The question is quite delusive. It's kind of strange to mention the words 'happy' and 'concept' in the same context. Are you happy with the concept of a cell phone? Or do you like that product 'abc' has the implemented features 'xyz'? But let's see: Command XP: ... simply an alternative to 'character XP'. From a technical point of view, it's the same thing. On predefined circumstances, a numerical value increases. The values might be categorized and achieving a certain score might trigger other changes. In one case, a new level, in the other a new rank. All in all, it's a very basic concept that can be found everywhere, Product versions, calendar dates and even currencies. All of them use this system of ordered numeric values. But can you state if you're happy with the concept of a calandar system? ___ But a bit more about why the CXP system was introduced... SWTOR always had many different reward systems. But they have had their own restrictions & limits, and might have been subject to changes (see Dulfy 2.x f.e.). It's not a new thing. The introduction of commendation crystals simplified the previous system and even created one with 'tier-specific gear'... so not even that is a novelty of the Galactic Command System. And even during KotFE, new reward systems were added => the alliance factions / specialists. Unlike other commendation systems though, it was based on special items rather than on an internal currency and the reward came in form of boxes rather than access to special vendors. But most of the reward systems had one thing in common; They were independant of the rest, including other systems like the character XP system. And that brings me to the next point: ___ Independant reward systems are the things that define the "end-game content". So are you generally 'happy' with the concept of an "end-game content", i.e. XP-independant reward systems? Because the Galactic Command system is one variant of it. Unlike the name suggests though, it's neither the 'end of the game', nor 'the last content to ever exist'. It only a momentary state in which the player achieved the maximum score in a single - admittedly important - numeric system. And this numeric system in question - the XP system - is quite a problematic one. Not because of the system itself - it's not that different - but due to player expectations associated with it. More XP mean a higher level, more active skills and more utilities, right? But that makes it a limited system. F.e. there's no real use for an endless number skills, if there's only enough time to use a few of them. So let's see: There's one numeric system that is quite problematic and there's an recurring situation called "end-game" in which the system comes to an hold and becomes kind of irrelevant anyways? So why should the developers focus on that and why should BioWare even advertise it? And that's - in essence - the only thing that BioWare changed! SWTOR has countless of XP-independant reward systems. The planetary commendations, cyclic events, the DvL event, datacrons, the alliance factions, companion influence, PvP in general, etc. They just put one of these systems in the main focus. And they did so by copying some common aspects from the XPl system, like the XP bar, the notification when you reached the next milestone/category (a.k.a. rank). And btw: That it's an advertised centerstone is already a implementation/realization detail.... RNG, loot, boxes, etc.: First of all, RNG is such an integral part of most of the games that there is hardly any case where the very concept is put into question. I.e. it makes no sense to question the randomness of roulette. But of course, one could still question the implementation details, like the number of cards f.e. It's the same thing with SWTOR. It's build on randomness and players usually only question certain changes that were implemented by the devs. Fe.e. every attack has a chance to result in a critical hit. No need to question that. However, what is perceived as 'acceptable' depends on the context and might vary a lot. Typically, it's more a matter of how a player perceives himself. A lottery is usually accepted, although the chances are diminutive. Likewise, some players saw it as a challenge to defeat all Dark Soul bosses 'naked', whereas other called the game 'unfair'. But to get back to SWTOR: Even before BioWare introduced the Galactic Command system, there has been a lot of randomness, even in regard of loot. There's even an option to let the game decide, who will get the loot. And even if we assume the most trivial form of randomness - a guaranteed success - there are still countless of other factors that alter whether a situation is accepted or not. F.e. there was a 100% chance that an operation boss would drop an item, but only a few would drop a mainhand weapon. Some players might have got accepted this, whereas others might have had a hard time to get and might have even been forced to win a random roll to get the loot. Likewise, we could debate whether a player should get BIS gear without defeating the most challenging enemy! if that's the case, neither 'casuals' nor PvP players would get it. And there wouldn't be an option to obtain the gear before even attempting that content. I.e. using NIM gear to defeat NIM bosses. Indifferent of what a player prefers, it would automatically lead to a lot of assumptions of what might be acceptable or not, which then depends on the difficulty of a content, etc. So the sheer masses of things to put into consideration should make it clear that it's all about implementation details. And in some cases, it's less about the RNG, but more about the emphasis of it's randomness.

