1.2 Healer Change Q&A Response and Feedback

[RuQu]

The healer nerfs were addressed in this week's Q&A. The relevant section is in the Spoiler tags.

 

 

Niktika: Can you please explain some of the reasoning behind the healing nerfs? It almost seems like every healer is up in arms regardless of their class.

 

Georg: Sometimes it's hard to hear this, but the change to healers you're referring to was, quite simply, a result of them being too good. When one healer is close to target performance and the others aren't, it's natural to think that the logical course is to buff the underperformer and leave the over-performers alone. I want to dispel that notion and explain why it isn't always possible.

 

All specs for all roles have a target performance. This is what drives the balance of the game: soloing, Heroics, PvP, Flashpoints, Operations... everything. When those targets aren't hit, we can't just ‘bring everyone up’ to the highest performer without negatively impacting the balance of the game and creating unsustainable inflation in our combat system. Frankly, it's also a lot more work to change all end game content in the game to compensate for an over-performing role than to bring the role back in line. The hard but simple truth is that Sorcerers and Sages had better Force management than we intended (e.g. a well-played Sage was almost incapable of running out of Force) and Mercenaries and Commandos were significantly over target in their healing performance.

 

After considerable testing, we're more confident than ever that all healing roles are both closer to target performance and closer to one another than ever before, leading to a much tighter balance on end game content. The community will be able to confirm this using the new combat logging feature in Game Update 1.2.

 

I know trying to ‘sell’ a downwards adjustment (AKA nerf) to anyone affected is like selling the need for a tax increase to people. When you are on the receiving end of it, you're not going to be happy about it. It may appear massive to you, even if the overall impact is limited. You likely won't care that it's 'for the greater good of the game' and, if you decide to disagree with our action, there's little we can do to sway you.

 

Based on the feedback brought to us so far from testers playing on PTS along with metrics and combat logs gathered from our guild testers, we are going to make additional adjustments before Game Update 1.2 is promoted to the live servers. For example, we reopened the internal debate about having an in-combat resurrect ability for Mercenaries/Commandos based on PTS feedback regarding the new Operations, in light of the higher utility value this ability brings to the table in 1.2. We're listening to your feedback, too, and rebalancing some of the changes made to healing based on data gathered from PTS. Look out for a future update to PTS for more details.

 

 

First, let me say thank you to GZ for addressing the issue. It really should have been discussed in a blog post when the notes were released. That would have calmed a large part of this storm. Now that this much is settled, I will gladly remove my boycott, signature, although I will not be renewing my subscription until I have reason to have confidence in the direction of these game again. Increased communication will certainly help with that.

 

I'd like to provide feedback on some of what was said.

 

Georg: Sometimes it's hard to hear this, but the change to healers you're referring to was, quite simply, a result of them being too good. When one healer is close to target performance and the others aren't, it's natural to think that the logical course is to buff the underperformer and leave the over-performers alone. I want to dispel that notion and explain why it isn't always possible.

 

Over- and under-performance are very general terms. We don't have combat logs from current content, so it is impossible for us to make any specific comments with hard data. If we were only over-performing in end-game, that is does not necessarily require any specific re-tuning. You are releasing a new tier of content. Buff Scoundrels up, tune the new content for the higher performance level, and leave the current content alone. Will the current content be easier than originally intended? Yes, but it is last-tier content. More than that, it is entry level content. If it is easier than intended, that is not exactly a bad thing for a way to ease players into raiding.

 

All specs for all roles have a target performance. This is what drives the balance of the game: soloing, Heroics, PvP, Flashpoints, Operations... everything. When those targets aren't hit, we can't just ‘bring everyone up’ to the highest performer without negatively impacting the balance of the game and creating unsustainable inflation in our combat system. Frankly, it's also a lot more work to change all end game content in the game to compensate for an over-performing role than to bring the role back in line. The hard but simple truth is that Sorcerers and Sages had better Force management than we intended (e.g. a well-played Sage was almost incapable of running out of Force) and Mercenaries and Commandos were significantly over target in their healing performance.

 

I like data. I wish you would show us your data. That said, data doesn't cover everything. It also matters how a character "feels" to players. I've talked to a lot of healers, and a lot of Combat Medics, and, in PvE at least, it was very rare to hear of one who felt over-powered. They exist, I can think of a few, but they were certainly the minority. Far more felt fine on their own, but weak when they compared themselves to Sages. Apparently this isn't reflected in your performance metrics, but it is how the players felt.

 

When a player feels under-powered, despite what your metrics show, and they hear about changes coming, they expect those changes to be a buff. When they instead get nerfed, this comes as quite a shock and leads to more outrage than a standard nerf because it feels unwarranted.

 

In this case I would say you should either 1) release the performance data, or 2) hold off on these changes until we have a solid base of combat logs and the community can see this performance difference for themselves.

