Random idea on class balance.

[UGLYMRJ]

Over and over we see changes made for PvE that drastically affect PvP. Annihilation and rage being some of the most recent.

 

Before I get to my idea... let's look at the problem.

 

Class balance. It's impossible to perfect. No MMO has done it so well that everyone could agree that it's balanced. It's a matter of perspective, one person will see the same thing in a very different way than the next person. I don't think that anyone could say that any traditional MMO has ever been perfectly balanced... it just hasn't happened and likely won't happen. I think this is something that we can all agree on.

 

Since the myth of perfect balance is out of the way... let's look at it realistically. Let's look at ideas to simply make it better... not perfect.

 

Going back to what I originally mentioned about PvE changes affecting PvP, I think it's safe to say that it makes balance even more difficult. It's a major factor for both PvE and PvP balance issues. And finding balance within 8 AC's and 3 different trees along with the assortment of hybrid specs available, along with it accomodating 2 very different game types... it makes what's already impossible, even more difficult to even get close to.

 

While I don't personally think that balance is completely horrible in this game.... there are definitely some issues that need to be looked at. Certain AC's and trees are simply not viable for a certain game type and some not viable for either. I feel as if a huge part of this problem lies with these trees being shared between PvE and PvP.

 

What if there were the same AC's, the same trees... only tweaks were made to these trees in PvE and PvP separately.

 

A tab in our spec trees for PvE and PvP. Both can be spec'd at the same time... but only one applies depending on whether you're in a war zone or in an operation.

 

The only problem I can think of with this idea, would be open world PvP. Since it happens in PvE areas and often NPC's get in the mix. Which would apply in that situation?

 

Anyways... just an idea that popped in my head after reading some other threads on forums. Are there any other reasons this wouldn't work, or is there even a solution to the obvious problem stated above? Looking for feedback before I do or don't throw this in the suggestion box.

Edited November 27, 2012 by UGLYMRJ

[cycao]

You're right this was a random idea on class balance.

[UGLYMRJ]

You're right this was a random idea on class balance.

 

Does it make sense though?

 

I know that not everything that goes through this busy brain of mine makes sense to other people... nor do I always word things in a way that gets the idea across clearly.

[Jenzali]

Developers have been averse to this idea for a long time. They believe it to be inelegant, and it does have some very basic issues. In the open world, which tree do you activate, the PvE or the PvP tree? What if you are in combat with a mob and a player at the same time?

 

Rather than having totally separate skill trees it might be best just to have skills do different effects or amounts of damage/healing when used on a player and have the tooltip reflect this rather than make entirely separate tabbed skill trees. We can see this is already possible because of skills like taunts and guard.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Jenzali

[cycao]

Does it make sense though?

 

I know that not everything that goes through this busy brain of mine makes sense to other people... nor do I always word things in a way that gets the idea across clearly.

 

I get what you are saying but I don't think it will work. I do agree that we will never have perfect class balance.

[UGLYMRJ]

Developers have been averse to this idea for a long time. They believe it to be inelegant, and it does have some very basic issues. In the open world, which tree do you activate, the PvE or the PvP tree? What if you are in combat with a mob and a player at the same time?

 

Rather than having totally separate skill trees it might be best just to have skills do different effects or amounts of damage/healing when used on a player and have the tooltip reflect this rather than make entirely separate tabbed skill trees. We can see this is already possible because of skills like taunts and guard.

That's more or less what I meant... not completely different trees... but the same trees with different tweaks.

 

Like annihilation for example... one of the more recent changes to a class. That 0.5% to the self heal could have been adjusted to PvE only and left at 1% per point spec'd for PvP.

 

I get what you are saying but I don't think it will work. I do agree that we will never have perfect class balance.

 

I think the world would be a better place if more understood that.

Edited November 27, 2012 by UGLYMRJ

[Kawiki]

Perfect balance is impossible. I agree.

 

Your idea would certainly work, though open world PvP is an issue it has a completly different dynamic then WZs and is essentially meaningless so using the PvE spec would get little argument I believe. However, I don't think it's something they would even consider as it would devoting resources to a something they don't percieve as an issue.