That's simply wrong. Three reasons: mathematics, relativity and practicabillity. Mathematics: There's no infinite progression. Percentages do have well defined boundaries... and SWTOR is based on percentages. 110% damage reduction doesn't make much sense, right? Even worse, the impression of progression is lost long before that. An increase from 86% to 87% doesn't feel like a game-changing progression. So a common trick is to fake progression by introducing a 'windmill' system. The game tries to hide the fact that the resulting percentages stay the same by focusing on the numeric values of arbitary quotients instead, i.e. both the dividend and the divisor scale up the same way. Instead of 1/10, the players get something like 500k//5m. Mathematically the same, but using higher numbers looks like there's a progression. And in most cases, this illusion is achieved by implementing an automatically increasing divisor, players has to counter by achieving a higher dividend. This gets problematic however, as soon as a game (not just SWTOR but other games like Diablo 3 as well) ignore these automatic 'nerfs' for some reasons. In case of SWTOR, it happened when BioWare introduced the Galactic Command System... a progression system that doesn't rely on character levels anymore. On the positive side, BioWare didn't have to feel obligued to implement new active skills, passives, etc. But on the downside, every new tier of gear bypasses the original nerf due to a higher class level and therefore brings the game closer to a mathematical cap. To sum it up: Your request to buff classes isn't logical now that SWTOR has abandonned the original level system. Relativity: The latest chenges don't just raise or lower the overall effectiveness, they changes the effectiveness of one skill/class relative towards another. And if you want to achieve such a skill-to-skill or class-to-class balance, you have to stay within the same context. I.e. you can't really fix that by changing the environment (the hitpoints of a boss, etc.). Two examples: The first one - crit. damage bonus a.k.a. surge. The impact of this bonus depends on the crit. chance of the character. And that's what got out of control. BioWare first implemented a system that gives characters a benefit, should they achieve more than 100% crit. chance and then, they introduced a system that bypasses the automatic crit.chance 'nerf'. And that made crit. damage too powerful. What BioWare tries now is to undo this (at least partially) by lowering other existing crit. damage bonuses. The second example - heal skills. Due to the fact that their effectiveness affected by all the stuff that keeps damaging skills in check (opposing defenses & damage reduction, but also the boss-level), there's no simple way to fix overly powerful heal skills by buffing the environment (hitpoints of bosses, etc.) either. If BioWare would boost the DPS of every class to counter overly powerful heals, they would change the number of strikes needed to defeat a target that doesn't receive any heals. I.e. they would have fixed one problem by creating another one. Of course, BioWare could then go on fixing any follow-up problem as welll, f.e. by increasing the hitpoints of every class, but that might cause more problems... a potentially endless reaction. Which brings me to the next point: Practicabillity: To put it short. It's about choosing the way that requires the least effort to achieve a goal. Adjusting the PvE content (higher hitpoints for all bosses & mobs) wouldn't be the a practicable one, because it won't fix any PvP inbalances. And likeswise, to increase the DPS score of every class isn't the most practicable one either, as it would break the 'time-to-kill' ratio. If BioWare would have done what you've suggested and would have buffed every class, they would have had to make classes at least as powerful as Arsenal mercs were. Nerfing them doesnn't fulfill your 'it's all about progression' premise. Put to the extreme, it would mean every class has to have it's own version of Trauma Regulators. But let's focus solely on the DPS score a bit. Increasing it for every class wouldn't be that hard. More problematic would be to keep all the other existing (in)balances intact. If you increase the DPS score however, you would also break the balance between percentual damage reduction and flat numeric damage-absorb shileds / heal-based defensive skills... and that means you would have to boost the latter as well. Not only that, you would have to increase the hitpoints of every class to make sure that the 'time to kill' ratio won't change, but the number of hitpoints a character has is determined by the gear he wears, so you would have to fix that as well..... Likewise, if you don't want to lower the critical damage bonuses - which of course doesn't feel like a progression - BioWare would have to improve it for every class that didn't get that much of a benefit. That however would break the game by making combat dependant on lucky crits... And unlike what you've stated, BioWare wouldn't be able to increase the HP scores of every PvE boss & monster. That would be an indirect nerf for every team constellation that would contain some of the least buffed classes. Making it worse for these team constallations would feel like regression and wouldn't be any different than nerfing certain classes. In other words, the game would have to become easier. But back to the practicability issues: What most players seem to dislke is the fact that BioWare chose the 'proper' approach and defined an overall goal to be able to measure their balance fixes against it. This 'goal' however made it obvious that there were other existing inbalances and BioWare then chose to address them as well and did so in the most practical way => by altering these classes/skills directly. IMO, that's what causes the displeasure. So let's have a look at these 'additional changes'. Previous patch fixes to crit. chance, crit. damage and heals were too good and affected certain classes more than others. So what happens when we assume that reverting this either partly or completely is no valid option? Well, the first question that comes into my mind is "what to use as a benchmark then?". These changes were made a long time ago. Should BioWare use some ancient metrics to see how the 'surge' changes affected each class? And how should they handle all the changes that were added later on? Extrapolate their benefit, applying that to the old metrics and somehow calculate how the game would look today? Changes to crit. damage f.e. made the end-game content (NIM operations) easier. But that's also true for all the defensive / heal utilities BioWare added later on. So whst to use as a base difficulty for the calculation? The number of players that managed to defeat NIM bosses during 4.x? Or did players got used to all the improvements that made NIM easier, which would mean the 'easiest' situation ought to be used as the base! All in all, it would be a lot of work and would have a high margin of error.... in other words, simply impractical ! A more suitable approach is to assume what would be an ideal state today and apply only the most recent data. And that's what BioWare did. They calculated a DPS score they believe fits to the current character hitpoints & defenses and adjusted all the classes to match the calculated score, taking only their current performance into consideration. A much lower margin of error, especially in regard of class-to-class and skill-to-skill balance. So to sum things up: I'm not a fan of the latest changes either, but for a different reason. Both developers and players failed to convince me that there's any significant drawback for sustained classes and/or melee classes. I've yet to see a PvE fight in which a sustained melee class loses every 11th attack on average (because that's what an inherent 10% DPS advantage actually means). But although I disagree with BioWare's goal, I still believe that their approach is the only way to go. Even if some PvE fights become more difficult - especially the newly added ones, 'nerfing' classes is still the better and more practical long-term sttrategy... far better than to buff everything else.