 

After considerable testing, we're more confident than ever that all healing roles are both closer to target performance and closer to one another than ever before, leading to a much tighter balance on end game content. The community will be able to confirm this using the new combat logging feature in Game Update 1.2.

 

I have a test request pending with some PTS copied healers that is directed at exactly this question. I will update once I get the logs from them.

 

I know trying to ‘sell’ a downwards adjustment (AKA nerf) to anyone affected is like selling the need for a tax increase to people. When you are on the receiving end of it, you're not going to be happy about it. It may appear massive to you, even if the overall impact is limited. You likely won't care that it's 'for the greater good of the game' and, if you decide to disagree with our action, there's little we can do to sway you.

 

Communication would help. It won't sway everyone, but it will go a long way with a lot of us. We have been asking since Early Access (and I'm sure beta for those who were in it) for the design intentions for the healers and their classes. You say you have targets for all of these things. What are those targets? What does the data show? Give us that info. If it supports your decision, as you clearly think it does, the rational among us will have no choice but to agree. It also lets us debate if we think the targets are reasonable, valid, fair, over-tuned, etc, which is valuable feedback you should be open to. Transparency is good.

 

Based on the feedback brought to us so far from testers playing on PTS along with metrics and combat logs gathered from our guild testers, we are going to make additional adjustments before Game Update 1.2 is promoted to the live servers. For example, we reopened the internal debate about having an in-combat resurrect ability for Mercenaries/Commandos based on PTS feedback regarding the new Operations, in light of the higher utility value this ability brings to the table in 1.2. We're listening to your feedback, too, and rebalancing some of the changes made to healing based on data gathered from PTS. Look out for a future update to PTS for more details.

 

Listening is good, and I look forward to the updated patch notes.

 

While you are considering re-balancing, allow me to make some suggestions for ways I think better approach some of these nerfs. (I will update try and update this section based on additional posts).

 

Sages:

If Noble Sacrifice was returning too much Force, make Resplendence remove the penalties but at the cost of reducing the Force returned by X%. The current change puts them at a PvP disadvantage by hurting themselves to heal, and in PvE costs them an extra GCD and, assuming they use Rejuv because it is their fastest efficient heal and is therefore less time off the tank, it also uses an ability with a cooldown. That's a fairly punishing way to reduce the effective Force returned.

 

If a 1.5s Deliverance was too much burst, allow Conveyance to make Benevolence instant. 2.5s heals are nearly impossible to cast in PvP, and Benevolence is too weak for the cost to make up for the ~50% PvP success rate for a 1.5s cast time heal.

 

Commandos:

Revert the heat changes. They are extremely punishing on new Commandos. Instead, adjust how Commandos scale. Currently Underworld Medicine (Scoundrel) and Medical Probe (Commando) heal for exactly the same, and for the same % resource cost. AP/MP combos cost the same as UWM/EMP, but AP is far stronger than EMP. Instead of punishing leveling and entry raiding Commandos, slow how fast we scale by decreasing the coefficients on Adv Probe and Preventative Medicine. These are also easier to re-tune if you feel you went too far or not far enough, or find they are over- or under-performing relative to other classes at later levels of content.

 

Restore SCC functionality. The meaningful choices during this short uptime were what made healing on a Commando interesting and the ability to use it well separated a decent Commando from a great one. Nerfing this ability decreases the reward for skill. If the Kolto Bomb DR shield was problematic with more than one Commando, make it so that a person can only benefit from one, and the second one cast merely refreshes the duration.

 

Weaken base heals, buff SCC. SCC is the defining ability of the Commando/Merc healing style. Using it well rewards skill, and differentiates players. Nerfing it simplifies the class and increases homogenization between classes. SCC has a max of 40% uptime (10s duration, 15 to rebuild 30 CSC charges). Instead of nerfing SCC by 5%, nerf the main heals by ~8% and buff SCC to a 15% bonus. Adjust those numbers as necessary to hit the right benchmarks, but keep the style intact.

 

Scoundrels:

Please rethink the choice to not make them more interesting. There are a ton of suggestions, some better than others, in the Healer Request thread.

 

General Suggestion:

Instead of nerfing healing on all difficulties, retune the Nightmare Mode content.

 

General Suggestion:

If resource management is a problem, adjust boss HP and enrage timers so that healers need to do ~25% of the DPS that a dedicated DPS player does in order to make the timer. This would require more ability usage, decrease downtime, and, most importantly, reward skillful play and make for more interesting healer gameplay than just whack-a-mole.

Edited March 26, 2012 by RuQu

[SkuzBukit]

Reasoned post.

 

GZ will have to forgive me if I take his words with a fistful of salt I certainly did not feel I was a superpowered healer nor do I personally know any Merc that felt they were, we all struggled on some group content even with lots of Rakata gear, Ops yes we probably single-target (Tank) healed very well, when it comes to healing multiple targets we fell flat on our faces heat works against us managing splash damage over the raid.