 

The problem with most of the OP specs that have taken place in the game is it is far too easy to get the best results. Basically no skill is involved.

 

PT literally was a 3 button class. You could saftely stand at range wothout taking damage and dish out huge amounts of damage. The fix they implemted was genious IMO. The class plays similar to the Assassin specs now which require a lot of movement and skill to get the top results. The better players are still good and the fotms have gone by the wayside.

 

The lolsmashspec is literally a joke now. I posted earlier about this that I literally had no idea what I was doing when first transitioning to this but I still was easily getting the top results. It takes 0 skill, 99% of players can get the top results in this spec. It is completly broken.

 

Also the other big issue is the difference with some classes/specs that have cast times as opposed to instant abilities. Mercs/Telekenetic (a sage tree) can be easily shut down because they can be interupted or los.

Snipers are really the only exception. Able to massive damage but can also be avoided by skilled players. They also have tools and cover at their disposal.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Kawiki

[kcol]

1.1.5 was as perfect as this game will ever get. The worse pvp change EVER was 1.2 with 1.4 a close 2nd. I say that because 1.4 was a lazy attempt at fixing sorc/sage survivablity at the cost of throwing resolve rules out the window.

[Altheran]

Nevermind, I missed the point, will edit soon. Edited November 27, 2012 by Altheran

[CharterMonkKent]

I see where you are going. Basically two games. PvE with it's own trees and PvP with it's own.

 

Would be difficult for casual gamers wondering "where did my ability go!". As you mentioned open world pvp could be difficult to address.

 

I think a lot of this MMO's pvp issues (and probably other games too) happen when there is too much of one "thing". Right now I see that "thing" being...

 

1. More melee than ranged

2. One tree being factually the "best" in an AC

3. Or worse one tree being "awful" in an AC. Poor Leathality oper

4. Class counters not being equal, in many ways, but mostly population wise. Let me see if I can get this idea through clearly. I'll take rage since everyone agrees it's the most balanced class ever in any game ever. ever Their best (though, not only) counter is deception/infiltration. With the damage reduction abilities (passive and non passive) of deception a rage has no chance. This is completely fine. However. Rage is clearly easier to play than deception. So. Back to my too much of one thing.. there are more rage than deception because easier is more attractive to a majority of the players. More rage and less deception... well hopefully my point there has been made.

 

We've seen too many pyros. Too many sorcs. Too many tracer spamming mercs. and so on.

[Dacer]

Doesn't Rift do something like this with a PvP Soul?

 

 

I think the idea has some merit. But like you stated and other have - the problem is open world pvp, which we all want!.

 

But the idea of having a basic tree and then a PvE/PVP variant in addtion too that we put points in...

 

I Can seem them doing something like this with increases in lvl caps

[UGLYMRJ]

@ Charter....

 

The problems are all over and that's why I laugh when anyone thinks they can fix it with one simple idea. I don't see this as a fix either... just a possible improvement. The main problem lies within the community. And I don't mean that in a bad way... but we all see the same thing differently and on that same note we use different guidelines for how we judge balance.

 

So many players rate classes based on 1v1, unorganized regular WZ's, how they play against their own class, scoreboard stats, ignore utility, the list goes on and on but in the end there are countless way and perspectives on how to judge one thing... balance.

 

Which is exactly why it's impossible to create something that we'll all view differently. I just think this idea would simplify those perspectives a bit. I'll go back to rage and annihilation.

 

Most would agree that rage was fine before. Add the instant ability which it should have been in the first place, but with this idea they could have left the rest of the changes for the PvE trees only. The PvP trees could have stayed the same.

 

Annihilation... I don't think anyone was complaining about the self heal and most would agree it's the least viable spec for a marauder. It got nerfed because it was OP in PvE. That also could have been a change that was only done to the PvE trees and the PvP trees could have remained the same.

 

Some changes could apply to both, and some only to one depending on the situation. But being able to change them separately could definitely simplify the balancing act. Since the beginning of the game, any changes to class haven't really changed people's play style too dramatically. So I think the classes would still play the same in PvE and PvP... it would just change the way the abilities react in each environment. The self heal and the armor penetration being perfect examples. Both would play the same... only they would react differently.