Over 3 million operation parses show that even the 'overpowered' Arsenal spec couldn't compete with the DPS of other melee or sustained specs. So at least, I have some data proving my point. StarParse surely isn't flawless, but it's hard to deny that it's pretty close to the truth. For me, the downsides are that you can't filter on a certain spec, a given patch version or exlude any damage that wasn't dealt to the boss (i.e. in case of AoE damage f.e.). But it's still more valuable than a subjective opinion. And feel free to go through the results of each boss and check how operatives perform. Over 70% of all operatives played Lethality - the melee sustained spec. First, you can compare operatives it with assassins - over 90% of them playing Deception - the melee burst spec. Then compare them with Snipers - over 80% of them chose one of the ranged 'sustained' specs that had an even higher DPS before the recent nerf. It must be exceptionally easy to find out DPS disadvantages for operatives. And the third task is to compare Operatives with Sorcerers. Over 70% of them chose the ranged burst spec and according to your 'operatives are just fine' statement, these two DPS classes are equally powerful. One of the sorcerer specs was buffed, but only by approx. 1.7%. So It should be more than trivial for you to quote this sentence and to provide the data that proves your point. Right? Please quote the part where I wrote something about how to fix the defensive abilities of operatives. And even more so, feel free to be more elaborate on the part how distinct, but overall equally powerful defensive capabilities renders specs useless. And once again, feel free to bring up any data that shows the operative's extraordinary deficit in regard of survivability. This is your only argument, so you better be specific on that part at least. And here, you derail from the discussion about overall DPS balance by highlighting the differences of particular skills. In your example about TFB, the concept is to leave the platform before the tentacle hits the ground. And even the ranged specs have to jump onto the platform to be able to attack the tentacle. According to your logic, BioWare would have to buff all ranged classes! And how about Kephess and the AoE damage reflection. Does that qualify for a permanent damage advantage for certain classes? Or how about Blaster's Rain of Bomb special. Do the defensive abilities that prevent 99~100% of the damage justify for a permanently lower DPS? Sure, you can repeat that statement, but it doesn't add anything new to the discussion. My point is that BioWare has to balance the effectiveness of all clasess without taking survivability into acount, simply because the latter might not matter. For the same reason, BioWare has to balance the HPS of every heal spec without taking survivability into consideration. Hatred - just like Madness - is centered around life leech, restoring small amount of HPs on every attack. And in most PvE fights that's really powerful. In an optimal case, Hatred can achieve an HPS score of approx. 1.7k - i.e. 1,7k HP restored each second. But even in less optimal situations, they should be able to achieve an efficiency of 80% or more. Checking some HM brontes parses, the DTPS score is somewhere between 1.2k and 1.7k and the typical HM brontes HPS score are about 1.0k and 2.0k for non-tank teammates. And that means Hatred Assassins can easily outheal most of the damage they receive. And they are well suited for the NIM fights as well. Force Shroud/Resilence can absorb 100% of the damage the spheres might deal and the 60% damage absorb of Phasing Phantasm / One with the Shadow is unparalleled among all DPS classes. Force Cloak can be used during phase transition or in case of critical RNG damage (by Kephess f.e.) and the heal will be on top of that See the difference? I use available data and precise statements to support anything I say. I thereby enable anyone to falsify my points either by be rectifying my conclusion or by providing alternative data. Most DPS classes already deal a similar amount of damage. What BioWare plans is to bring the 3 DPS specs they haven't adjusted in line with the remaining 15 specs. In other words, everything bad you claim would happen if the specs would deal an equal amount of damage is already the status quo for most classes. There are 8~9 specs in the +0% category (depending on where you put Fury). Did an apocalypse happen? Were they rendered useless? Even worse, you believe that a 3% DPS loss for Concealment / Scrapper to bring the DPS o this single spec closer to the score of all the other specs in this category would be of major significance, even before you know how BioWare plans to achieve that. Maybe they don't lower the DPS directly and alter the energy management or the usage of Tactical Advantage. And maybe, they lower the 'behind the target' restriction of Backstab like they did with Shadow Strike.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. First, there's a difference between balance and stylistic divercity. these two parts don't contradict each other. So even with 18 DPS classes that all deal the same overall damage, there are still enough options to make classes unique, diverse and flavorful. And second, it's ludicrous to try to achieve balance by keeping multiple significant inbalances. An attack that could oneshot an opponent but has a 60s cooldown would still be insanely inbalanced although the DPS score would be similar to other attacks. Likewise, a skill that absorbs 100% of the damage 1/10th the time would still be different than a permanent 10% damage prevention. Even worse, there would be no way to measure the degree of balance. A class that deals more damage but has a lower survivability would be strictly superior in any situation where survivability isn't a factor... i.e. in most operations. And it gets crucial when the inbalance is unparalleled. That's why games introduce different class roles and categories in the first place. And feel free to bring up anything that support your claim and shows the magnitude of Operative's 'lack of survivability'.

Just because two specs share most skills & passives unique to their spec doesn't mean they have to end up in the same category. It depends on the skills & passives of the adv. class as well. The main difference between Marauders and Juggernauts is the use of Fury/Centering. In case of Rage vs. Fury, it's the difference between Berserk requiring 30 stacks of Fury (almost a dozen of attacks that consume rage) vs. Enrage having an unconditional cooldown of 30s. This means Fury can't generate that much Rage right at the start of a fight // challenge. Furthermore, Rage has an attack that lowers the armor of the target by 20%, whereas Fury raises the AoE damage by 10%. And as a third point, only Fury gets an additional DoT via Bloody Slashes. Whether this already qualifies for a separate category is a different question though. Although these two specs are different, I still wouldn't call Annihilation a 'sustained' spec. For me, there's simply a difference between a spec that has a few 6~9s DoTs on skills with a higher cooldown and another spec that has DoTs that last for 18~24s. Other 'sustained' specs might even have an attack that relies on DoTs affecting the target and their overall DPS depends on a passive that raises the DoT damage against targets with <30% HP. Right now, less than 4% of all Marauders choose Fury. The assumption that the changes to come will turn this around is quite a risky one, especially if you don't bring up any hard evidence. Even the drastical changes for Arsenal Mercenaries haven't resulted in anything close to that. Edit: Don't get me wrong though: I'm not saying your proprosal to separate Rage and Fury a bit more is bad. Just because two spec share the same base concept doesn't mean theiy have to be pretty much identical. Hatred & Madness share the same concept (= life leech), but they do get a lot of different passive abilities and even the level at which a certain active skills become available is different. In fact, I would actually love it if these specs would be highly unique. And it that regard, I wouldn't care about the resulting 'DPS category'. In my opinion, all the other specs deserve to be more unique as well. Players shouldn't say... ."oh, that's the burst spec of this class", they should say, "that's the spec that jumps around like crazy" or "that's the spec that goes berserk" or "that's the spec that sets everything on fire". And BioWare could achieve that, even if some classes start with similar or even identical skills. The overall similarities between Juggernauts & Marauders wouldn't have been that much of an issue if Assassins & Marauders would have shared the same base class instead (I've explained that in more details in a different thread) simply because the stealth already caused a huge difference in the overall gameplay. And the Juggernaut // Sorcerer constellation would have still had the range differences as the main distinctive feature.

You first state that they are in a good state and then you complain about their squishiness. One statement can't be true. And even if I assume that you wanted to state that a lower survivability compensates for an overly powerful damage output, that would be wrong. Instead, the only correct cause of action would then be to bring both their DPS en par with all the remaining classes as well as their survivability.

It's actually not that hard. The easiest way is to adjust the level-sync accordingly. SM - planetary sync: +3 levels above the planet HM - planetary sync: +0 levels NIM - planetary sync: -3 levels Alternatively, BioWare could easily add a permanent buff for players on a lower difficulty setting - like a permanent Heroic Moment. And/or they could adjust the effictiveness of the companions. Opponents wouldn't have any special attacks and the content of the boxes wouldn't be different of course, unless BioWare would implement a few scripts that read out the right properties (the existence of a buff, the level-sync or difficulty setting) and alters the attack pattern, skill usage and the content of the boxes as soon as certain criterias are fulfilled. That means, implementing multiple difficulty settings isn't such a problem. It's more about how BioWare would handle the scripts that determine which quest is still unfinished and where the player can and wants to continue the story. Because if this isn't handled in a proper way, it might be better to start a new character or new legacy. No, IMO it was necessary the way it is now. To have multiple unfinished quests causes players to continue the closest one first, causing him to hop between different storylines. This leads to confusion and no coherent story to be told. Sry, didn't notice that it was already stated ... so here's the quote to the one who brought it up first.