 

I've unsubbed & given my reasons, the healer nerfs being only a small part of a large list I gave of why I am unhappy with the development so far. I'll be keeping a close eye on further changes but I seriously am expecting even further nerfs right now, and a second kick in the balls is a good finisher move.

[SpaniardInfinity]

Yup, like I posted in the similar thread on these forums, I'm glad to see that they have given us the rationale behind the changes. It is still debatable, but it will cut down on speculation alot and now we actually know where to start and if the changes accomplish their intended effects. Also, I want to applaud Bioware (specifically GZ) for taking the time to answer this question without dodging it or ignoring it. Thank you.

 

Based on the feedback brought to us so far from testers playing on PTS along with metrics and combat logs gathered from our guild testers, we are going to make additional adjustments before Game Update 1.2 is promoted to the live servers. For example, we reopened the internal debate about having an in-combat resurrect ability for Mercenaries/Commandos based on PTS feedback regarding the new Operations, in light of the higher utility value this ability brings to the table in 1.2. We're listening to your feedback, too, and rebalancing some of the changes made to healing based on data gathered from PTS. Look out for a future update to PTS for more details.

 

This right here is probably the best part of the entire post, in my opinion. I am happy to see that an in-combat revive for Commando/Merc is being reconsidered, sooner rather than later. Together with the changes to Field Aid (a small heal and a cleanse), this will be a welcome additional to our toolset and should achieve your goal of bringing the healers into balance with one another. I hope to see the feature in 1.2 - even in a placeholder state - but would be more than satisfied to know that the feature is in the works for a future update.

 

Also, I look forward to seeing what those "rebalances" are in the forthcoming update to the PTS. Hopefully we'll see them sometime this weekend.

[Aaoogaa]

I seem to remember a post by GZ about how 1.2 would bring CMs increased AOE healing. He didn't mention the rest of the class was going to get ripped. I would not accept anything he posts as even close to what is coming in the future...until after the notes are out.

[Menisong]

I seem to remember a post by GZ about how 1.2 would bring CMs increased AOE healing. He didn't mention the rest of the class was going to get ripped. I would not accept anything he posts as even close to what is coming in the future...until after the notes are out.

 

Is anyone really surprised by what GZ said? This was the standard answer I expected. They think the nerfs are better for the game...duh. So yeah, Im with you, nothing was said that that changed my point of view.

[Niktika]

Can you please explain some of the reasoning behind the healing nerfs?

 

It almost seems like every healer is up in arms reguardless of class. The sorc healer changes, while easier to adapt to in PvE, are going to make a pure sorc healing useless in PvP. I can not stress this enough.

 

I am all for revisiting the cost of force for both heals, but the changes to pure sorc healers in PvP are pretty much a complete disaster.

 

I would just like to point out that the above was what I posted in the Q&A. While he answered the general question I made, my last statement is what I wanted him to explain about the healing. I do agree that there needed to be changes on force cost for both heal and dps sorcs, that wasn't the issue in my eyes. The issue is that they didn't just do that. I think the changes will be fine in PvE. I have actually been testing them on the test server. But the fact of the matter is, all the other changes they made (minus the base changes to force), make it almost impossible to heal and survive if you are facing anyone that has half a brain.

 

On the test server in PvP I can control my force if I pay attention, yes it is harder, but we needed it. But they took away what makes us able to survive in pvp healing as a light armor wearing class. In the time it takes me to juke an interrupt and then have to hard cast the heal again, (against a good player,) I will die. We are squishy and our health just get's eaten up with all the hard casts. I'm looking at this as someone who is planning to spend most of their time doing rateds, not run around with pugs.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Niktika

[RuQu]

I would just like to point out that the above was what I posted in the Q&A. While he answered the general question I made, my last statement is what I wanted him to explain about the healing. I do agree that there needed to be changes on force cost for both heal and dps sorcs, that wasn't the issue in my eyes. The issue is that they didn't just do that. I think the changes will be fine in PvE. I have actually been testing them on the test server. But the fact of the matter is, all the other changes they made (minus the base changes to force), make it almost impossible to heal and survive if you are facing anyone that has half a brain.

 

On the test server in PvP I can control my force if I pay attention, yes it is harder, but we needed it. But they took away what makes us able to survive in pvp healing as a light armor wearing class. In the time it takes me to juke an interrupt and then have to hard cast the heal again, (against a good player,) I will die. We are squishy and our health just get's eaten up with all the hard casts. I'm looking at this as someone who is planning to spend most of their time doing rateds, not run around with pugs.

 

Agreed. I don't play a Sage. I found it far too boring after years as a WoW alt-addict. It was a a bit too much like a Mage or Priest (depending on spec) from 2008.

