BIOWARE: PPA needs to be 4.5 seconds, not 6, and all is fair.

[Theology]

I think it's fair for all of us to say that the back-to-back RS crits had to go. So I wanted to consolidate all the info from the other 2 threads into this one thread with my findings/understanding of how we will work post 1.2.

 

Below are two diagrams that show how the Pyro rotation will work post 1.2:

 

If you look at the math at the moment:

 

Let's take FB to make it simple (I'll come to RP later). around 3 tries are required to proc. This is pre 1.2: Average proccing

 

--- --- --- --- --- ---

FB RS FB FB FB RS

 

So, at the moment, on average, you will be rail shotting every 6 seconds. (from the start of the first RS to the start of the second)

 

1.2: Average proccing (2 FB required on average)

 

!--- --- --- --- --- !--- ---

FB_RS_X_X_FB_FB_RS

 

 

As you can see, now we get to rail on average every 6 seconds, but 1.2 we will be averaging 7.5 seconds. 7.5 - 6 = 1.5 seconds. If the timer would be 4.5 seconds...

 

Still average:

 

!--- --- --- --- !--- ---

FB_RS_X_FB_FB_RS

 

Average time between Rail Shots, 6 seconds

 

And here is another way of looking at the same thing, incase the first confused you:

 

FB/RP (PROC)-6 sec timer beings-(1.5 from RP)> RS(1.5)-vent 8- > Filler(1.5) >Filler(1.5) > PPA ELIGIBLE > FB(1.5) > RP (PROC, 6 SEC TIMER) (1.5 from RP) RS(1.5)-vent 8-

 

Now, with that being said, on average, we're looking at 7.5 seconds per rail shot due to the ICD of 6 seconds on the Prototype Particle Accelerator proc.

 

Concerns from Pyrotechs about the current 6 second ICD on PPA

 

Here is a list of the few concerns i've gathered from the other threads.

 

A. Heat management

 

--With our ability to vent heat being cut in half, our rotation looks kind of scarce. The 25 heat cost on IM, and the 16 heat cost on TD will be a huge dampering on our heat pool. Keep in mind, we still have to expend 32 heat, just to be able to vent 8 heat via the PPA proc. It is likely that IM will have to be thrown out of the rotation, and that TD will have to be used sparingly, only situationally.

 

B. Proc'ing PPA when RS is not on CD

 

--Rail shot requires a person to be stunned, and/or burning for us to use it on them. With only 2 options of setting a target on fire, Flame Burst (When talented gives a 100% chance to proc CGC) and Incindiery Missile (25 heat cost for a small DoT that lasts 18 seconds) and as stated above, with the high heat cost of IM, it is likely that will not be an option, we are left only with FB. If we switch to a target mid fight, and that target is not on fire already or is not stunned, then we cannot use railshot, so naturally, we need to set them on fire with FB. The problem arises in that FB COULD proc PPA, thus wasting it and making us wait another 6 seconds for it.

 

How do we fix this from being unfair to the other specs?

 

Bioware basically has two options when it comes to balancing the heat management of the Pyro tree to the other two trees.

 

A. Reduce the ICD of PPA to 4.5 secs (instead of 6) This allows the -on average- 2 abilities to proc it within the 6 second time frame that the other two trees get to vent heat.

(This option still does not prevent point B of the above concerns from happening)

 

B. Remove the RNG and change PPA to a flat CD reducer of 9 seconds to Rail Shot. This changes the CD of Rail shot from 15 seconds, to 6 seconds, alotting us that 6 second ability to vent 8 heat.

 

Comments, thoughts, concerns? Post Below.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Theology

[SneiK]

If BW really wanted to JUST make the rail shot dmg under control, that is, to prevent people from rail shotting every 3 seconds when lucky...This can be confusing, but I'll try...

