Healer Testing and the Search for "Underlying Changes"

[RuQu]

Not really... there are TONS of orange patterns available now that no one has bothered to make because they couldn't live up the the top end standards. Now that gear can be made and players can use top end mods in it just as well, there are bound to be more available. Also with the addition of Augments to 3 different crew skills it should reduce the stupid prices top end augments cost.

 

Money is not hard to get in this game, I have a single character at level 22 that has made millions off crew skills alone, not to mention that running lvl 50 dailies earns you about 10k credits a pop... which means you do only 10 a day thats 100k credits easily (not counting the money from drops)... If you cant live on 100k credits per day when you arent spending it on repairs from HM/NM gear (cuz obviously if the "casual" is the argument then they arent being run)... where is your money being wasted?

 

My server you can buy unmoddable 126 gear for 20-100k credits, moddable for 80-250k. We're not talking millions of credits per piece here.

 

Are you buying this gear for your level 22? Are you going to keep its augments up to date?

 

Can you afford to do that if this is your first character?

 

The point is that augments only offset the itemization nerf for people who can get them. It does not balance the nerfs because the nerfs affect everyone and not everyone will have augments in all their slots.

[Eortotai]

The worse part is they did both, the new HM Flashpoint and Storymode Operation are considerably harder than what we have now and the HM only drops Columni. There are several threads here with full Rakata equiped groups having a very difficult time in them.

 

You need Rakata to get Columni?

 

THIS. Story Mode is supposed to be just that.

 

1. It helps you get used to mechanics and know the fights before progressing to Hard Mode.

 

2. It allows guilds that don't have the gear to farm HM current Ops to still complete the Operation and experience the content. Even if "it's sooper ez lol" for progression guilds, guilds that don't play as much and only have Columi gear at best will still have trouble with it and feel rewarded when they beat it.

 

3. It allows pick-ups to experience the content without the necessity of voice-chat and a group of people that play with each other all the time and are used to each other's playstyles.

 

Hardcore players who are crying out for harder content are probably able to play more, are naturally more skilled at gaming in general, AND have better gear and have voice chat. If "Story Mode" is difficult for these top-end guilds, how will it be for PuGs and for more inexperienced/less geared guilds?

 

Once again, if your answer is "It's not that hard" ; that may be true for you and I, but what about for people that do struggle with current Normal Mode Ops due to the aforementioned reasons? Should they be barred from experienced "Story Mode" Operations?

 

In my opinion, Story Mode Explosive Conflict should drop Rakata-tier armor without set-bonuses (similar to Energized/Exotech gear) and should drop plenty of Columi tokens. Make one Rakata token drop from each boss and add in some form of "Rakata Commendations" that are awarded from each boss that allow you to also slowly gain Rakata gear. Story Mode should not become the new easy way to achieve Rakata gear as it currently is, and should also not award ANY Black Hole commendations to achieve top-tier gear. The difficulty should reflect in this, as previously stated.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Eortotai

[XenonParsec]

I like how GZ comes into a thread about testing revealing little or no Underlying Changes, to respond to a post about end-game balance. Why not respond to the OP, and explain how Underlying Changes affect the game, rather than the mystic voodoo "it's hard to capture in patch notes" excuse?

 

And now after giving some weak, amateur hour apologist answer on nerfs in the dev q&a, he goes on to say how they'll "re-examine" things before going live.

 

GZ, gaming nerfs aren't taxes. This is a VIDEO GAME. It's really simple guy, make the playerbase happy, keep us interested and engaged = sub retention. Make a bunch of dumb changes because you think you're preserving the balance of something not real = sub churn, and you getting laid off.

 

You guys make GAMES. Radical class balance for our own good or for the sanctity of the game or w/e stupid excuse to justify your lack of competence is NOT meaningful or edifying in a VIDEO GAME.

 

If things dont have perfect balance or if your entire playerbase rolls through endgame content, as long as we're having fun and not unsubbing WHO FREAKIN CARES. Oh, some neckbeards who fancy themselves elite gamers? They are like 1% of your subs and recurring revenue. They need to be ignored and their input is long past useful for the continuing innovation of the genre and this game specifically.