 

Despite not playing one, I can tell at a glance that the change to Deliverance on Conveyance is going to make you very vulnerable in PvP. If you can't reliably land a heal, you need it to land big when it lands. Benevolence won't do that, even with a high crit rate. A full length Deliverance will almost never land.

 

Note that I do not play a Sage, and my Inquisitor will be an Assassin since I love my Shadow and dislike my 33 Sage alt. Even as a player who will never have one, I think that if they want to reduce the burst throughput of a 1.5s Deliverance and stick to this Conveyance change, then Conveyance needs to either make Benevolence instant, or make Benevolence immune to interrupt (like the tank Shadow TT), in addition to the crit chance buff. It wouldn't always be instant, since Rejuv has a cooldown, so it is already fairly self-limited. Making it immune to interrupt would still allow displacement interruption, such as knockbacks, so would allow some continued counter from a skilled PvPer.

 

To be fair, they haven't told us what these performance benchmarks are, and they haven't shown us the data they are working with. With what information I do have, it looks like they have gone about accomplishing some of these changes in the worst ways possible, failing to consider lots of obvious things like impact on new players, leveling characters, ease of PvP interrupts, etc. Perhaps if I knew everything they know, I'd think differently. On the other hand, perhaps they might want to consider some of the alternate suggestions from the community when they relook at balance as GZ said they would.

[Niktika]

To be fair, they haven't told us what these performance benchmarks are, and they haven't shown us the data they are working with. With what information I do have, it looks like they have gone about accomplishing some of these changes in the worst ways possible, failing to consider lots of obvious things like impact on new players, leveling characters, ease of PvP interrupts, etc. Perhaps if I knew everything they know, I'd think differently. On the other hand, perhaps they might want to consider some of the alternate suggestions from the community when they relook at balance as GZ said they would.

 

And I agree with you completely here. But, from my perspective at least, they are just looking at the pure numbers at the end of say a boss fight, or a pug wz, or an ops. And the changes will look fine from that end, especially if your testers are good and testing end game raid content. However, I really consider this a huge overnerf that will drastically effect PvP healing because they kind of gutted anything that made sorc survivable in PvP and I don't think that they actually looked at it from that perspective.

 

Anyhow, it's nice to see such a well thought out thread on these changes and no just general crying with no understanding really what they are crying about. Ha.

[RuQu]

And I agree with you completely here. But, from my perspective at least, they are just looking at the pure numbers at the end of say a boss fight, or a pug wz, or an ops. And the changes will look fine from that end, especially if your testers are good and testing end game raid content. However, I really consider this a huge overnerf that will drastically effect PvP healing because they kind of gutted anything that made sorc survivable in PvP and I don't think that they actually looked at it from that perspective.

 

Anyhow, it's nice to see such a well thought out thread on these changes and no just general crying with no understanding really what they are crying about. Ha.

 

You should spend some more time here on the Healer forum. We try and keep it rational, knowledgeable, helpful, and constructive. We like to think your complaints carry more weight if they are coming from a place of established competence and reasonableness. I'm not sure if that's true from BW's standpoint, but I like to think that being reasonable, competent, and constructive helps.

 

Many people agree with you that they largely balance via numbers. They love their metrics (I'm a number fan myself), but there are some things that you have to actually play the class to know and that numbers alone won't show.

[Endusima]

Anyhow, it's nice to see such a well thought out thread on these changes and no just general crying with no understanding really what they are crying about. Ha.

 

 

This is the healing forum, not the PvP forum. We stick together and try to help eachother. Some dude created a thread where he gloated over sorc nerfs and he got shot down by everyone in a matter of minutes. When operatives was the worst healer all the healing classes pushed for operative buffs. Now that mercs got hit by the bat you can expect the same support happening to them.

 

I'd like to see Maras creating threads where they wish for dps buffs to other classes, that would be the day..

[bobudo]

First things first, whatever Community Rep reads through our threads, tell Georg thank you for hearing the message about the tone of his posts; is answer this week "sounded" much more "I'm talking with you" than "I'm talking down at you", and it makes a huge difference.

 

On to the meat!!

Sometimes it's hard to hear this, but the change to healers you're referring to was, quite simply, a result of them being too good. When one healer is close to target performance and the others aren't, it's natural to think that the logical course is to buff the underperformer and leave the over-performers alone.

 

I'm of two minds here. I'm in full agreement with the core message: "Sometimes "nerfs" are necessary" (and no, that reason is never because of PvP whiners).

 

However that statement feels off in this context; I feel as if your benchmarks in this respect must be artificially low in order for Merc/Comm healing to be considered "above target".

 

After considerable testing, we're more confident than ever that all healing roles are both closer to target performance and closer to one another than ever before, leading to a much tighter balance on end game content.

 

RuQu already touched on how helpful transparency would be for you in this situation (if not all situations), so I'll aim in a different direction.

