Georg Zoeller, who are you actually trying to nerf, and why?

[Kyntari]

The question may strike some as a bit odd, and unnecessary, given that the 1.2 changes are out there for all to see, and presumably the intent of the devs can be derived from the changes themselves.

 

However, I feel that it really needs to be asked (and answered) because of some of the things I've read on here from BioWare. Let me remind you of what I consider the 'highlights':

 

Let me also say that there's significant under the hood changes to stats, diminishing returns, itemization stat budget, a new tier of gear with different stats and more diverse mods, changes to PvE and PvP math, etc.

 

That means that it is not possible to assess impact of class changes in regards to power gain or loss from the patch notes alone, people will have to go on PTS and actually play to get the full picture.

 

Which we highly encourage you to do!

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=3469423#post3469423

 

OK, I get that you changed a lot of stuff -- including core game mechanics -- and it's hard to quantify the result. But you left out one thing: what were you actually trying to accomplish, and why? Surely you know the answer to this question. Why won't you share it with us?

 

Is it really your intent that (as one example) healing Mercs will be less powerful healers once 1.2 hits live? If so, why is this? What data led you to this conclusion? When you tested it internally, what results did you see?

 

Similarly, for concealment Ops, a class/spec which is no stranger to the nerf bat at this point, and widely regarded (rightly or wrongly) as having been over-nerfed in 1.1.1. Is it really your intent that this AC/spec will deal less damage come 1.2? Why?

 

Here's another one of my favorites:

We have some changes coming for all classes. Enough that we're granting everyone a free respec. What constitutes a nerf and what is a buff is in the eye of the beholder.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=3274813#post3274813

 

Looking at the list of changes to healing Mercs, can you honestly say that this list (in its totality) does not constitute a nerf? I've seen Mercs saying this nerf is 'not that bad', but I have yet to find one that actually thinks it is a buff, with data to back it up. Do you really believe this is 'in the eye of the beholder'? Did you set out to make Mercs different in 1.2, but just as powerful? It's hard to believe you intended anything other than a solid nerf.

 

And another:

Uh no. I did not state in that interview that we use aggregate damage/wz statistics to guide our class balance efforts.

 

Damage statistics in Warzones would be a rather crude tool to build class balance on.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=3401275#post3401275

 

Prime opportunity to expand on how exactly you do approach class balance. Why did you not take it? The silence here speaks louder than the words themselves.

 

The most specific thing I've heard on this topic to date was Gabe's interview around 1.1.1 time when he referred to some magic formula that you guys use to balance abilities. This did not inspire confidence.

 

TL;DR: Show your work. Tell us what you were going for, why, and how you got there. Right now we have very little to go on, we're left to speculate how these decisions are reached (especially when an overwhelming majority of players cannot play a level 50 on PTS). End result: it doesn't look good.

[Ich_Bin]

Your question is valid but the answer is actually very simple and quite sad. Read this statement by Greg Zoeller:

If we leave the Operative the ability to stun lock and kill people — yes, there aren’t many Operatives — but over the long term, that means people will quit the game cause it’s not fun. We have very measurable statistics that tell us if people lose a certain number of Warzones in a row being stun locked by a team of Operatives, then that might be part of that, and they will be not as likely to re-subscribe.

 

 

Bottom line: Sacrifice game balance in order to keep customers from unsubbing. The game is being designed for casual gamers, not for competitive pvp.

[Vikassi]

Your question is valid but the answer is actually very simple and quite sad. Read this statement by Greg Zoeller:

 

 

Bottom line: Sacrifice game balance in order to keep customers from unsubbing. The game is being designed for casual gamers, not for competitive pvp.[/

Edited March 21, 2012 by Vikassi

[TheLakers]

So you're going to put in rated warzones and then not balance classes for PvP? Totally makes sense Georg!

 

Balancing them around PvE is even funnier. As of 1.2, you can solo quest for top tier raid gear without ever setting foot in an operation. Just another thing stealthers will be at a massive advantage with.

[Anbokr]

Pretty sure rogues were stunlocking gods in WoW for 6-7 years and I doubt that really killed their subscription base. Operatives minus the hidden strike bug are completely fine on live, especially with the free champion gear given out in 1.2.

[Niconogood]

Originally Posted by GeorgZoeller

Let me also say that there's significant under the hood changes to stats, diminishing returns, itemization stat budget, a new tier of gear with different stats and more diverse mods, changes to PvE and PvP math, etc.

 

That means that it is not possible to assess impact of class changes in regards to power gain or loss from the patch notes alone, people will have to go on PTS and actually play to get the full picture.

 

Which we highly encourage you to do!

If this is the excuse, why didnt all classes get a nerf to pertain them in line with these changes?