 

Apologies to the OP for my rant, I just find it incredible that this thread gets a dev post, but doesnt even address the OP.

[Blaac]

Are you buying this gear for your level 22? Are you going to keep its augments up to date?

 

Can you afford to do that if this is your first character?

 

The point is that augments only offset the itemization nerf for people who can get them. It does not balance the nerfs because the nerfs affect everyone and not everyone will have augments in all their slots.

 

And you made his point for him.... what about the normal not hard core players?

 

Im not sure either read what I was saying... are you guys talking about levelling or something? Because I am talking about lvl 50 non hardcode... or is doing 10 quests considered "hardcore" these days?

 

If you are talking about getting augments at low levels then who cares? No offense intended but most players dont waste time getting lots of moddable gear at low levels because you out level it too fast.

 

Now I'm not saying augments will make up for the changes made either... but with nearly every lvl 50 armor piece being able to get a mod slot if you want, where previously you couldn't, it can definitely help.

 

My only points are that:

1) Decent gear is by NO means unattainable at end game for casual players if you are willing to at least TRY. The argument about doing this for your first character is invalid... because you can still run dailies for money AND gear.... even on your first character.

2) If you haven't actually tested the characters on the PTS, then perhaps your "facts" aren't as definite as you think they are.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Blaac

[RuQu]

Im not sure either read what I was saying... are you guys talking about levelling or something? Because I am talking about lvl 50 non hardcode... or is doing 10 quests considered "hardcore" these days?

 

If you are talking about getting augments at low levels then who cares? No offense intended but most players dont waste time getting lots of moddable gear at low levels because you out level it too fast.

 

Now I'm not saying augments will make up for the changes made either... but with nearly every lvl 50 armor piece being able to get a mod slot if you want, where previously you couldn't, it can definitely help.

 

My only points are that:

1) Decent gear is by NO means unattainable at end game for casual players if you are willing to at least TRY. The argument about doing this for your first character is invalid... because you can still run dailies for money AND gear.... even on your first character.

2) If you haven't actually tested the characters on the PTS, then perhaps your "facts" aren't as definite as you think they are.

 

1) You do realize there are players who aren't level 50, right?

2) You do realize that PTS testers report the new Ops Story mode is harder than current NMM, right?

3) You do realize that the proposed changes affect everyone, regardless of level and gear, and that therefore, logically, a gear upgrade for level 50s doesn't help them, right?

4) Finally, you do realize that you said this:

If you haven't actually tested the characters on the PTS, then perhaps your "facts" aren't as definite as you think they are.

 

...in a thread specifically and explicitly created for the purpose of reported actually testing results and discussing both the implications and new test options...

 

I'm just making sure you are aware of all of these really obvious things, because your statements suggest that you missed them somehow.

[Battilea]

Not really... there are TONS of orange patterns available now that no one has bothered to make because they couldn't live up the the top end standards. Now that gear can be made and players can use top end mods in it just as well, there are bound to be more available. Also with the addition of Augments to 3 different crew skills it should reduce the stupid prices top end augments cost.

 

It isn't because they don't live up to top end standards. From 10 to 49, they pretty much are the top end. And even at 50, they make great intro-50 gear, making Tionese gear pretty much pointless.

 

The reason most of it isn't made is because you get plenty of orange stuff just from leveling and doing heroics and that a good chunk of it is ugly, it doesn't sell often or for enough money to justify the hassle. Even some of the better looking stuff, like Hooligan's (IA armor that looks like an imperial officer uniform) doesn't sell that well.

[Brakner]

My only points are that:

1) Decent gear is by NO means unattainable at end game for casual players if you are willing to at least TRY. The argument about doing this for your first character is invalid... because you can still run dailies for money AND gear.... even on your first character.

2) If you haven't actually tested the characters on the PTS, then perhaps your "facts" aren't as definite as you think they are.

