I'm not one of those ranged players, but it's selfish to assume they are not needed. There are people that like to play with these ranged class and while you might never even consider one, there are people that never consider playing as a melee using class.
After all this, Blizzard is not just going to exclude a whole group of people.
It is mainly lame if you want to play ranged classes only, so just to have more buyers for the game is a reason to put them in the game.
We also have seen proof in the form of ranged weapons.
You also said that it's not needed for these kind of games, well I've seen plenty of Diablo like games that had a ranged class.
They worked fine and were fun.
Also don;t forget that mages are in a way, ranged classes. This other class just uses bows and arrows. Enhanced with maybe magic and melee weapons. Blizzard is going for unique classes and not the standard thing we would expect a class to do.
I said enough.;)
It's not being selfish, but it seems i didn't really wrote clearly what i wanted to say.
of course i know wizard are ranged(have you really read what i wrote with attention?), and even WD, in their own way. Sorcs always were.
I never said also, that i hate ranged classes, i used to play locks and hunters on wow. but that's wow. for some reason i'm not a fan of warriors/rogues/paladins in wow. Hate being in the middle in wow.
i know many people likes ranged classes. but just gettin on top of d2:LOD 1.12 ... how many bowazons are there? now? (yeah i remember when everything started... )
I don't even see a ZON as a mainly ranged class now, in the forum i see people talking about rangers, pets/hunters, and even some saying about chars with precise bows, almost a sniper. i think it's pretty much a "no no"
Anyway, if blizzard is solely worried about what people like to play, they still need a shapeshifter class, a class that controls' nature, a class with aura...
i haven't played d3, but won't it be really hard to a "bowazon" on d3 who can't rely only on potions, i mean, it has to shoot, and run, get orbs, come back, shoot ? that is what seems to me.
if you are saying it's selfish to not have a BOW based character, it's also selfish to say that Paladins are not needed, that auras are not needed, that shapeshifters are a no no, that now that they have WD there is no need for a necro...
not the point here to put a finger and saying what is better or what is worse, what is funnier or not.
if you could read it right, i stated that it appears to me that, blizzard is working with it's classes to be more and more "in" the battle, in the middle of the confusion, chaos and that stuff. So based on this assumption, also from what i understand about health orbs, and the clear perception that d3 is not just a redraw of d1/d2 (in a meaning that they cleary intend to change quite the gameplay... we already have health orbs! that's a huge impact on how it plays... and automatic status! in d1 i could have a warrior that could read the BOOK OF FIREWALL lvl 18 because of that)
based on all that, i don't see the need for the 5th class to be ranged. although nothing goes against it being able to use bows sometimes (as i many times used with a necro... on d2) i can also see blizzard going in another way, and i read the possibility of a path without a ranged class.
it's my opinion on top of what i sense diablo 3's shape appears to be defining. not just "hey i hate archers, let's flunk them"
it was all an analytical exercise, a path of thinking that found out that ranged may be ditched. there is even no place to you to use the word "selfish" on me. I' just sorry if the line-of-thought wasn't clearly explicit when i wrote.
I too agree there needs to be a "knightly" class, and I was actually hoping the one previously revealed would have been that, but with a different twist than the Paladin. To me the "shiny armor class" is just as important to the series in being a contrast to the D man himself. I guess this new blizz team doesn't agree. It would seem that they've bumped the Barb into that armored tank role now, but he's always seemed more like a bulldozer of muscle rather than a tanking machine to me.
On topic, this last class is not going to be an exclusively ranged attacker but will definitely be PRIMARILY ranged in its attacks. Even with the promise of being innovative with class design (though the previous games didn't follow that philosophy), the devs still have to cater to an audience in which ranged classes are very popular with. In the end it's not about making a game to fit them, it's about making a game that supplies the playerbases wants, and a large portion of them want a PRIMARILY ranged class.
do you really think there is this almost sick need for a ranged class on d3?
i do understand that in Wow and other games, but i'm not sure about diablo's need for a primarily ranged class.
specially if there is going to be a more number of monsters on screen, and you won't have time to use potions and you have to run into health orbs...
I really think d3 is lacking a heavy armored guy with a shield, like a Paladin, a knight, something like that.
I don't see why the last class has to be ranged based either, as i think bowazons are too "hit and run" for the game play style like diablo has.
i can see them concentrating on that "heck just jump in the middle and kill the guys" point of view for the most chars, even the wizard on the game play is quite a "forward" class related to d2 sorc. the Wizard although using many spells, she runs, get on the middle of the battle and handles itself well without HIDING behind the magic.
The whole MONK concept couldn't be a better signal of that philosophy.
and, when i see the stereotypes, it really lacks a full armored knight/paladin. the Warrior on d1 was much more a knight than a barb... And this stereotype is very much in all Diablo Lore.
we need something that contrasts with the monk. The barb by itself is the brute force tank, no need to contrast.
the WD kinda contrasts with the wizard now. the WD seems to be more like "sit and watch" because of the summons.
the monk has this great deal of speed but very fragile.
what contrasts with it ? a heavier armored, slower guy,?
or a ranged guy ?
putting a rogue would be to put another fragile class, d2 had two resistant classes (barb pala) a half way (amazon) and 2 weaker (sorc, necro). because that influences a lot the play style. some people prefer resistant classes and others not.
