Well, lets point this all:
1 - Healing monks offers a way to progress into grifts/leader board now.
2 - Good suportive role, but it didn't affects too much monsters freedon as tiki/sader did at season 3.
3 - Obviously it wasn't nerfed at PTR because it wasn't being overplayed and isn't too overpowered as some think it is.
4 - Doesn't obstruct other groups compositions (how did some group work in PTR without a healing monk with them?!?! Obviously because there are more compositions now).
5 - If monk becomes the best support class for groups, it will never be as good as a tikiwd was in season 3, as it doesn't paralize monsters 100% of time, nor will be better than a sader in season 3 too, as it doesn't blinds monsters 100% of time and boost 100% ChD to party...
6 - in a group with a healing monk, all players do actives roles into a fight. (no more saders standing in and just waiting RG die while dazzling it with a NUNLOCK skill set.
7 - DPS roles are too much difficult now, and a healing insn't enough to prevent death as mosnters and elites still can one shot you with jailer, frozen, thunder, etc...
As you can see, a healing monk is a good suportive char in a group, but it is very far from being overpowered as most of suportives chars were before...
1
Diablo series has never been RPG. A better term for Diablo-like games is "dungeon crawler".
1
Besides, this patch completely changed Demon Hunter and Monk playstyles, so it was revolutionary for them.
2
In the end, every time someone disobeys the rules, that person gains an advantage in the society; and that is why the whole society is affected when someone disobeys the rules. You may think that it doesn't effect you, but when I win more and more races because I cheat, you will know that is wrong.
Diablo 3 is a society, where it's rules are set by Blizzard. And because it is a society, it creates unrest when someone decides to cheat in it, whether it effects us or not. In the current state of the game, botting may seem unimportant; but a person who bot will get paragon levels, better items and a good Hellfire Amulet much faster that a person who does not. A maphack will make people avoid dead-ends, saving them time. An add-on which gives elite information in a much easier way will help people making better decisions when engaging them. Something like a mapscanner may give information of what kind of shrines or monsters there is so people can try to fish for the perfect rift to achieve higher level rifts. All these cheats will give an unfair advantage to the user one way or another; and this is why it creates unrest within people, whether we care in competition or not.
Now, you may understand why people caring in competition and racing in ladders do care for people who cheat, but may get confused when people who doesn't care for ladders also care when people cheat. It is normal, and called "empathy".
1
Returning to topic: In my opinion, keeping Adventure mode was a good choice. I have played the story for whole vanillia, and done enough act 5 runs in RoS. Yes, seasons mean a fresh start, and I did started from scratch: level 1, level 1 artisans, basic and empty stash, no gear. What you should look for is the similar rewards for both modes. The problem isn't Adventure mode being available; the problem is, Adventure mode is superior in terms of both experience and items.
1
2) Cain was already old in Diablo 1, and between Diablo 1 and 3, more than 20 years passed. He is a mortal being. He would die from old age if he wasn't murdered, so people should get over his death. Yes, it was cheesy; but it was much better than seeing him in his bed, dying from old age.
About the desk part, I hope you do remember that we had nothing at the start of Diablo 3. The Book of Cain is the developers' answer to those asking for an ID all feature; and not only it acknowledges Cain's work in the old games, it also makes sense: The Book of Cain contains the vast knowledge of Deckard Cain, so it might contain information about many magical items or artifacts. So when you find a magical item, you search through it's pages to see if there is something that resembles that item. Then you find it, it's name and it's properties. More logical than using another NPC with a great knowledge which would make you ask yourself "How many of these guys there are?"
4) I really don't understand what is the problem here. The Cow Level in Diablo 2 was making fun of players thinking there is one existed in Diablo 1. Whimsyshire in Diablo 3 is making fun of players thinking Diablo 3 would be colourful as teletubbies. Both is a joke to people with tinfoil hats. But if your question here is "Why didn't they made a cow level like in Diablo 2 in Diablo 3?", why should they? Whimsyshire covers the "joke" part pretty well, what would making a similar level with cows in it would achieve?
5) Did you know that the "ladders" in Diablo 2 are actually leaderboards, and the period is called "Season" or "Ladder Season"? (source: http://classic.battle.net/diablo2exp/basics/charactertypes.shtml) I didn't until now, so I should thank you for this.
Shaggy made a very good answer for point 3, and I have nothing to add that.
You know, before Diablo 2, we didn't have paladins either; so by your logic, Blizzard must have pulled that out of ther butts, right? Also, amazon is just a rogue ripoff, right?
The makers of Diablo 2 never gave us reasons why a barbarian, a sorceror, a paladin, a necromancer and an amazon team up to fight Diablo, but we accepted it. Even though we had no background or any knowledge about them, we loved them. And here we are, there can't be crusader because there is already a paladin, even though the makers of Diablo 3 showed us a good background and the reason why we see a crusader in Diablo 3. I just can't understand this.
1
2
2
1
1) He is someone who abuses mechanics and making videos of it (http://www.diablofans.com/forums/diablo-iii-general-forums/diablo-iii-general-discussion/86571-afk-lvling-live-i-am-at-work)
2)He is always sure of himself. He is never wrong, everyone is wrong. Even when the evidence proves him wrong.
3) He specially make provocative threads to increase his view count. (http://www.diablofans.com/forums/diablo-iii-general-forums/diablo-iii-general-discussion/84003-blizzard-nerfed-hotfixed-influencing-legendary)
If he made the thread "Possible Shard of Hate Bug" and wrote what seemed wrong, he wouldn't get this hatred. Instead, he directly said this is a bug. And you have to know game's mechanics if you claim something like that. And if you don't, then you should get ready for the criticism, whether light of heavy.
1
- I wonder where you get your "facts". Have you done a research on how average/casual players play? And what is your definition of average/casual player? Is it someone who plays 1 hour a day on average? 1.5 hours? 2 hours? Is there a consensus on that?
Look at this character: http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/profile/Tebby-2211/hero/36838772. I started this around a week ago. I play around 1.5 hours average, and I already have plvl 33. With only doing completing story twice. No CotA or equivalent runs, just playing the whole game. I know this is just an example and doesn't say anything for the whole category of "average player"; however, talking for the whole group of players without giving facts is wrong.
- The problem wasn't just the CotA, the problem was the effort/reward ratio of the monsters. It was high for those swarm types: they die fast and they propose no danger for you. If just the CotA was adjusted, the next place having big groups of swarmers would replace it. So they have done the right thing and tuned it accordingly.
You might say "Then, why nerf? Why buff everything else?". This question has been answered hundreds of times, you can find it even in this topic.