 

Your credibility is now very suspect, did you actually read the whole thread?

 

You do realize this is a thread about actual PTS testing with actual copied over characters right?

[Caille]

My only points are that:

1) Decent gear is by NO means unattainable at end game for casual players if you are willing to at least TRY. The argument about doing this for your first character is invalid... because you can still run dailies for money AND gear.... even on your first character.

2) If you haven't actually tested the characters on the PTS, then perhaps your "facts" aren't as definite as you think they are.

 

Really?

 

Really?

 

RuQu and co. have been doing nothing BUT testing in this instance so that we might all better understand what is occurring and feel informed when we decide about our subs. RuQu and co. have done more than the developers in regards to this. We know more from them than we do from GZ and his "mysterious under the hood" "voodoo you wouldn't understand" comments.

 

I was actually reading your posts and then I got to this point that made me realize you paid zero attention to the thread.

 

Alexis

*sighs*

[Masturomenos]

These changes are clearly tweaks to a game which explicitly says the gameplay may change. Class balance changes are inherent in the industry and fundamental to the nature of MMOs.

 

The NGE was a complete redesign of the game's mechanics and they way the game played. It was a completely different game.

 

The two cannot reasonably be equated.

 

I understand that you are upset. I bought a Windows license and partitioned my Mac's HD just to play this game. That is significant outlay just for a game (and additional $100+) and if this game goes in a direction I find unenjoyable I will be quite disappointed.

 

It is not, however, a bait and switch, it is simply bad balancing. Protest it, build a case against it, unsubscribe, whatever, but save yourself the money of a failed lawsuit 'cause it has zero chance of winning.

 

Regardless, this discussion is WAY off-topic. If you want to talk about suing BW, that probably deserves a thread of its own, don't you think?

 

 

Its not balance its laziness. Instead of hving the balls and ability to make content work with what took 5 years to design they decided to mke crap content then nerf an rebuild classes so theyre jobs would be easier. Dev meeting at bioware 'hey boss we made a crap OP and FP and pvp system and were too lazy to fix it so lets make it seem harder by nrfing the classes. Then well lok like we are a hardcore players game but without mechanics that hardcore games have' its all a joke guys. The work they put out for the job they love is a joke to themselves. They are basically giving up. How do they even show their faces when they talk to other developers and companies. Its just pathetic. Forgt the nerfs or buffs th rrogance that half a decade could not produce a game that worked right but a patch 2 month after can? Do they even beleive in themselves? This is the point that they cant make content to challenge us they rather take tools away we can use for that content and then slap a hardmode badge on it. No dps/heal logs, no ptr copy of 50s , only taking who they want to test content, a post saying we are balancing around the 1%, no proof why any of this was needed, so on and so on. Look at 1.2 its not just them not making classes right at launch its also a bad legacy system, bad crafting, bad pvp planet, bad companion, bugs never fixed. It shbould make any player lose confidence not at the changes but the people making tthe changes. If i could get away with this at what i do i wouldnt id rather work hard put my tail betwen my legs an learn to develope forget l2p bioware needs to L2D cause they are doing it bckwards and sticking a 'fresh content' sticker on it. They make all profesionals look bad. Its just sad.

[gramz]

2) You do realize that PTS testers report the new Ops Story mode is harder than current NMM, right?

 

Only the first boss seems to be this difficulty, and that is most likely because we are doing it wrong, i.e. missing a mechanic.

 

The rest of the bosses feel more on par with story mode, because we've figured out the mechanics.

[Kihra]

Only the first boss seems to be this difficulty, and that is most likely because we are doing it wrong, i.e. missing a mechanic.

 

Yeah, basically the first boss is slightly overtuned for Story Mode, and the remaining three are easy. Even the first boss isn't too bad on Story Mode once you have the mechanics down. It is just a bit more unforgiving in that mistakes lead to 1-shots. The other bosses don't really have any 1-shot mechanics to speak of (that aren't just hugely telegraphed).