 

The problem with a timer AND an RNG, the way I see it, is that you have 2 abilities that can give the proc. One that has a CD (RP, 9seconds), and other that you need for the DoT (FB). Now, if you are lucky and proc with the first ability, you are forced to either waste the potential proc chance of the other ability, or waste it's dmg potential by delaying it (because it has a cd).

 

Statistically, you are 'lucky' as many times as you are 'unlucky'. That is, with a timer, you can be 'unlucky' and you still suffer from it, but you can't be 'lucky' and profit as the timer won't let you.

 

Now, you could always try to RP first...But then again you need a DoT to Rail...And RP won't be on every 6 seconds...

 

 

I have a suggestion to BW on how to prevent that 'lucky' burst, but not punish from it. Please think about it:

 

If Flame Burst would have 100% proc chance, and you would have 6 seconds timer. Nothing would change. Nothing. Except that you won't be either lucky nor unlucky anymore. You could RP whenever you want, and you could rail every 6 seconds (the same as you are right now, on average)

 

4.5s timer would be a compromise. You would get the same amount of rails, and there would be still a bit of 'nerf', in that you would have to think about using RP a bit more than now (Due to the combination of a timer and a cd).

 

Now, I don't know whether or not BW actually wants to nerf us or not. But I'm a bit worried about how fun a timer + RNG is...I haven't tested it yet, could be fun, could be not. But please think about it. Keep it fun.

 

 

PS: I myself preferred the unpredictability of the build and quite liked it. But it is unfair to punish from luck, while you can still be naturally punished by being unlucky.

 

About concern B: I really hope that they take a look into this (if it's not alrdy looked into), it would be absolutely ridiculous if you could waste the procs while trying to get that DoT.

 

About reducing the CD a flat 9 seconds. Not sure about this yet, gotta think about it. Good suggestions anyway.

Edited March 20, 2012 by SneiK

[Varicite]

Honestly, at this point, I think the real question is what BW's true intention was w/ the nerf.

 

Obviously culling the burst was part of it, and they MAY have thought that w/ the back-to-back PPA procs, our heat venting was too good at times (which I can agree w/).

 

I don't think they were trying to nerf our heat management, because it just makes so very little sense if you consider that we are such resource hogs. This is why I am hopeful that they will take another look at this change and adjust the numbers accordingly.

 

It is, however, entirely possible that they are assuming that lolGAJ might pick up some of the heat venting slack in a PvP environment, whereas it is easier to use a controlled (ie: slightly more heat-friendly) rotation in a PvE environment.

 

I really hope that's not the case, because GAJ is terrible and it would be ridiculous to try to depend on something even MORE RNG than PPA as an additional heat venting mechanic.

[Assaultrooper]

IMO another reason they could have gotten on with this is to balance merc/PT pyro specs.. Given what they did to Jugg rage spec, and assassin's madness it feels a logical conclusion :\

 

However an un-intelligent idea putting mercs and PTs in the same pot might be... But ive been surprised

 

GJ btw!

[Theology]

Thanks, I hope this thread helps the devs so they dont have to sift through tons of pages of junk in the other threads.

[SneiK]

If you look at the math at the moment:

 

Let's take FB to make it simple (I'll come to RP later). around 3 tries are required to proc. This is pre 1.2: Average proccing

 

--- --- --- --- --- ---

FB RS FB FB FB RS

 

So, at the moment, on average, you will be rail shotting every 6 seconds. (from the start of the first RS to the start of the second)

 

1.2: Average proccing (2 FB required on average)

 

!--- --- --- --- --- !--- ---

FB_RS_X_X_FB_FB_RS

 

 

As you can see, now we get to rail on average every 6 seconds, but 1.2 we will be averaging 7.5 seconds. 7.5 - 6 = 1.5 seconds. If the timer would be 4.5 seconds...

 

Still average:

 

!--- --- --- --- !--- ---

FB_RS_X_FB_FB_RS

 

Average time between Rail Shots, 6 seconds

 

OP, could you replace this chart with the one that is currently on top. I think it's more informative (all 3 different situations explained).