First point - numbers I used the avg. DPS score you find on parsly stats. And since you believe your values to be correct, please have a look at the parsely operation results or the one on StarParse. But more about the 'reliability of parsing numbers' in a minute. Second point - DPS difference & Fifth point - team constellations Even if you we use your numbers for a moment, the DPS difference is 1%... that's already lower than the variance due to crit. chances, etc. And since you stated that this is irrelevant and just want to prove me wrong for the sake of ibeing right, emphasizing the difference between 'irrelevantly low' and 'without changing the average DPS', let's have a closer look at your numbers. If you state that using the top parses as a reference proves to be correct (although the sniper used their rolls and other tricks), you thereby state that you accept parsing results as valid data and that it's ok for you to balance classes on the existing top parses. Furthermore, BioWare did this class balance to equal out the inherent inbalances for melee and sustained specs. In other words, they try to balance the effective DPS classes have in PvE. If you're now stating that the top parses are correct - you didn't take a 5%~10% DPS loss into account when you calculated the DPS difference - you thereby state that BioWare's concept is wrong. Beceuse either an Annihilation Marauder loses every 11th attack in PvE (that's what a 10% DPS bonus means) and the effective DPS doesn't match the top parses, OR the whole thing is a fraud, and BioWare is wrong with their concept and you and your team were relying on this inbalance. Fourth point - none of the classes are broken In accordance to the previous point, stating that 'none of the classes *were* broken' (so you are referring to the past - i.e. the pre 5.3 state) means that the previous top DPS scores were correct (you used them to compare the DPS difference) and that BioWare incorrectly nerfed both sustained sniper specs. They would now have to have a lower effective DPS than any other class. Otherwise, their pre 5.3 DPS must have been broken. And if we take both your statement and the 5.4 changes into consideration, stating that Operatives and Marauders *weren't* and *still aren't* broken also results in either BioWare's concept to be wrong and the top parses to be correct, OR these two classes were and still are broken as well. Seventh point - the typical barking, some results and a relativization of the own statements Here, I gonna add a few state a questions. Feel free to quote them and answer them directly. NiM was at a good level pre 5.3 - Did you state this? Which classes did you have in mind when you made this statement? Sorcerers? Which team constellation did you had in mind? And does that sound like: "I had a few suggestions, like reducing the magic 5%" and to you? Please don't nerf DPS more as it's breaking PvE progression - Did you state that? What classes or teams did you have in mind when you made this statement? An overall class blalance? Did this phrase or anything you wrote in this context was referring to "I am not asking them to leave classes in the unbalanced state"? NiM might be easier than you wish, but we are more than 6 months into an expansion - Did you state that? Tell me how this matches more a "I am all for class balance and their methodology" than a "the current progress matters"? So basically, you insult me because of your laziness, incorrectness and inaccuracy. See, that's a much better statement. It isn't longer than your initial statement, doesn't put individual interests (i.e. progress) over the 'greater good' and is way more precise about potential changes, that Keith and the rest of the team could easily consider in a strategy meeting. And if you would have wrote something like this, I would have never responded in the first place.

How did you get these numbers? If I use parsely: Virulence 1.5m dummy: 9404.63 => 9169.6 = a loss of 235 DPS 2.5m dummy: 9697.87 => 9436.25 = a loss of 262 DPS Engineering 1.5m dummy: 9515.19 => 9183.66 = a loss of 332 DPS 2.5m dummy: 9576.95 => 9346.64 = a loss of 230 DPS Innovative Ordnance 1.5m dummy: 9449.39 => 9153.33 = a loss of 296 DPS 2.5m dummy: 9707.62 => 9404.17 = a loss of 303 DPS Arsenal 1.5m dummy: 9103.3 => 8703.4 = a loss of 400 DPS 2.5m dummy: 9052.59 => 8525.02 = a loss of 527 DPS And so on. But that aside, when I referrring to 'the average DPS', I wasn't even pointing to the individual dummy results, but to the fact that BioWare didn't nerf the gear or anything else that would result in a lower DPS for all classes. In other words, as long as you consider the average across all class constellations, there isn't a negative impact. If your team consists of Sorcerers and Pyrotechs things get easier, if your team consists of Mandos and non-Marksman snipers, it might get more difficult. And as I've said, only 4 out of 18 sepcs were nerfed with 5.3, all of them had an above average DPS ranking and 5.4 will only affect the 3 remaining top scoring specs. So sure, if you're one of those guys who only plays a FOTM class and your operation team only consists of the most broken classes, you will experience a certain DPS loss. But if you're willing and capable to extend your point of view onto every other team that might not consist of FOTM classes, there's absolutely no reason that would justify that an overperforming team complains that BioWare did fix classes with 5.3, tried to make sure that every class has a chance to shine and will continue to balance the remaining classes in 5.4. This only has an impact on teams with a Carnage or Lethality player. And once again, BioWare just plans to lower their DPS to the score every other spec of the same category has, in order to give every spec a chance. No, what you did was to put your selfish interest above the interest of others. You didn't state that your team consists of the most overperforming classes, you didn't state that "what many are saying everywhere on forums" meant only those teams who also consist purely out of FOTM classes, you didn't state that nerfing Lethality and Carnage would be fair in regard of a class-to-class balance, you didn't state that you want other classes to have it as easy as your team had it before 5.3 and you didn't state that the following class balances will be fine as long as the NIM operations would be easier to master (f.e. by making NIM crystals easier to craft). What you did was to state that BioWare should stop in midst of the class balance because it would affect you and your team.