[Wynn]

Healing wasn't balance look at warzone totals or read any hard mode raid strat they all talk about using force users. Hell has anyone heal Soa with two Ops that was not fun.

 

MMO healers always get buff and nerf in cycles if you think everything stays the same in mmos your playing the wrong type of game.

 

Raid aoe healing is going to go up with the changes they did so its not all bad with the buff they are doing to 2 out of the 3 aoes. Also healing is a team sport we not dps we heal as a team don't think that anyone is looking at the whole picture I'm pretty sure the buffs to smugglers and Ops is going to make life easier for the other healing specs.

 

It's so disheartening as an IA healer to have my best merc healer up and quit as soon as he saw the patch notes he didn't even try them. It's the same merc healer that was bragging on how much more healing he could do over me and that he had "endless heat".

 

I've always hated healer nerfs but when I see endless threads and comments of people raging over having there healing brought in line with my spec it makes me sad. If something wasn't change no one would take IA/Smugglers to Progression raids as they got harder. It's already happening now with raids calling me half a healer vs Sorcs.

 

Bioware looks at the feedback I was one of the closed Beta Ops that got us fix at one point the dps spec was out healing the medic spec(do to better regen). We all keep testing and posting feedback and got Ops/Smugglers fix.

[Blaac]

Really?

 

Really?

 

RuQu and co. have been doing nothing BUT testing in this instance so that we might all better understand what is occurring and feel informed when we decide about our subs. RuQu and co. have done more than the developers in regards to this. We know more from them than we do from GZ and his "mysterious under the hood" "voodoo you wouldn't understand" comments.

 

I was actually reading your posts and then I got to this point that made me realize you paid zero attention to the thread.

 

Alexis

*sighs*

 

Obviously you *arent* reading what I said... whatever this thread was created FOR isnt in question... I said (and stand by it) that more than 90% of the ppl complaining havent tested, yet are STILL here complaining.

 

People that HAVE tested it, and have actual data to back up what they are saying, I have nothing against. My issue is that most of the people here (which appears to include YOU) are turning this thread (like many others) into a gripefest about how terrible heals will be after 1.2.

 

They arent basing this information off the posts here, or the posts by people who have said they feel the level of healing has been brought in line to where it should be, or that it is making this somewhat difficult but still achieveable, which oddly enough was the goal. They ARE basing this off of a few posts by a few people and blowing it way out of proportion when its a patch..... IN TESTING!~!!

 

I have serious doubts about the logic of some people...

[Blaac]

1) You do realize there are players who aren't level 50, right?

2) You do realize that PTS testers report the new Ops Story mode is harder than current NMM, right?

3) You do realize that the proposed changes affect everyone, regardless of level and gear, and that therefore, logically, a gear upgrade for level 50s doesn't help them, right?

4) Finally, you do realize that you said this:

 

 

...in a thread specifically and explicitly created for the purpose of reported actually testing results and discussing both the implications and new test options...

 

I'm just making sure you are aware of all of these really obvious things, because your statements suggest that you missed them somehow.

 

You know. I wrote up a huge post explaining many things that your posts have made "obvious" in this thread, but I don't think you would bother to even read it or get angry and *not throw a tantrum* so I deleted it and I'll just sum it up for you.

 

1. Thanks for the data you have actually provided. It IS appreciated whether I agree with you or not.
   
2. Most (if not all) of your posts contain negative comments regarding BW, like where you pretty much TOLD people to unsub, yet you seem to get angry when someone defends them for some reason... even to the point of lashing out at them. Hypocrisy doesn't help your case.
   
3. Although your testing data is helpful, the problem with it is that you aren't impartial. Your constant negativity toward BW, their changes, their idea of how this game should be, other players who don't view the changes as negative, ect. puts a negativity around all of your data.
   

Based on everything I am seeing you WANT the results to be negative. You are looking for it. Hunting for the problems. I don't see much of a comparison on how the POSITIVE changes offset the long list of "here is everything I can find wrong".