 

The already allpowerful Sentinels got a buff while weaksauce dps operatives and especially commando/mercs got nerfed into the ground. How can changes to stats be the reason behind this? This guy is so full of ********.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Niconogood

[AKfourtyseven]

TL;DR: Show your work. Tell us what you were going for, why, and how you got there. Right now we have very little to go on, we're left to speculate how these decisions are reached (especially when an overwhelming majority of players cannot play a level 50 on PTS). End result: it doesn't look good.

 

Talk to the community?

 

I've been waiting 3 months for them to open a serious dialogue with us. The fact we dont even have proper servers to facilitate sucha dialogue or class representativeness to directly bring issues to the dev team is a disgrace.

 

It honestly feels like this game is run by the Bioware B-team.

[Puppup]

It may come as a surprise to you kids/students/unemployed but a business is run for a PROFIT.

 

Sorry if your little hearts are broken by any coming changes, but this is a business first and foremost.

 

So if more people will stay subbed vs losing your puny 15 bucks consider it fait accompli.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Puppup

[Sir-Coffee]

It may come as a surprise to you kids/students/unemployed but a business is run for a PROFIT.

 

Sorry if your little hearts are broken by any coming changes, but this is a business first and foremost.

 

So if more people will stay subbed vs losing your puny 15 bucks consider it fait accompli.

 

Failure at balancing isn't good for business in the long run.

[Puppup]

Letting the inmates run the asylum is always bad for business. Especially one's who have not learned to shave or drive. Edited March 21, 2012 by Puppup

[Howbadisbad]

Your question is valid but the answer is actually very simple and quite sad. Read this statement by Greg Zoeller:

 

If we leave the Operative the ability to stun lock and kill people — yes, there aren’t many Operatives — but over the long term, that means people will quit the game cause it’s not fun. We have very measurable statistics that tell us if people lose a certain number of Warzones in a row being stun locked by a team of Operatives, then that might be part of that, and they will be not as likely to re-subscribe.

 

Bottom line: Sacrifice game balance in order to keep customers from unsubbing. The game is being designed for casual gamers, not for competitive pvp.

 

This.

[Agemnon]

Pretty sure rogues were stunlocking gods in WoW for 6-7 years and I doubt that really killed their subscription base. Operatives minus the hidden strike bug are completely fine on live, especially with the free champion gear given out in 1.2.

 

I'll also add that rogues contributed to a lot of the fun.

[Enkenon]

Your question is valid but the answer is actually very simple and quite sad. Read this statement by Greg Zoeller:

 

 

Bottom line: Sacrifice game balance in order to keep customers from unsubbing. The game is being designed for casual gamers, not for competitive pvp.

 

what competition is there against a class that can kill even a tank with a few blows and can repeatedly stun you?

[Meanerr]

1.2 is not even live yet and people complain about balance issues.

 

Rated WZs haven't even had a season yet, let alone a pre-season and people complain about balance.

 

Just play the dam-n game and let time sort the stats out!

[Howbadisbad]

what competition is there against a class that can kill even a tank with a few blows and can repeatedly stun you?

 

I don't know, what is this magical class? It doesn't exist in SWTOR...

 

1.2 is not even live yet and people complain about balance issues.

 

Rated WZs haven't even had a season yet, let alone a pre-season and people complain about balance.

 

Just play the dam-n game and let time sort the stats out!

 

All patches have gone live from PTS with zero changes, so it is safe to assume these will follow suit.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Howbadisbad

[Akiva_IC]

After his snarky comments last week, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't letting him interact on the forums.

 

Hope your stuff gets answered. Not holding my breath.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Akiva_IC

[Robogoofers]

I think these are valid questions, and a lot of the hand-wringing that's going on is because we have no ability to play with the new changes. Also, a lot of things are getting overhauled, but we don't know why. Also I'd like to argue with the notion that people who unsubscribe are the targetted customer base. Really, once they left, who cares what they think? The people who are subscribing are the current customer base. If the game is being balanced based on data about accounts immediately before they unsubscribe, I think that's a very poor metric.

 

Sure, someone may have unsubscribed after losing 15 warzones in a row, and of those warzones 13 of them contained operatives. I think that's a very poor reason to nerf operatives.

 

In short, OP I applaud the questions you are asking and hope for some kind of response. What is the endgoal? We'd like to know.

[Antipodes]

High damage in a stun opener is a bad mechanic even if it ends up balanced in the long run. PvP should never be about doing a set damage rotation while the other player is unable to react to it.

 

So while I agree with the pre-1.2 nerfs to scoundrels, I also think they should have gotten something back in return. As cool as having a ranged attack and heals is, the class just doesn't have the finesse that a WoW rogue does.

[Caelrie]

I think you guys have gotten it figured out pretty well. The nerfs to operatives don't really have anything to do with balancing operatives, or making PvP competitive. They're more about making sure nobody ragequits over being ganked by a stealther.