 

I agree with your general message regarding combat inflation, but by your own statements, you're balancing healing in TOR to the lowest common denominator, and I'm frankly baffled as to why.

 

Take Tech-Healers as an example: It's very clear that you want both Merc/Comm and Op/Sc healers using their "basic" healing ability (Hammershots/Diagnostic Scan etc.) more regularly. Why? This makes very little sense from a design standpoint as these abilities can only be used when healing isn't currently needed.

 

The only sense I can make of it is that it's a DPS player's approach to healing, insofar as DPS will typically use their free "auto-attack" ability as filler to let resource regen run.

 

But it's poor healing design. Where a DPS can rest on his laurels for 2-3 GCDs, in all but the very best groups (both gear and skill) a healer is unlikely to have that luxury.

 

You likely won't care that it's 'for the greater good of the game' and, if you decide to disagree with our action, there's little we can do to sway you.

 

Dammit, you'd been doing so good at not being condescending. SO CLOSE.

 

So lets iron this out right here: Every sentence I've written on these forums (save the 20 or so where I've been actively trolling) has been for the good of the game.

 

Every single recommendation. Every discussion. Every disagreement.

 

I want nothing more than to see this game succeed. And while you've got a lot of "catch-up" work cut out for you, I think 1.2 shows that you're almost up to the task.

 

But honestly, and I say this for the good of the game, you have got to do something different with healing.

 

I don't know who dreamed up the current system, but it is flawed, deeply so, in it's simplicity and low potency; the person currently running the show on healing needs to take a backseat (if that's you, sorry, but you're evidently not a healer). The person driving the healing system in the game needs to be a healer; someone who understand our motivations and needs.

 

See, the enjoyment factor for a healer is very binary: Fun when we can keep people alive, not fun when we cannot.

 

That's why fun healing classes in other MMOs (and the Sorcerer/Sage to a lesser extent) have a diverse set of tools and mechanics to work with; the skill of the player is in knowing what to use and when.

 

But your system - especially with the 1.2 changes - doesn't do this. Your system doesn't ask healers to make any choices; your design for healing has us watching bars and deciding whether or not to dump our resources or keep hitting the same 3 - 4 buttons in a row over and over.

 

Op/Sc healers were already strictly in the 3 button healing boat before hand, but by increasing the resource penalty on the other classes, you've now made healing an exceptionally boring task. No amount of encounter mechanics is going to change that.

 

TL;DR It's good that you're demonstrating that you are hearing the outcry, but it's time to step up to the plate and do something more imaginative with healing.

 

Also:

This is the healing forum, not the PvP forum. We stick together and try to help eachother. Some dude created a thread where he gloated over sorc nerfs and he got shot down by everyone in a matter of minutes. When operatives was the worst healer all the healing classes pushed for operative buffs. Now that mercs got hit by the bat you can expect the same support happening to them.

 

I'd like to see Maras creating threads where they wish for dps buffs to other classes, that would be the day..

 

QFT. We stand united. This makes my day.

[sang]

I have a test request pending with some PTS copied healers that is directed at exactly this question. I will update once I get the logs from them.

 

I absolutely can't wait to see the results of this. My guess is there will be slight variations with gear and player skill, but I hope your tests are done in a way the results are as un-skewed and accurate as possible.

[RuQu]

I absolutely can't wait to see the results of this. My guess is there will be slight variations with gear and player skill, but I hope your tests are done in a way the results are as un-skewed and accurate as possible.

 

The three are in the same guild that got copied and report similar skill levels. Not much we can do for skill normalization, and, honestly, the tests are fairly skill neutral as I am measuring max burst and max sustained rotations.

 

As for gear, they run the same content together, so their gear is roughly comparable in that regard. From what I understand, all are nearly full Rakata and any variation and modification is due to them optimizing their gear based on their experience, preference, and the best knowledge available from models made with no logs for a guild that has cleared all NMM content.

 

I will, at the very least, get an average item level for each of them to verify that they are at near parity. I'll send that update email now. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Musezy]

However that statement feels off in this context; I feel as if your benchmarks in this respect must be artificially low in order for Merc/Comm healing to be considered "above target".

 

Bingo! I was thinking the EXACT same thing.

 

I'm a CM and I'm valor rank 57 (I just dinged 50 this week and am currently wearing a mix of centurion and champion gear). Through my journey to level 50, I never once felt OP'd. For every warzone where I felt like I held my own and did well about (200K - 250K heals)... there was another warzone where I got my arse handed to me repeatedly and was lucky if I pulled in 100k heals. On a rare occasion, I could pull in 350K-400K but that was extremely rare and it usually meant I was the only healer and we were playing against an unorganized team.