 

If you stare at a masterpiece long enough wondering whats WRONG with it, you eventually lose sight of the positives behind all of the negatives. I wonder if you are bothering to try and see anything positive... and all of this combined makes your provided "data" questionable. To me that is the most "obvious" thing I see here.

[RuQu]

You know. I wrote up a huge post explaining many things that your posts have made "obvious" in this thread, but I don't think you would bother to even read it or get angry and *not throw a tantrum* so I deleted it and I'll just sum it up for you.

 

1. Thanks for the data you have actually provided. It IS appreciated whether I agree with you or not.
   
2. Most (if not all) of your posts contain negative comments regarding BW, like where you pretty much TOLD people to unsub, yet you seem to get angry when someone defends them for some reason... even to the point of lashing out at them. Hypocrisy doesn't help your case.
   
3. Although your testing data is helpful, the problem with it is that you aren't impartial. Your constant negativity toward BW, their changes, their idea of how this game should be, other players who don't view the changes as negative, ect. puts a negativity around all of your data.
   

 

1. You're welcome.
    
   
2. Defending Bioware is one thing. Visit the healer forum and you will see I've done it plenty in the past. Insulting people because they disapprove of Bioware's direction is something else. Calling it childish, claiming it is simply crying, etc is not defending Bioware, it is attacking people who are expressing concern about changes they think will negatively impact their enjoyment.
    
   
3. Within these very thread I reported on test results that indicated that there were changes to the stat curves that appeared to be client side and would have been a buff to all classes (increased surge, increased bonus healing). This is exactly the type of "positive result" you claim I would suppress, and yet the evidence is right in this thread that I would not. It since turns out that I made some mistakes in my analysis and forgot to account for a few things, and once those mistakes were corrected for the effect disappeared. You may think my disapproval of the way they approach class balance biases the results of my tests, but the fact that I have reported results that would decrease the size of the nerf, and therefore weaken any anti-nerf argument, is evidence that I am capable of reporting impartial results.
   

 

If you stare at a masterpiece long enough wondering whats WRONG with it, you eventually lose sight of the positives behind all of the negatives. I wonder if you are bothering to try and see anything positive... and all of this combined makes your provided "data" questionable. To me that is the most "obvious" thing I see here.

 

Please point out a test I have done that is inherently biased and seeking evidence of nerfs. Most of the tests are directly testing things GZ said were changed such as item budget on gear, stat curves and DR. We also tried to think of what could be meant by the vague terms of "PvP and PvE math." In fact, the tests for changes in Alacrity-regen interaction would be a buff if they had been implemented and would be no-change if they hadn't. By conducting that test, the only options were "no-change" or "positive-change." I clearly wasn't only looking for negatives, since no negative result (nerf) was possible from that test.

 

Based on everything I am seeing you WANT the results to be negative. You are looking for it. Hunting for the problems. I don't see much of a comparison on how the POSITIVE changes offset the long list of "here is everything I can find wrong".

 

There are things I really like about the patch. I'm actually really excited for the Legacy system. In fact, if you were to search my thread creation history, most of my early threads were asking for more info on Legacy. I really like the idea, and I am glad it is finally coming. I really like what I have seen about gear and UI customization. I'm looking forward to professions besides Biochem being useful. None of those positive things offset any of the nerfs to healing. I could make a post about how I am excited to create a Chiss Assassin, and then a Chiss Sentinel, and if you feel like searching you can find posts by me in Legacy threads where I talk about how I never actually RP in these games but the Legacy system is cool enough that I've started working on backstory to tie my characters together, etc. I have a lot of positive things to say on the topic of this patch, but none of that is relevant to this discussion.

 

I thought perhaps these stated "under-the-hood" changes might offset the nerfs, so I decided to look for them. So far there is no evidence that there are any such changes.

 

Perhaps my bias is blinding me to some positives I should be comparing to the current negatives. Please feel free to point any of them out, and I will certainly take them into consideration. Although, I think it is also worth pointing out that the OP only lists tests and their results. As far as I know, I have no list of negative changes, simply negative test results.