Free speech isn't about what's right or wrong. And I'm not saying inappropriate manners are worth striving for, but it's foolish to believe every post will be objective, elaborate and exilarating. And to quote some good advises:

I completely disagree. What BioWare did was to adjust classes in accordance to their stated DPS goal. And the goal was to equal out the effective DPS among all classes without changing the average DPS. That's why they buffed the DPS of Pyrotech, Hatred & Madness and left the DPS of Adv. Prototype, Marksmanship, Lightning, Deception, Vengeance, Rage and Annihilation untouched. And this makes your reply actually very suspicious, especially due to the fact that you explicitly focus yourself on the changes to come. I.e. although 11 out of 18 DPS specs will end up either in the same or better position, you didn't take your time to back up your assertion that this balance patch breaks PvE progression. Even worse, you also claim that the remaining 3 nerfs would be unjustified before even knowing the concrete changes and without putting these classes into context of the other ones. So at least for me, you didn't manage to dispel the doubts that your statement isn't purely in favor of your preferred spec... and that you don't just want to retain broken FOTM classes. To put it in a more general way: Class balance is based on 2 important aspects: overall balance in regard of each type of content provided class-to-class & spec-to-spec balance In order to reject a class balance in general - like you did - you would have to prove why one aspect outweights the other and to show that there is no other way to balance both aspects, in other words, you would have to show that a complete rejection is the only cause of action. See, if you would have proven that BioWare's goal to boost underperforming specs and nerfing overperforming ones is unjustified, if you would have been more specific about what spec, what challenges or what bosses are critical and the base of your argumentation, or if you would have provided potential alternatives, it would have been easier to verify your claim. In other words, if the class balace patch fixes class-to-class issues, and NIM operations would be the only problematic part, all it would take is to release a new tier of gear. And should HM and SM modes be problematic as well, BioWare would have to make every class easier to play rather than fiddling around with 1~2 skills per spec. But a bit more about my point of view: class-to-class balance Personally, I would have given each spec the same DPS goal. I've yet to see any prove that sustained specs and melee classes have a noticable drawback in operations and that this disadvantage in roughly a 5% DPS loss (or a 10% DPS loss for melee sustained specs). The data we have actually indicates the opposite, so the only arguments that were brought up was to deny the correctness of this data. In this regard, BioWare didn't really bring up any prove or any more details either. F.e. they could have posted a metric showing the DPS differences. That way, most of the angry reponses this forum has seen could have been prevented. overall balance of the SM / HM / NIM modes Here, it's IMO way more important to check which boss fight causes the problems. In case of an boss-specific issue, changing the enrage timer f.e. would be one of the easiest tasks. Increasing the DPS of all tank specs another option to raise the combined DPS score of the team. In case of class-specific issues, analysing the performance of each spec would allow for dedicated fixes and could even reveal whether these points cause any problems in other situations as well, i.e. in chapters, flashpoints or PvP.

Do you really want to argue with me about fairness in a capitalistic world? Companies owned by a single person or a fix group of persons aren't necessarily less profit-oriented. And whether a game focuses more on singleplayer or more on a group-oriented, repetitive gameplay isn't solely about profit either. My statement was more about the fact that add-ons are typically designed for players who played the game for quite some time and can't get enough of it. F.e. these add-ons typically start after the completion of the main story, require a certain class level or at least a better understanding of the game mechanics (if they have a higher difficulty level f.e.). SWTOR flashpoints are in a strange state however. The veteran mode - once limited to a minimum level to support an ongoing storyline and to allow for an increasing difficulty level / complexity - are now all available early on. The master mode variant - once designed as an end-game content for characters at their maximum level - weren't adjusted to the ever evolving situation. Even worse, the game lost it's focus on character levels. In order to add a new flashpoint, BioWare has to fix the system somehow. Just like Tyth is designed for groups wearing BIS gear, the new flashpoint might be designed for those who are equipped with a mediocre almost-BIS gear or for those who prefer 4-man teamplay over 8-man operations. In other words, better suited for 'casual' players. And it's not a bad thing that BioWare implements a new flashpoint or that they want to make it enjoyable for players who have more than a few hours of game experience. So the question is more about whether a hard restriction is such a good idea. There are plenty of other options. They could have used the command rank instead of a avg. gear level, they could have limited the access to those who have finished other master mode flashpoints already, or the KOTET storyline, etc. And at least for me, it's a question why BioWare doesn't come up with a clear design concept of how to handle flashpoints in general. F.e. I would have preferred, if they would have kept the minimum level requirement and would have only removed the maximum level. In addition, I would have preferred if the character level would have been synced downwards and if BioWare would finally fix the incomplete level sync due to weapon mods, etc. This would have been an improvement for existing flashpoints as well. And I would prefer, if they would make the new flashpoint available for all lvl 70 characters independant of their gear rating or command rank... I simply don't believe that strict rules, harsh restrictions and penalties lead to a good & healthy system.

You can't vote for freedom of speech or invite others to speak freely, if you expect only pleasing responses. Most games are emotional and so are the responses. It's the same no matter if it's about a real-life sports match or a digitial second life. And the truth is that Keith & co. don't handle it well. To add a single QoL improvement to a roadmap is an invitation for mean responses about missing bug fixes. And to make "others slow you down" an official argument isn't what I would call elaborate communication skills. It's a indirect insult against any player who wanted to try something new and clicked on the master mode group finder option. Not only that - it's also a lie. What BioWare does is limit the access to the only new content they have in order to increase subsciption time. So it's simply a part of the business model. No need to lie. If they would have stated that they want to reward all those players who have spent countless hours leveling up command ranks, it would have been much better, right? And if they would have stated that they chose a gear restriction over a command rank restriction in order to make it more alt-friendly as well as supporting crafting professions (246'er left side gear), it would have been something completely different. Furthermore, I would have skipped the last sentence about "if this restriction proves to be profitable, we gonna extend it". What was the goal Keith was hoping to achieve? It will only be relevant, should this strategy be successful. So they would have had enough time to announce something like that in the future. In regard of the class balance, their social skills weren't that great either. F.e. they forgot to name the overall HPS nerf they had in mind for Sorcerers heals, referring to their internal metrics or something like that. They also couldn't forsee that mercenaries would be pissed if BioWare don't even mention if, when or how the defensive utilities will be addressed. And they kept players in the dark about Operatives, Juggernauts and Marauders. Not a single comment in any of these threads. And last but not least, Keith didn't manage to give this roadmap a positive spin or most importantly a positive ending. The last section was a retroperspective view as well as an apology why they don't come up with more content. Instead, it should have been a more constructive, positive view into the future.