Edited March 21, 2012 by SneiK

[exphryl]

I still feel as if adding an ICD isn't a bad thing. But even 4.5 or 6, leaving it to RNG afterwards is silly. Edited March 21, 2012 by exphryl

[Humankeg]

Reducing IM to 16 heat and TD to 8 heat would easily fix any worries I have with the nerfs.

 

Going only with the internal CD being placed on RS, I think over heating will be an issue, and will force PT's to play more like mercs: a two button rotation so that we don't over heat.

[Rabbitfoot]

Yea Id say 4.5 is about fair. It does take some deep understanding and competence in the class though.

[Agooz]

First of all I would like to apologize if this is going to derail the thread from the OP. But in a way it is still the right place and time to bring it up.

 

And just to add my 2cents with regards to the OP, yes 6sec is way too long. Something closer to 4sec is more reasonable.

 

Now to me, this is like putting bandage on an open wound. I have to say, Bioware did an very bad job designing the dps trees for PTs. Can anyone tell me if either tree really has a focus or a purpose? Wouldnt it make sense if one tree was for PvE dps (sustained dps) while another was for PvP (bursts + utilities)?

 

Now at first glance it is quite obvious that the Pyro tree should have been our PvE and AP for PvP. But then you start looking past the second tier and you cant help but scratch your head and wonder what the hec were they thinking?

 

The PvP tree gets some really nice utilities and mobility but no burst? instead of burst we get a 4m dot and a concept around Flame Throwing? We get a stable heat management talent for PvP?

 

Well I dont need to explain what the pyro tree got since we're all very familiar with it. But we all know it is a little over the top for both pve and pvp.

 

Pyro should have been the tree with the FT concept and its talents. Pyro should have gotten Immolate.

 

AP should have gotten TD and the Railshot enhancements, RB should not be a dot, but more of a burst or what I would prefer, a Stun followed by a delayed burst. Add a talent where we can "Mark" a foe. Someone with a "Mark" takes 8-10% more damage from the bounty hunter.

 

This is from the holonet, under the BH class/comabt tactics: "Their legendary abilities in this arena have earned them the nickname 'Jedi Killers'"

Seriously? Do you feel the AP tree, even after 1.2 will make you a Jedi Killer? I for one think APs will be breakfast, lunch and dinner for Marauders/Sent. I know AP wont compete with dps jugg/guardians, hec even assassins/shadows will have an easy time with APs. At best AP will be a nuisance to a sorc/sage. But as good as Quell is under the AP tree, do not forget that Expertise is getting boosted, so that healer has higher mitigation and better heals (dispute the nerfs).

 

I call for a complete revamp, not just a 2sec difference on PPA.

[Theology]

While I agree, on most points, I also like to remain a realist. We all know Bioware isn't going to Revamp the trees, anytime soon atleast.

 

That being said, I think it's reasonable, as a community of PTs, that we evaluate the changes they DO plan on making. The math doesn't lie, Bioware. 4.5 seconds is the magic number for the PPA proc. but since we all know you're not going t obother changing it, atleast make it the right ICD as to not slaughter the spec.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Paralassa
content

[Thankyjack]

Honestly, at this point, I think the real question is what BW's true intention was w/ the nerf.

 

Obviously culling the burst was part of it, and they MAY have thought that w/ the back-to-back PPA procs, our heat venting was too good at times (which I can agree w/).

 

I don't think they were trying to nerf our heat management, because it just makes so very little sense if you consider that we are such resource hogs. This is why I am hopeful that they will take another look at this change and adjust the numbers accordingly.

 

It is, however, entirely possible that they are assuming that lolGAJ might pick up some of the heat venting slack in a PvP environment, whereas it is easier to use a controlled (ie: slightly more heat-friendly) rotation in a PvE environment.