 

Please provide me this list of positive changes that offset the negatives. I am honestly eager to see it, and consider how it might balance these changes. At the very least, it should provide additional things to test.

[Wynn]

If you can only see negatives in healing from the patch notes your not looking at the whole picture.

 

IA/Smugglers are getting buff in a few places

 

BH/Troopers aoe going to hit 4 targets over 3 and the after buff of plus healing leaves looks like a nerf when it going from 5% to 4% but keep in mind that now they are adding another target that will be gaining the buff.

 

Finally something that all the comments that talking about the sky is falling when it comes to healing are not covering.

 

We can make our own UI's which will allow healers to see fight data better and allow for faster healing, also target of target should allow tanks to now know that if they really have aggro or not which should lower damage.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Wynn

[RuQu]

If you can only see negatives in healing from the patch notes your not looking at the whole picture.

 

IA/Smugglers are getting buff in a few places

 

BH/Troopers aoe going to hit 4 targets over 3 and the after buff of plus healing leaves looks like a nerf when it going from 3 to 5% but keep in mind that now they are adding another target that will be gaining the buff.

 

Finally something that all the comments that talking about the sky is falling when it comes to healing are not covering.

 

We can make our own UI's which will allow healers to see fight data better and allow for faster healing, also target of target should allow tanks to now know that if they really have aggro or not which should lower damage.

 

I currently have a test request with Lileth (Commando), Scruffy (Scoundrel), and Saerith (Sage) to look at balance after this change. It should show some of the benefit of the Op/Sc UH/TA buff, although it won't capture the benefit of the buff to RN/KC.

 

However, buffs to Operatives/Scoundrels don't really do anything to make Sages/Commandos feel better about their nerfs. They are positive changes, but they are independent. That is to say, they do nothing to offset the nerfs to Sage/Commando. My guild has 4 healers we rotate around in our 8-man group: 2 Sages and 2 Commandos. Our only Scoundrel quit over a month ago. If you want to consider a Scoundrel buff as offsetting these nerfs, then that means someone has to re-roll from a class they enjoy to another class. I would call that a negative.

 

Absolutely, I consider the UI improvements a good thing. Especially on my shadow tank so I can see who the enemy has targeted. However, as far as I have heard (only just finished patching to PTS today so haven't logged in myself yet), the new UI still lacks most of the features healers requested like the ability to tell your HoT/buff apart from another player of the same class, only display dispellable debuffs on the raid frames, independent scaling of all the little buff icons, etc.

 

Any decrease in damage due to UI is highly variable by player/group, and likely to be extremely minor. This change is about customization, not balancing healing.

 

As for Commando AoE "buff," you clearly don't play one. What Kolto Bomb needs, far more than an extra player hit, is to be a smart heal so it always heals people who need it most. Currently, Commandos "AoE heal" by popping Supercharged Cells and spamming single target heals on everyone who is hurt, starting with the most critical and working their way up. They might also toss out KB on cooldown (6s), but since you cannot rely on it to heal who needs healing, it is mostly for the DR shield (nerfed) and the healing buff (nerfed. 3%*4 people = 12%, 5%*3 people = 15%). The nerf to SCC (10% bonus reduced to 5%) and the nerf to AP/MP spam (33% increase in cost) and the nerf to KB residue (5% reduced to 3%) means that AoE healing is actually going to be harder.

 

More testing is needed to confirm that, although the numbers are pretty damning on their own even without testing.

 

1. Op/Sc buffs are certainly a good thing, but they do not offset the nerfs to Commandos/Sages. Tests are pending to compare balance, but regardless of that result Scoundrel buffs cannot be viewed as a positive to offset the negative changes to the other classes. If the balance tests find them all to be very close to each other, then we can say that, though unpopular, they did at least accomplish the goal.
   
2. I like the UI changes, I really do, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.
   
3. Commando AoE looks like it was buffed, but it almost certainly was not. More testing should confirm what looks from theory to be a pretty obvious accidental nerf.
   

 

As I said, there are many things I like about this patch, some I would even say I consider awesome.