And what made you think (s)he is talking about story mode flashpoints?

No, the criticism isn't only about the old flashpoints. It's about the fact that there will be a hard restriction. It will be the only flashpoint with such a restriction and it will be the most severe hard restriction of the game. As if players couldn't handle this on their own. Users then only compared it with the existing content because the plan automatically leads to the question if the new flashpoint will be special. All the previous ones can be easily completed without a single command item. And gear alone isn't the best indicator for a successful & fast run either. The statement: " IF it was successful they would look at doing something SIMILAR" however indicates that the new flashpoint won't be special. In order to do 'something similar', they have to be 'somewhat similar'. The only expection would be,if the 'remaining flashpoints' will be Kaon and Lost Island. Because they aren't fully supported by the current group finder either.

A roadmap should always contain all the 'hot topics' before players have to ask. A good strategy is to separate the roadmap into fix categories (f.e. PvP, operations, CM, 'character style', convenience, bug fixes, etc.) and to leave at least one short comment. Or at least, make a 'top 10' list of frequently asked questions. Well, you should realize that the criticism is quite reasonable. The 242 gear limitation for the flashpoint First, you removed most of the level requirements for flashpoints. Then, you introduced command ranks - basically an alternative to normal character levels - and now you plan to reintroduce a 'minimum level' requirement for flashpoints, disguised as a gear limitation. Does this sound like a thoughtful and consequent game development? And if you keep in mind that the plan is to make the requirements stricter than for hard mode operations, it shouldn't be surprising that players blame you for having not enough experience. When was the last time, you tried to find a master mode flashpoint? It's often not a question if it will be a fast run, but more so if you'll find a group at all. Your plan is even more questionable because quote: [it] will prevent under-geared players from slowing down your group is the only justification that made it into the roadmap. Nothing about fun, etc. You indirectly insult players who want to try a master flashpoint before they are equipped with BIS gear. Would you trust such a statement? For a paying customer, the reaction might probably be: Why does BioWare suddenly care about these things? Weren't there countless requests to lower the respawn times or to increase the drop chances in certain Heroics areas... Did BioWare ever care about 'others slowing you down'? And it shouldn't be surprising if players count 2 and 2 together. They know that your team needs a restriction for the new content as well as another incentive for the command system. And the latest bugs in regard of the master mode group finder clearly indicate that this isn't merely an 'idea', but already implemented. Class balance: This shouldn't be a surprise either. Your team went silent after stating the class changes, although players had more than enough questions and asked about the remaining classes. The threads about this topic have the highest number of views and replies, so you can't have missed them. Furthermore, there was no clear statement from your side about the existing changes either. E.g. whether Madness Sorcerers achieved the DPS score you've intented or not? If you really want to encourage players and compliment your team, be more precise. Otherwise it's just an empty phrase. Aame thing with apologies: If you really mean it, be more specific. And this leads me to your own words about being both 'concise' as well as 'specific': Did you respect your own advices when you wrote the roadmap and the following response? Do you feel that you were specific enough, that you thought about how your words will affect (other) players or progression in general? Because for me, this roadmap doesn't feel like a open communication between development & players. It feels more like a beta-version of a patch note. Everything already financed and near completion.

Sure, if you want to argue with "if this is the way it is now, it must be intentional", you would never change anything at all... unless the "intention" changes. And that's what I suggest... to reconsider the current state of the game. And there are already classes that don't require a base attack or only a few number of times. Personally, I believe that heat management issues make a spec more popular. And like I said, it might even diminish the unique flavor of the spec. So I wrote my reply to give an example of how easy it would be, should they decide to make design, immersiveness and simplicity their top goal instead.

Well, you stated that Rejuvenation changed from a 5.0s to a 5.2s cooldown. But there's nothing except alacrity that lowers the cooldown (i.e. neither a set bonus nor a conveyance bonus). That's why I asked you if you're sure about the alacrity rate you use. Sure, if you switch the order in which you apply these bonuses, the result will be different. Likewise, you achieve a different result, if you use the current formula, but a different alacrity rate. So it really depends on whether the 5.0s cooldown for your 'old' Rejuvenation was correct or not. In case it was, the old alacrity rate would have lowered everything to approx. 83.34% (5.0 / 6.0). And if I apply this alacrity rate to the current formula, I get: Resurgence: 6 * 0.8334 = 5.0 Healing Trance: 7.5 * 0.8334 = 6.25 Pure Deliverence: 2 * 0.8334 = 1.667 With Conveyance: 1.5 * 0.8334 = 1.25 In other words, these values would be close to the 'old' results you've mentioned. And that means it's hard to tell how the results were calculated. I even checked Bant's character sheet formulas to see if I can get more informations, but he only talks about "Time Averaged Usage". So it depends on whether that includes set bonuses and situational Conveyance bonuses or not. Well... It's not really a 'mistake' to calculate things in a different order. Other MMOs I know do it exactly the way it is right now... i.e. first applying all numerical bonuses (f.e. a flat +500 HP bonus) and then appling any percentual alterations (f.e. a +50% HP bonus). A full example: 1000 base HP; a flat +500 HP bonus and a 50% HP boost. Applying the percentual bonus first 1000 * 1.5 + 500 = 2000 HP Applying the flat numerical bonus first (1000 + 500) * 1.5 = 2250 HP So it's hard to state that one way is right and the other is wrong. Actually, I don't have a problem if the set bonuses and Conveyance bonuses are modifications of the base value (i.e. applying the flat bonuses first).