 

Now that I'm in the lvl 50 bracket of PvP, I'm consistently out-healed by Sages. In fact, every warzone I was in tonight, I was out-healed by a sage. Usually, by about 100K+ more than me. In one of the matches I was in, there was a sage that healed for over 600K! That just blew my mind. It was the highest healing number I've seen yet. My own record is 400K. But keep in mind... that is my record... not anywhere close to my average.

 

I consider myself to be a decent player. I may not be the best but I think I do well consistently. I get enough players voting for me and sending me tells to thank me for the great heals, that I think I do okay. But it really makes me wonder where BW's benchmarks are set for healers when I see comments like:

 

...Commandos were significantly over target in their healing performance.

 

Really? Because I didn't feel "significantly over target" in Void Star last night when I died 9+ times in one match, spent most of the time in the time-out box, stun-locked (by an Operative that wouldn't leave me alone for 2 minutes) or being electrocuted from 3 different directions at once, and then we lost miserably 0 to 6. I think I got like 68K heals total and seriously thought about respec-ing to dps. Yeah, I wasn't feeling so "significantly over target" in my healing performance then. And knowing that my class is going to get whacked by the nerf bat in the very near future certainly didn't help matters.

 

LOL! If I'm considered to be "significantly over target" then I guess that should put Sages in the "god-mode" category.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Musezy

[XtremJedi]

It's nice to have had some communication on the issue, but for me it rather misses the point.

 

Everybody knew that Sage/Sorc were going to get nerfed. Everybody knew that we would see a 'down-ward adjustment' in our healing power. And pretty much everybody expected that we would have to manage our force a great deal more. Some of us were even looking forward to such changes, as making the class more challenging and making player skill a more important factor.

 

The issue isn't that we were nerfed... the issue is how we were nerfed.

 

Healing Output

I'm sure that if you look at healing output metrics we're now closer to BW's targets and closer to the other healers. But our game-play really didn't have to be adjusted down to make that happen; For example, a really simple across the board drop in the numbers on heals/bubbles would have retained the same game-play and mechanics and could have matched the target. Not that I would recommend that approach.. but it demonstrates that there are many changes you can make to affect the healing output of a class.... the question is which do you choose?

 

By all accounts, 1.2 Sage/Sorc healing is slower, less able to heal across more than one target, using cast and cancel on big heals (a tactic I despise), fewer GCDs available, less flexible and responsive.... just plain less fun. It really didn't have to be that way. There were a great many ways that the Sage/Sorc could have been nerfed in healing output - while at the same time even

increasing

the fun of playing them.

 

Force Management

With regard to force management the same is true. I think that a lot of players were quite looking forward to having to manage their force more closely. I know that I was - but it's a question of

how

that is done. I asked this question in

this thread on that question

and came up with some design guidelines. Broadly speaking, you need:

 

1) a rotation at medium healing power that is broadly force neutral (or just a small negative, that gives a slow steady overall drain)

 

2) you need the ability to heal at high power for a period of time which should be a massive drain on force. The limiter should be the size of your force pool - not the speed of your heals.

 

3) you need a long duration large force regain ability on a longer cool-down, so that you can recover from occasional bursts - but the CD restricts how often you're able to do that.

 

Somebody pointed out to me that this is essentially what resource management for the other healers looks like. In fact, it looks quite a lot like the resource management of quite a few healing classes, in games where healers have to worry about resources. Classically - you'd have a fairly neutral (or slightly negative) healing rotation and when you slap out a burst you hit a long CD mana potion (or ability) to recover a bit. But variations on the same theme pop up all over MMOs.

 

When you do have healers with a 'sacrifice' ability to regain mana, then they're often HoT focussed, with lots of quick casting abilities, so that they have the time and ability to regain while still laying down big heals across targets... or they have damage attacks that return force (as other specs in the Sage tree do) and the sacrifice is really only used in extremis.

 

In the end, it looks like the slower, more single-target focussed healing in 1.2 is making Sages/Sorcs on PTS report that force management is still not really an issue. The slowness of casting the big heals also limits the ability of the class to deliver big bursts. So the original goal isn't really achieved, but the game-play of the class is heavily reduced.

 

PvP

 

In PvP too, it's not so much

that

Sage/Sorc was nerfed... the issue is

how

they were nerfed.

 

If BW had not gone for slowing the Sage/Sorc casting down so much, then in PvP they wouldn't be losing so much mobility and ability to react to burst.

 

If BW had put in a mechanic that allowed for burst healing that heavily drained force - but allowed a long CD big regain of force (without needing to half kill yourself)... then that would fit perfectly in the PvP environment.

 

Conclusion

 

In the end, it seems to me that fun and skill level will both be negatively impacted... and it really wasn't necessary.

 

We all knew that a nerf to healing output was coming in - but just making us massively slower really isn't a solution that preserves the fun of the class. A solution that causes people to be casting and cancelling their big heals, till the tank takes a spike and then they let it go - does not make for a fun class to play. Slow play tends to be dull play, a lot of the time.