 

None of those positives mitigate the negative changes to Sages and Commandos, with the possible exception of "improved class balance." Even if the classes do produce very similar healing numbers now, there are still some philosophical arguments against it. Those are for a different thread, however (such as the one in my signature) and not for this one which I was hoping could stick more to facts and figures and save the arguments for elsewhere.

[Ewert]

Based on everything I am seeing you WANT the results to be negative. You are looking for it. Hunting for the problems. I don't see much of a comparison on how the POSITIVE changes offset the long list of "here is everything I can find wrong".

You know that science works by trying to prove the negative, as in trying to prove your own theory false by all means possible?

 

GZ said there was under the hood positive changes that offset some of these things. To find those positives, you try to prove the negative, that is you try your darnest to prove there were no changes or negative changes. If you fail to prove there were negative changes but manage to prove there were no changes, you bust your theory of there being good changes as GZ said, thus succeeding in the scientifical examination of the issue: there were no under the hood good changes done.

 

Granted in many pseudoscience endeavours (even in the so-called scientific community) the "proving of white swans existing = there are only white swans" has gotten rampant.

[Wynn]

First the game does not have smart heals and we been asking for that since closed beta checking if they ninja added to make up the nerfs seems silly, smart heals would be a game changer for us healers and I'm sure it would have been in the notes if all 3 healers aoes got a revamp that big.

 

Also we can't see all the data the buffs they added might not be tie to your spec and could have been done through other classes or gear.

 

Q&A from Friday stated they wanted to bring the two other healers in line with IA/Smugglers and I can tell you if I can heal the harder raids as an IA it won't be the end of the world if you guys heal at are level. Even if the nerfs are so massive that no raids are clear when the patch hits they will buff healing.

 

Healing always been about two things Triage and "mana" management, I truly believe that a healer with a UI they like can heal faster and will help all 3 specs. Take Wow I use a heavy heavy modded UI, days I had to use a stock UI after that I felt like I was healing 1 handed.

 

I have a merc leveling it now and trying to get it to 50 before 1.2 so I can work on my Sorc healer after. Just like WoW and many other mmo's I've played, I'm all about being the best healer. I can tell from my level 35 Merc that the new missile should mesh better with raid teams. It buffs 4 people that should make it faster for raid teams to get the raid back up this is compounded with IA/Smugglers healing for more with there aoe and really believe its going to help. As a non Merc healer in hard mode raids I rather have 4 targets get plus to healing over 3 that just my view as an IA healer.

 

As I level my Merc I have been prepping for the nerfs and trying to heal with out using the aoe or super charge gas, I have also started to weave in the free heal in more to factor in the heat change. So far from 20s to 30s healing been fine is it harder sure but nothing we can't get over.

 

My issue isn't even with the Merc and Sorc that are posting finding from test and fighting for their class. Its the very very Vocal Minority that saw the notes or saw a post and have turn this in to end of the world/sky is falling debate.

[RuQu]

First the game does not have smart heals and we been asking for that since closed beta checking if they ninja added to make up the nerfs seems silly, smart heals would be a game changer for us healers and I'm sure it would have been in the notes if all 3 healers aoes got a revamp that big.

 

They said they changed mechanics, but gave no info. Yes, I assume smart-healing would have been in the patch notes, but since we are playing a game of "guess the hidden buff," we tested all the mechanics changes we could think to test, including smart healing. All it takes is one cast to confirm that it doesn't, it isn't as though we spent 4 hours verifying it.

 

Also we can't see all the data the buffs they added might not be tie to your spec and could have been done through other classes or gear.

 

Which is why we have repeatedly asked for clarification and more communication on what these changes might be. Trust me, I'm sure Lileth would rather not spend hours doing assorted tests on the chance we might uncover an "under-the-hood" change when we could simply test the specific changes they tell us about.

 

As for gear, as has already been said too many times, the stat curves and DR did not change except for Expertise, and the gear itself lost stats (ie was nerfed).