I'd actually love to see a Vanguard spec that focuses purely on blaster rifle attacks (or even scatterguns), but I don't like to be forced to use the filler attack, especially as a Pyrotech. As I've stated before, the weapon shots have a completely different sound and visual effect. When I choose to play a Pyrotech, I didn't do so because I want to use my blaster pistol, I do so to engulf enemies in flames. Sadly enough though, the flamethrower isn't a real weapon choice. And we don't have to limit this to Powertechs alone. Just imagine, if BioWare would force Lightning Sorcerers to use their main-hand weapon again or would include a mandatory free-of-cost skill that creates an visual effect similar to Med Shot (a green ray). Wouldn't it be great to see a green ray in between all the lightnings, just because it would be free of cost? That's a circular reference. Players are forced to use the base attack because these classes have energy issues. To use the result as prove for your claim leads nowhere. If BioWare would raise the base regeneration rate of all troopers & smugglers to 6pts per sec, most classes wouldn't need the base attacks anymore. But I guess Arsenal mercenaries were begging for an energy management nerf, just to be able to use Rapid Shots, right? It's silly because there are much better design options than to enforce the use of a base attack. Even without the existence of a low-damage base attack, players would have enough choices. Vent Heat and Thermal Sensor Override f.e. already focus on heat management. Unlike the Rapid Shot strategy however, these two skills make a visually and thematically fitting skills unique to this spec free of cost. So IMO, it would be even much better if BioWare would lower the cooldown of these skills rather than enforcing the use of Rapid Shot. Furthermore, isn't it surprising that there are nearly no passives or utilities whatsoever that improve or alter the base attack, although you claim it to be an intergal part of every spec. Instead, BioWare replaced a Stockstrike for a Flaming Fist in order to improve the flame-centric flavor of the Pyrotech. Just like they replaced Flame Burst with Magnetic Blast and improved Shatter Slug rather than Searing Wave to make the Adv. Prototype spec less about flames. And they made Railshot free of cost rather than supporting the use of more Rapid Shots. But sure, let's just ruin all that by forcing players to add a non-flame based, non-tech based attack into the rotation, just because Rapid Shot exists. And last but not least: If you talk about fights with breaks, name them. Because usually, getting your high damage skills off cooldown is already a powerful increase of burst damage and IMO quite sufficient. So I don't need energy issues in every 'normal' fight, just to get a little extra bonus on top of my high damage skills in case there are some breaks in the fight. And due to the fact that sustained specs also have high damaging skills as well as filler attacks, it's not even unique. So to sum it up: I simply don't see how the use of a Rapid Shot instead of a Magnetic Blast or Flame Burst does improve the likeability of these specs. Tools like Vent Heat & Thermal Sensor Override, as well as energy improvements unique for a class or spec are way more flavorful than a Rapid Shot could ever be. A Heat Blast that vents heat or a Railshot that is free of cost is unique and way more flavorful, and I would definitely prefer to have more of these passives than to be forced to use Rail Shots.

First of all, you can check the 'intensity' of their tests by comparing the crit. chances, rotations and APMs. Second, to use a different dummy is perfectly fine as long as everyone is using it, since it's more about comparing 2 equal settings. And last but not least, a dummy parse is strictly about single target skills, so it's much, much better than a warzone test. But see below. Warzone matches are actually the best way to lie. None of the examples you've added show a 4on4 match f.e. In other words, they are all about objective-driven matches. And that changes a lot. F.e. if I am guarding an objective, I will end up with a lower damage score, because I won't be in a constant fight. If I carry a hutt ball, I don't make that much damage either. But even if you don't care about objectives, it's still a question whether it was a fair constellation, who was guarded, who was focused first, etc. So your examples just prove that the AoE and DoT-spread capabilities of a Sorcerer aren't that bad.... but noone complained about that.

Choosing the right utility, it will immobilize players for up to 5s and can interrupt an activated or channeled skill with proper timing. With the right utility, It will raise all defenses by 30% and prevents charges, leaps, pulls or harpoons for 10s. But even without that, it still has a range of up to 60m and can put you out of the line of sight. So it can protect you against incoming damage. Not every class has an effect that might last for up to 8s (like a Whrilwind). Almost? Name me one that doesn't have a self heal. BioWare has to put some of the heals in the skill set of the adv. class because each spec is limited to 4 unique skills. Choosing some utilities, Cloud Mind can provide 25% DR for 6s every 45s. Whirlwind might cause a 20% miss chance for 8s, Electrocute causes a 25% damage loss for 10s every 50s, Static Barrier can blind enemies for 3s every 20s and Unnatural Preservation grants a 15% DR for 6s every 25s.

And why do you think he was talking about the average DPS score and not about the highest parse on a 2.5mill dummy? If the latter is the case, he would have requested to match Madness with the 9,947.86 for IO or the 9,978.35 for Engineering, and to put it in an acceptable distance towards the 10,028.46 of Virulence. An average f.e. can be modified by publishing a few suboptimal parses, especially if there aren't that many parses and players wanted to be the first ones to publish them after the patch.

Have you ever considered other reasons than mischievous, hidden nerfs? Have you checked your alacrity rate? Furthermore, I wouldn't count on the fact that alacrity is applied before all the remaining stuff like set bonuses or skill-based cooldown reductions. In my opinion, the opposite is the case... alacrity seems to be applied last. Rejuvenate with a cooldown of 5.2s instead of 6s means that your alacrity cut it down to 86.67% (i.e. 0.8667). So let's use this number: Healing Trance If I apply this to a 7.5s cooldown of Healing Trance - i.e. applying the 1.5s cooldown reduction of the set bonus first, the result will be 6.5s ( 7.5 * 0.8667). Old Deliverance Likewise, applying the 86.67% to a base activation time of 2.0s for Deliverance, we will get 1.73s. Thanks to Conveyance, the base activation time is lowered to 1.5s - i.e. applying the Conveyance bonus first. And the final result including alacrity is an activation time of 1.3s (1.5 * 0.8667). New Deliverance With the latest changes to Conveyance, the activation time is lowered by only 0.25s, resulting in a base activation time of 1.75s - i.e. applying the Conveyance bonus first. Counting in the 86.67% due to alacrity, we will get a final activation time of 1.51667s (1.75 * 0.8667). So if you ask me, everything seems fine.

