teleport their Warrior into the middle of the opponents every battle - as if that's a tactic (and spell) everyone should be willing to roll with or else be prepared to have a disappointing Warrior experience. I just think that's silly.
Im sorry but what it really feels like is people wanting to be overpowered. You want the best armor/defenses + the best damage + the best mobility. Warriors are fine.
I think simply having the various difficulty mode buffs and debuffs impacting each class equally would be a nice start. If that is your definition of "wanting to be overpowered", I don't know what to say. I call it seeking a no-brainer level of balance that should already be there.
Lastly, this part:
Finally, one of the big problems (I believe) are the Attributes (STR, DEX, INT, etc). In my opinion none of the attributes should ever have a direct impact on anything beyond a secondary attribute that can not be directly modified by the player (which in turn directly impacts everything). In other word, Warrior gear should not be Strength dependent. Instead it should be "Might" (or whatever) dependent, with "Might" equaling some combination of Strength, Constitution, and Speed - all attributes that are vital to a Warrior, yet no single one of them should define a Warrior.
This would allow for a greater variety of builds while not leaving players feeling like they must pool most of their Attribute points into a single stat in order to keep up with gear requirements. And if something similar is applied to DEX and INT dependent characters, it can help alleviate the concern that Warriors depend on too many stats while Mages depend on too few.
.. is exactly what I said it was, a suggestion to allow for a greater variety of builds while not leaving players feeling like they must pool most of their Attribute points into a single stat in order to keep up with gear requirements - with the added benefit of alleviating the concern that Warriors depend on too many stats while Mages depend on too few.
Why does that scare you?