 

I would love to have suggestions on other possible changes we can test, but at least please respect our time by reading through what has already been done.

 

My issue isn't even with the Merc and Sorc that are posting finding from test and fighting for their class. Its the very very Vocal Minority that saw the notes or saw a post and have turn this in to end of the world/sky is falling debate.

 

If a person is happy with how their class plays now, and sees substantial changes that they think will decrease their enjoyment, that is a valid opinion and concern and they are fully within rights to express it. I'm not sure why people who approve of changes think that their opinion is the only one worthy of being voiced. There are casual players who will never see the inside of an Operation but enjoy running 4-man content. Since they will never raid, they will never be running HM FPs in full Rakata. Changes that make them less efficient (ie the FT nerf) can seriously impact them in a way that wouldn't matter to a serious raider who runs HM FPs for kicks. For that player, these changes might be far worse than for some others, and it is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for them to cry that the sky is falling because they know that based on their current skill and gear they are already resource-limited and any further resource constraints will prevent them from doing what they do today. Maybe they are terrible at their class compared to someone else, maybe they aren't, but that isn't the point. The point is that, to them, they see these changes as preventing them from succeeding tomorrow at something they succeed at and enjoy today.

 

That's all I'm going to say on the topic of balance design philosophy in this thread. If you want to continue this discussion, please reply with a link to a new topic.

 

I'd like to get this thread back on track of suggesting tests, reporting their results, and interpreting those reports.

 

• If you think the tests we have done so far have a bias, please point it out and suggest a better way to test that subject so we can get better data.
   
  
• If you think we are over-looking something, point it out.
   
  
• If you have an idea for something new to test, point it out.
   
  
• If you think our analysis is flawed (such as our previous error on the stat curves), please point it out so we can correct it.
   
  
• If you want to argue about BW's priorities, target audience, awesomeness, evilness, etc, please take it elsewhere.
  

[Wynn]

Since you only want on topic

 

Test #3 is flaw you see if its equal to a heal that was not the point of the change.

 

If you look at the other 2 healing specs both of them remove debuff and have a small heal tie to them the change of to mercs/troopers has made their cure in line with the other specs

[RuQu]

Since you only want on topic

 

Test #3 is flaw you see if its equal to a heal that was not the point of the change.

 

If you look at the other 2 healing specs both of them remove debuff and have a small heal tie to them the change of to mercs/troopers has made their cure in line with the other specs

 

I fail to see what the problem is. All that is reported is the size of the heal, which is an explicit question people have asked for an answer to. It heals for ~75% of Hammer Shot, which is an ability we use a lot and gives a sense of perspective that a pure number would not due to differences between the reader's gear and Lileth's.

 

No judgment is passed on the skill itself, merely a factual statement of how large it is (sadly imprecise since it was done in passing and wasn't a major test and I only added it from memory because someone asked. I'll try and get a better number). It's primary purpose is to cleanse debuffs. It is up to the individual to decide if such a small heal is worth the 1 skill point.

[Wynn]

You leaving out the fact that it now matches the other 2 specs is not showing the whole picture. The heal tie to it is just as crappy on my IA.

 

Also I have not seen anything in this thread about the stat gain from Legacy we know right now that we get a passive buff from our companions which are endurance, surge, healing, crit chance and defense for having max affection

Edited March 25, 2012 by Wynn

[Wynn]

forget my last half of the last post just saw it

[RuQu]

You leaving out the fact that it now matches the other 2 specs is not showing the whole picture. The heal tie to it is just as crappy on my IA.

 

Also I have not seen anything in this thread about the stat gain from Legacy we know right now that we get a passive buff from our companions which are endurance, surge, healing, crit chance and defense for having max affection

 

If you provide the data necessary for a comparison I will update that section to reflect how the Psych Aid heal compares to the IA version. Note that the tooltip is probably wrong, so you will need to cast it and then correct for any % healing buffs (ie TA, skills). List the corrected number as well as your Bonus Healing stat.

 

I will try and get a more accurate number from Lileth and put both up for comparison.