 

We all knew that force management was going to be a bigger deal - but in the end it doesn't seem to be, judging by what people have said on PTS. The force management solution in 1.2 just doesn't do the job - it doesn't really put people under pressure to make big choices, doesn't allow them to burst heal for a period now and then but still recover etc etc.

 

Overall - it's not that we were nerfed - it's how we were nerfed. But I see no sign of BW rethinking at all.

 

X

Edited March 24, 2012 by XtremJedi

[Daize]

argg! why are there two posts about this?

anways copy paste from the other one:

 

Re GZ's Q&A response: It is exactly what I have been saying all along on these boards and makes such eminent sense that you really cannot argue with the general logic without appearing totally biased. Now it may be they over-nerfed in current 1.2 on PTS. And if you read the post in its entirety you will notice that further adjustments are upcoming before 1.2 goes live. ie Mercs may get a slight buff back up from current levels on PTS.

[RuQu]

argg! why are there two posts about this?

anways copy paste from the other one:

 

Re GZ's Q&A response: It is exactly what I have been saying all along on these boards and makes such eminent sense that you really cannot argue with the general logic without appearing totally biased. Now it may be they over-nerfed in current 1.2 on PTS. And if you read the post in its entirety you will notice that further adjustments are upcoming before 1.2 goes live. ie Mercs may get a slight buff back up from current levels on PTS.

 

Is that so?

 

I'm fairly certain almost every post in this thread has done exactly that: argued against the general logic. The points made were all good ones.

 

Just because GZ agrees with your reasoning doesn't make it right be default. If we simply assumed that the Dev's were infallible, there would be no point to the discussion in the first place.

 

Considering that bobudo, for instance, is an Operative and does not play a Sage or Commando yet is arguing against these Sage/Commando nerfs, I'm not sure how much more unbiased you can hope for someone to be. He gets absolutely zero benefit from a Sage/Commando buff. In fact, if Operatives are considered the best healers he actually benefits from a lack of a buff. In contrast, the Devs have an interest in minimizing their backtracking as a reversal is considered by some people to be losing face. Personally, I have more respect for those who can change their mind than those who refuse to, but many (foolish) people consider it a sign of weakness. If there is bias, I don't see it coming from bobudo.

 

While I do play a Commando, and so can be accused of bias, I argued strongly for Operative buffs before these notes came out despite not playing one (full disclosure, as of the Guild Summit I rolled one for Legacy unlock reasons and it is currently level 11). While I admittedly have a pro-healer bias, my preference is for them to be fun to play, and mindlessly easy doesn't fit my definition of fun. Nerfs, done right, are fine by me. I see these as making things simpler, and less fun, for reasons such as those argued by others in this thread.

 

GZ said they are rebalancing some changes. In light of his past comments and the actual patch notes, I will withhold any judgment or hope until I actually see these updates.

[Dzhokhar]

While I don't entirely agree with the OP's suggestions for rolling back the nerfs (I think the Sage nerf is fine as-is and have different opinions about how to roll back some of the Commando changes), I definitely agree with the overall sentiment about communication and the importance of how powerful a class "feels" (as opposed to what the numbers say).

 

Additionally, I feel strongly about class differentiation, and weakening some of the Commando ammo/stacking mechanics (SCC, Field Triage, Kolto Residue) feels a lot like homogenization of mechanics between Sages and Commandos. (I would rather have the base abilities weakened and the Commando-specific mechanics enhanced than have the Commando-specific mechanics weakened.)

Edited March 24, 2012 by Dzhokhar

[RuQu]

While I don't entirely agree with the OP's suggestions for rolling back the nerfs (I think the Sage nerf is fine as-is and have different opinions about how to roll back some of the Commando changes), I definitely agree with the overall sentiment about communication and the importance of how powerful a class "feels" (as opposed to what the numbers say).

 

Additionally, I feel strongly about class differentiation, and weakening some of the Commando ammo/stacking mechanics (SCC, Field Triage, Kolto Residue) feels a lot like homogenization of mechanics between Sages and Commandos. (I would rather have the base abilities weakened and the Commando-specific mechanics enhanced than have the Commando-specific mechanics weakened.)

 

Agreed. I think most healers prefer the model of "Different styles, same results."

 

I like the idea of making the base heals weaker, but increasing the buff from SCC to compensate. Regular use of SCC is part of what sets Commandos apart. I added this to the above alternate suggestion list.

Edited March 24, 2012 by RuQu

[LexiCazam]

Hi everyone,

 

Thank you for keeping this discussion constructive and helpful. We love to see threads like this and appreciate the effort you've all put into this community!

 

Just wanted to say, we really appreciate it!

 

 

[Dzhokhar]

Agreed. I think most healers prefer the model of "Different styles, same results."