WD seems to be a good half way. i really see him doing the job of the amazon's role as a fairly resistant class.
so in my opinion, some knight type of thing.
but from another point of view...
we have a brute force (barb)
a "death commander" (WD)
an element shaper (wizard)
a holy guy (monk)
and where are the forces of the nature?
but i think that would be just overkill, need another more resistant class. is a very different deal to play a barb/pala and to play a sorc/necro, everybody knows.
and some people just plays one type, not having a knight-type would be a turn off to many guys
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's not being selfish, but it seems i didn't really wrote clearly what i wanted to say.
of course i know wizard are ranged(have you really read what i wrote with attention?), and even WD, in their own way. Sorcs always were.
I never said also, that i hate ranged classes, i used to play locks and hunters on wow. but that's wow. for some reason i'm not a fan of warriors/rogues/paladins in wow. Hate being in the middle in wow.
i know many people likes ranged classes. but just gettin on top of d2:LOD 1.12 ... how many bowazons are there? now? (yeah i remember when everything started... )
I don't even see a ZON as a mainly ranged class now, in the forum i see people talking about rangers, pets/hunters, and even some saying about chars with precise bows, almost a sniper. i think it's pretty much a "no no"
Anyway, if blizzard is solely worried about what people like to play, they still need a shapeshifter class, a class that controls' nature, a class with aura...
i haven't played d3, but won't it be really hard to a "bowazon" on d3 who can't rely only on potions, i mean, it has to shoot, and run, get orbs, come back, shoot ? that is what seems to me.
if you are saying it's selfish to not have a BOW based character, it's also selfish to say that Paladins are not needed, that auras are not needed, that shapeshifters are a no no, that now that they have WD there is no need for a necro...
not the point here to put a finger and saying what is better or what is worse, what is funnier or not.
if you could read it right, i stated that it appears to me that, blizzard is working with it's classes to be more and more "in" the battle, in the middle of the confusion, chaos and that stuff. So based on this assumption, also from what i understand about health orbs, and the clear perception that d3 is not just a redraw of d1/d2 (in a meaning that they cleary intend to change quite the gameplay... we already have health orbs! that's a huge impact on how it plays... and automatic status! in d1 i could have a warrior that could read the BOOK OF FIREWALL lvl 18 because of that)
based on all that, i don't see the need for the 5th class to be ranged. although nothing goes against it being able to use bows sometimes (as i many times used with a necro... on d2) i can also see blizzard going in another way, and i read the possibility of a path without a ranged class.
it's my opinion on top of what i sense diablo 3's shape appears to be defining. not just "hey i hate archers, let's flunk them"
it was all an analytical exercise, a path of thinking that found out that ranged may be ditched. there is even no place to you to use the word "selfish" on me. I' just sorry if the line-of-thought wasn't clearly explicit when i wrote.
do you really think there is this almost sick need for a ranged class on d3?
i do understand that in Wow and other games, but i'm not sure about diablo's need for a primarily ranged class.
specially if there is going to be a more number of monsters on screen, and you won't have time to use potions and you have to run into health orbs...
I don't see why the last class has to be ranged based either, as i think bowazons are too "hit and run" for the game play style like diablo has.
i can see them concentrating on that "heck just jump in the middle and kill the guys" point of view for the most chars, even the wizard on the game play is quite a "forward" class related to d2 sorc. the Wizard although using many spells, she runs, get on the middle of the battle and handles itself well without HIDING behind the magic.
The whole MONK concept couldn't be a better signal of that philosophy.
and, when i see the stereotypes, it really lacks a full armored knight/paladin. the Warrior on d1 was much more a knight than a barb... And this stereotype is very much in all Diablo Lore.
we need something that contrasts with the monk. The barb by itself is the brute force tank, no need to contrast.
the WD kinda contrasts with the wizard now. the WD seems to be more like "sit and watch" because of the summons.
the monk has this great deal of speed but very fragile.
what contrasts with it ? a heavier armored, slower guy,?
or a ranged guy ?
putting a rogue would be to put another fragile class, d2 had two resistant classes (barb pala) a half way (amazon) and 2 weaker (sorc, necro). because that influences a lot the play style. some people prefer resistant classes and others not.
WD seems to be a good half way. i really see him doing the job of the amazon's role as a fairly resistant class.
so in my opinion, some knight type of thing.
but from another point of view...
we have a brute force (barb)
a "death commander" (WD)
an element shaper (wizard)
a holy guy (monk)
and where are the forces of the nature?
but i think that would be just overkill, need another more resistant class. is a very different deal to play a barb/pala and to play a sorc/necro, everybody knows.
and some people just plays one type, not having a knight-type would be a turn off to many guys