right then... its less effective and therefor harder to make effective.In other words, the class is less effective. It isn't harder.
A class that has enough tools to require some effort to utilize them to their maximal potential.right then... its less effective and therefor harder to make effective.
how do you define a hard class to play?
'enough tools' is a very relative term... every class requires effort to play, but the more effort you put in them the more effective they are, no matter the class.A class that has enough tools to require some effort to utilize them to their maximal potential.
It is about how close you to the class' maximum potential you are. If you can play a class to its full potential and are still less effective than someone on another class not playing it to its full potential then you class is just worse, not harder.'enough tools' is a very relative term... every class requires effort to play, but the more effort you put in them the more effective they are, no matter the class.
But I have a question, lets say you have a certain amount of skill and you have 2 chars, a hpala and a fury warr, we can all agree that warriors have a lower potential than hpalas, so if you put the same effort in both classes you should be able to be more effective as hpala. Does that make warriors harder to play? Since you apparently need more skill to be as effective as a hpala.
Would you say that hpala is a hard class to play then? They have a lot of tools that together with a lot of effort can have an incredibly high potential.A class that has enough tools to require some effort to utilize them to their maximal potential.
I disagree with this, what you are saying is almost that gimped classes are not hard, right? Cause they can't be effective, and you can't play them 'badly'. I think the opposite, as I guess you have already understodd that because they are gimped, they are harder to play to be effective.No it does not make warriors hard to play because they literally do not have the abilities required to actually do what a well played pally can do. Even if you were the best player in the world you couldn't make much of a difference.
A hpala has less tools than for example a mage, lock, shaman or priest, so no.Would you say that hpala is a hard class to play then? They have a lot of tools that together with a lot of effort can have an incredibly high potential.
so you decide wether a class is hard to play or not, by comparing it to other classes?A hpala has less tools than for example a mage, lock, shaman or priest, so no.
No class is specifically hard at 19, some are easier than others.so you decide wether a class is hard to play or not, by comparing it to other classes?
Im just trying to understand your arguements, and I do now. But we are not of the opinionSnack I have no idea what you are trying to say. If a class is gimped it is generally because it lacks tools. That means it literally has less jobs it can fulfill meaning you have less things to be aware of. That makes it easier to play. It is quite simple.
The hardest class to play is the one whose mechanics and tools are the hardest to execute, which in my opinion are destro warlocks because your timing, positioning and CC'ing all have to be really good in order to play the class to its fullest potential.