 

I like the idea of making the base heals weaker, but increasing the buff from SCC to compensate. Regular use of SCC is part of what sets Commandos apart. I added this to the above alternate suggestion list.

 

As a side note, in my opinion, the same thing applies to the costs of abilities as it does to the size of the abilities. For example, increased base costs on heals would be more tolerable if SCC restored more ammo or increased ammo regen rate when activated. Similarly, instead of nerfing Field Triage, BioWare could leave it as-is (or buff it) and increase the base cost of AMP to compensate. These types of things improve differentiation between classes while also making healing more dynamic and interesting. Some of these things might be tricky to balance for lower level characters or DPS specs, but I think it would be possible to move stuff around to compensate (move some talents lower in the trees or add certain talents' effects to base abilities while making other talents cost more points to train).

[XtremJedi]

These types of things improve differentiation between classes while also making healing more dynamic and interesting.

 

This should be the goal.

 

Yes, you need to manage the healing output so that players and content remain well balanced... but you should always strive to make the healing more dynamic and interesting, if at all possible. And at the very least, you should not be making them less dynamic and interesting.

 

X

[dpfeif]

I prefer PVE over PVP, so most of my wants/needs skew that way (which is why I rolled onto a PVE server). I have a recently turned 50 Combat Medic that hasn't done any HMs or Ops yet. I've never felt "over target" as the Q&A stated, I've always felt a bit under target (I certainly get squished quickly and often in the few PVPs I do play). Which is a large factor in why I haven't tried any HMs or Ops with PUGs yet; waiting for more guild mates to reach 50.

 

My MMO experience is limited to FFXI where the healers had plenty of resources usually, it was hate management that kept them in line. With SWTOR, it seems resources are the limiting factor with my healer, and are going to get worse with 1.2 if they don't back off the nerfs.

[Giobiwan]

I will simply say this:

 

Swtor is a game. We all play games to have fun.

 

Will these changes make us have more or less fun?

 

The new imposed mechanics on healers suggest it will be less fun to heal.

 

Challenge is a component of fun...but achieving challenge by standardizing and creating a unique way of doing things "right" forcing a cookie cut rotation or mindless spamming is just lacking imagination and creativity while developing a game.

 

A first bad sign is how they have more and more made hybrid templates unviable...the message from the devs to the players is then clear:"play the game the way we want you to....not the way you feel like playing it...or leave"

Edited March 24, 2012 by Giobiwan

[Padkhar]

Take Tech-Healers as an example: It's very clear that you want both Merc/Comm and Op/Sc healers using their "basic" healing ability (Hammershots/Diagnostic Scan etc.) more regularly. Why? This makes very little sense from a design standpoint as these abilities can only be used when healing isn't currently needed.

 

The only sense I can make of it is that it's a DPS player's approach to healing, insofar as DPS will typically use their free "auto-attack" ability as filler to let resource regen run.

 

But it's poor healing design. Where a DPS can rest on his laurels for 2-3 GCDs, in all but the very best groups (both gear and skill) a healer is unlikely to have that luxury

 

I disagree with this a little. In other games, healers "manage resources", by alternating periods of activity and rest, as opposed to nothing but a game of maxing HPS and actions per GCD's. Usually healing is about triage, who to heal, how much, and most important, when, because you only need enough health to survive the encounter.

 

But when people focus too much on healing meters (conveniently displayed at the end of warzone matches), people tend to start thinking of performance the wrong way.

 

Imagine, for example, a group with 4 players with 3500 health. You have a choice to heal all 4 players for 1000 health each or one player for 3000. If you only care about maximizing HPS, you choose the area heal. Thing is, if 3000 health gone means the single player will die on the next hit, and of course assuming the others wouldn't die, you may have chosen to do the wrong thing, thinking like DPS*, not like a healer. Of course, sometimes it is better to save the group than one person who's sure to die anyway. Healing isn't as binary a choice as some make it out--yes, players either live or they die, but sometimes how that affects the strategic objective of the group depends on which player and when.

 

If things are in general tuned to require nothing but non-stop healing whack-a-mole, to never give you such choices to rest and triage, then I think they are tuned incorrectly.

 

I haven't done NMM's, so I can believe you if you say the tuning is at that level, but I have done nighmarish HMs (featuring the sort of people who inspire threads like "50 things your healer won't tell you"). There's generally some room to rest, wouldn't swear its 2 to 3 GCD's, but I know resting plays a role.

 

*off topic, but I do realize DPS is not so simplistic either--sometimes it is better to take out a single target, than mazixmize your total damage per atatck. Say, killing a healer, rather than throwing down a big area attack that puts up fat numbers, but doesn't end up killing any of the enemies.

 

TLDR: Healing should never be just about maxizming HPS per GCD's. If it is designed to be that way, the design is wrong. Rest should form part of the strategy, because that allows players time to think about which targets to heal, and for how much.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Padkhar
Quote didn't display