07-14-2003, 02:42 AM
What's that crack about Street Fighter Theory?! :D Others will always disagree, but what Capcom did with the SF series was brilliant from both a business and a gameplay perspective. What other game studios can say that they've created a game with such elegant yet addicting gameplay that they were able to profit off of creating "patched" or only slightly updated versions of the game? The answer clearly exists in your journal entry: Blizzard. (Since your journal is blasting Blizzard, did I just help or hurt my argument by likening the two companies? :lol:)
Anyway...you have to admit that melee characters have always been weaker by premise. Ranged attackers will always dominate unless Blizzard radically changes the monster AI (probably the best but most difficult solution), or weakens the ranged attacker's ability to mow down large groups of experience-yielding enemies with minimal effort (or similarly, strengthens the melee character's ability to do the same; perhaps this is what damage reduction % tried to accomplish?). It's just the way the game is. I know I'm not going to rush up to a pack of monsters and start swinging when instead, I can stand back and let loose with any combination of spells or arrows while they trudge toward me.
Anyway...you have to admit that melee characters have always been weaker by premise. Ranged attackers will always dominate unless Blizzard radically changes the monster AI (probably the best but most difficult solution), or weakens the ranged attacker's ability to mow down large groups of experience-yielding enemies with minimal effort (or similarly, strengthens the melee character's ability to do the same; perhaps this is what damage reduction % tried to accomplish?). It's just the way the game is. I know I'm not going to rush up to a pack of monsters and start swinging when instead, I can stand back and let loose with any combination of spells or arrows while they trudge toward me.
-jms
*hemal2@USEast
*hemal2@USEast