 

I really hope that's not the case, because GAJ is terrible and it would be ridiculous to try to depend on something even MORE RNG than PPA as an additional heat venting mechanic.

 

This makes a lot of sense. I am not sure it was the double RS proc that was the issue as much as it was the ease of heat management. Pyro PTs seemed to have an incediblybdeep resource pool that started full and never stressed them. That is truly unlike any other class in the game (well, except Sorc, which should also see a nerf to force regen).

[eatadee]

4.5 is the right number. We know BW has read this, hopefully the do the right thing.

[Sphol]

Signed.

[Gomezie]

4.5 is the right number. We know BW has read this, hopefully the do the right thing.

 

How do you know? just out of interest.. Ive seen many an mmo community where the devs do not read the forums

[Malvantyr]

4.5 is the right number. We know BW has read this, hopefully the do the right thing.

 

The game developers do not read the forums. The people paid to moderate the forums read the forums A LOT. The only way the developers would see this, is if a moderator liked what was written and sent them an email to check it out, but with all the crying, I doubt they do.

[Noollig]

/signed

 

4.5 sec ICD removes the unreasonable burst of the back-to-back railshots crits and makes heat management practical.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Noollig

[Xsorus]

I'm going to be honest with ya, if this was Trion, I'd expect possibly a change, since they communicate with their playerbase.

 

Bioware unfortunately does not..So don't plan on any feedback or any changes to what is currently on the test server.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Xsorus

[Cryonic_Preacher]

/sign

 

4.5 seconds will rebalance the heat issue, currently heat management is horrible with 6 seconds, other option is to reduce TD to 8 heat and IM to 16 heat, because of the 6 sec they become unusable and the merc rotation (tracer missile => tm => tm) come back to us => rapid shot => rapid shot => rapid shot

Edited March 21, 2012 by Cryonic_Preacher

[MiZrYdj]

Considering Pyro PT's parsing numbers in PTS are putting them in the top 3 in DPS, 4.5 seconds will put them well above every other DPS class.

 

So in order for this to work, we need a damage nerf as well.

 

You better come up with methods of reducing our damage output if you plan on pushing this idea.

[Agooz]

Considering Pyro PT's parsing numbers in PTS are putting them in the top 3 in DPS, 4.5 seconds will put them well above every other DPS class.

 

So in order for this to work, we need a damage nerf as well.

 

You better come up with methods of reducing our damage output if you plan on pushing this idea.

 

Considering that dps doesnt win WZs, and considering that the AC completely lacks any decent utility, it stands to reason that being in the top 3 or even being #1 dps is completely reasonable. Since when are classes ONLY balanced based on their dps output? If dps ruled the WZs, why is 1 out 3 players in a WZ a Sorc/sage? If dps was the most important element in a WZ why are people pulling their hair out about the insane utilities for sorc/sages?

If Bio is strictly looking at damage output as their way to balance classes, then I already lost faith in the devs.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Agooz

[Jaigen]

/signed.

[Cryonic_Preacher]

Considering Pyro PT's parsing numbers in PTS are putting them in the top 3 in DPS, 4.5 seconds will put them well above every other DPS class.

 

So in order for this to work, we need a damage nerf as well.

 

You better come up with methods of reducing our damage output if you plan on pushing this idea.

 

problem is PvE raids, you overheat faster with 6 seconds then you think it can be true at boss fights, so damage is not the problem because it is fair, we have no survive tools, attack is our only defense !

 

pyro is the PvE spec and AP the PvP version they fix actually.

[Cryonic_Preacher]

I hope bioware read this really constructive thread and give us a feedback and don't ignore our suggestion to this overheating issue.

 

I'm looking forward to got an response from them, that they actually proof the possibillity to make a change

[TooSlo]

All I see is "wah wah wah" in these threads.

 

6 seconds on PPA is just fine. Pyro is far too powerful in PvE as-is, and it needs to be reined in more than just about any other class currently. Buffing everything else isn't the answer.