This is silly. If you want your reply to hold more truth than some numbers you believe are - quote 'lacking evidence', at least try to prove your point instead of making pointless statements. First of all, there are the mathematical principles namely 'deviation' and 'statictical significance' that deal with questionable numbers. To some extend, the correctness of experimental results can and should be questioned, and yes, it's always better to have more results, but it's the absolute opposite to a proper scientific approach, if you exclude data that doesn't fit your thesis. What you did with your reply was to nullify the significance of dozens of experimental results by putting a single untested prediction - i.e. your opinion - over it. Do you see how silly this is? Second, If you need more samples, visit StarParse and check the results there. You'll see that they sum up between 50k and 80k toons per week, which means approx. 2.5k to 3k non-healer Operatives and more than 70% of them are Lethality (=> approx. 2k). Are 2k results per week significant enough? Then go and check the Hard Mode OPS ranking. And third, you can assume that every top parse you'll find shows an above average result. And that means Lethality isn't an exception. If you want to prove that these Lethality parses are less valid than the other parses, you would have to provide some real arguments. Are the crit. chances abnormal, did they include unfavorable DPS boost etc.? Some Madness parses f.e. include the raid buffs, some other specs include rolls or use exploits. These are the methods to give your opinion some value. But let's see: If you want to prove your statement, at least name the operation bosses that you think require a lot of target switching. Furthermore, you might want to count them and compare the number with the total number of bosses to underline the significance of your point. And if you want to be really precise, name the number of times a player has to switch targets in these fights, compare this with the number of skills used in total and estimate the potential loss of DPS. Furthermore, sustained specs have been granted a 5% damage advantage. Therefore, the request isn't to deny that, but to bring Lethality down to this DPS goal. So in order to dismiss such a request, you'd have to prove that Lethality has an extraordinary disadvantage in the majority of fights. And even if that would be the case, BioWare would then have to alter their DPS table first, would have to create a new category for Lethality and would have to state the DPS score they seem suitable. F.e. +10% DPS advantage category. But as it stands right now, they didn't. Even worse, if they would, it might be possible for every class to state a reason why it deserves to be treated special. An example could be Engineering, emphasizing on the disadvantage of their stationary zone AoE; or Sorcerers that focus their statement on the fact that their god-bubble creates a DPS loss; or Snipers pinpointing to the fact that they lose most of their defensive capabilities as soon as they have to move; or any other class without a raid buff, team speed boost or resurrection skill. Once again, you have to prove your point. And since we're talking about PvP here, you have to make sure that other factors like DCDs, CCs, heals, cooldowns, and the objective-driven gameplay don't falsify your data. So this is even more complicated. __________ But let's stick to the 'easy' stuff and let's check the 'target switching' statement. It's commonly used, but was it ever proven? - I don't think so! In fact, I'm still waiting to see how BioWare came up with their 5% difference. It would bust this reply if I would go into more detail, so let's keep it short. Hopefully other users find the time. Every class has a few skills that deal a high amount of damage and other skills that don't. That's true for both burst and sustained specs. And in some cases, certain skills require the use of other skills in advance, but this isn't limited to DoT specs either. If Arsenal isn't able to use Tracer Missile in advance, neither Heatseeker Missile nor the Railshot can be used to their full potential. Furthermore, not every skill applies a 45s debuff, so these benefits might be missing as well. So in order to make target switching disadvantageous for certain classes, it has to create an extraordinary loss of DPS other classes don't experience. And that means, you have to consider all the aspects that are relevant for the DPS, like damage, range, cooldown, mobility and skill order. But there's already a problem: DoT skills are clearly outstanding in every aspect. A Corrosive Dart f.e. has a 30m range, no cooldown, deals approx. 16~20k+ damage on average per use (depending on the duration) and can be used while moving. And that means, the statement that target switching creates a disadvantage is already quite questionable. A way to prove it would be to run a few specifically designed tests: First test: There should be multiple dummies next to each other and the players would have to switch targets every 45s or so. This is a classic target switching scenario, you'll see in a fight against the Dread Guards (TfB) or the Sword Squadron (ToS). The question is whether DoT specs will deal less damage than burst specs, even if we ignore DoT spread and assume that they would have to apply the DoTs manually (just like a Medicine Operative has to apply the Kolto Probes separately). In other words, how high is the disadvantage if a sustained spec would forgo parts of their rotation to apply a their DoT on a secondary or tertiary target. So if it turns out that the ability to apply DoTs on multiple targets would result in a DPS loss, we could then use this as an argument to buff both the healer and the DoT specs. The second test: This test should include the highly frequent switches we didn't handle in the first test. Let's say every 15s. Here, the question is whether a high damage skill with a high cooldown is better than applying a DoT that doesn't have a cooldown. F.e. does a Marksman Sniper, who used Ambush & Penetrating Blasts on the first target and is then forced to switch the target, deal more damage while waiting for these high damage skills to cool down than a Virulence Sniper who used Cull on the first target but can (or has to) use Corrosive Dart and Corrosive Grenade on the second one. The third test: The third and final test will then be mainly about the delayed effect of DoTs. Two things to consider here. First, whether a sudden death that interrupts the rotation causes a greater DPS loss for classes with a high average damage or for classes with a few high damage skills. And the second part is, whether killing the first target with a high cooldown skill waiting for it to get off cooldown is more benefitial than reapplying a DoT. If we then calculate the results of all three tests together, we can estimate the DPS loss for sustained classes, check whether the 5% advantage that BioWare used was random or precisely calculated and see how much Lethality should get on top of that. Because that would be an elaborate, scientific approach that wouldn't rely on StarParse & Parsely.

Which is more or less what I said. But I used a retrospective remark, stating that the changes should have been more powerful than what BioWare actually did. Unlike other users though, I don't focus myself that much on the average DPS score you find on parsely. Depending on what parses I would publish, I could easily bring down the average of every class. Take the 2.5m Madness results as an example: DPS currently ranges from 6.4k to 9.6k... not a close call, right? But nevertheless, Madness shouldn't have problems to achieve a top score of at least 9.8k even without the use of the raid buff... and a more common parsely result of 9.5k. I.e. this spec is IMO missing approx. ~300pts. The problem: With the 5.3 patch, BioWare only adjusted the values of existing class abilities. But there aren't that many that would increase the single target DPS score without changing the AoE damage or DoT-spread as well. The first exception is Lightning Barrage. But in order to keep Lightning Strike valueable, you don't want to improve Force Lightning that much. The second one is Desintegration, but it's hard to achieve a +300 DPS increase by raising crit chance. Both skills combined are responsible for no more than 1/5th (i.e. 20%) of the overall DPS score. Achieving a 3% DPS increase (i.e. +300pts) would therefore requires a 15% damage boost. And that would require them to raise crit. chance by 30%. So the only option left would have been to improve Wrath, raising the 25% damage bonus for the next Lightning Strike or Demolish to approx. 50%. And that's IMO what they should do.