Edited November 27, 2012 by UGLYMRJ

[UGLYMRJ]

Doesn't Rift do something like this with a PvP Soul?

 

 

I think the idea has some merit. But like you stated and other have - the problem is open world pvp, which we all want!.

 

But the idea of having a basic tree and then a PvE/PVP variant in addtion too that we put points in...

 

I Can seem them doing something like this with increases in lvl caps

 

I never got into Rift... and the open world thing... well I was hoping someone would think of a solution to that before I drop it in the suggestion box. I'm stuck on that one.

[CharterMonkKent]

@ Charter....

 

The problems are all over and that's why I laugh when anyone thinks they can fix it with one simple idea. I don't see this as a fix either... just a possible improvement. The main problem lies within the community. And I don't mean that in a bad way... but we all see the same thing differently and on that same note we use different guidelines for how we judge balance.

 

So many players rate classes based on 1v1, unorganized regular WZ's, how they play against their own class, base on scoreboard stats, ignore utility, the list goes on and on but in the end there are countless way and perspectives on how to judge one thing... balance.

 

Which is exactly why it's impossible to create something that we'll all view differently. I just think this idea would simplify those perspectives a bit. I'll go back to rage and annihilation.

 

Most would agree that rage was fine before. Add the instant ability which it should have been in the first place, but with this idea they could have left the rest of the changes for the PvE trees only. The PvP trees could have stayed the same.

 

Annihilation... I don't think anyone was complaining about the self heal and most would agree it's the least viable spec for a marauder. It got nerfed because of it was OP in PvE. That also could have been a change that was only done to the PvE trees and the PvP trees could have remained the same.

 

Some changes could apply to both, and some only to one depending on the situation. But being able to change them separately could definitely simplify the balancing act. Since the beginning of the game, any changes to class haven't really changed people's play style too dramatically. So I think the classes would still play the same in PvE and PvP... it would just change the way the abilities react in each environment. The self heal and the armor penetration being perfect examples. Both would play the same... only they would react differently.

 

I agree. It's interesting, the game is already sort of built like this for some classes. My sorc healer for instance. I have two builds for PvP and one build for PvE. There are abilities in trees that only make sense for one side of the game or the other. It's almost like they started going the direction of two skill sets, then abandoned it.

[fungihoujo]

First off- this would assume that pve was actually balanced- unfortunately that would require some data to actually prove- but even without data the game doesn't look any more balanced in pve.

 

That aside- let us pretend the game had pve balance. Talking purely healing/damage- decrease/increase to burst damage generally has a small effect in pve, but in pvp the ability to chain 3 abilities doing 5k each on average gives great burst even if they're on 20 second CDs. Reduce that damage to 3.5k and you'll see a small change in pve- one that could be offset by making under performing abilities do some more damage.

 

BUT, even if we were to say 'no, we are not touching healing/damage', we can still vastly improve pvp for classes without doing anything that'll hurt top end pvp.

 

Most bosses and big mobs are immune to CC, don't interrupt, and don't use CC themselves- this is the biggest difference. You can add a stun to one class, remove a root from another, give a class a few defensives, a CC break, etc.... and pve players likely won't notice on anything other than trash and things not meant to be a challenge (heroics, story mode).

 

If you were to give mercs and sorcs a few defensives, better interrupt protection, give baseline things to help repel CC, and allow some of their abilities to be used while moving- this would have little to no effect in pve, but may be enough to make them more viable. Similarly, if you were to remove a root, a defensive CD or two and stealth from a marauder- that would have little effect on pve but could make them more in line with other classes.

 

 

Ultimately- it's not nearly as hard as people pretend it is to balance classes for pve and pvp without one ruining the other- the one area where this becomes problematic is if you are trying to balance out damage and healing numbers- but, until we actually see the stats that show the pve numbers, for all we know some classes might be doing 25% more damage than others in operations too.

[UGLYMRJ]

I agree. It's interesting, the game is already sort of built like this for some classes. My sorc healer for instance. I have two builds for PvP and one build for PvE. There are abilities in trees that only make sense for one side of the game or the other. It's almost like they started going the direction of two skill sets, then abandoned it.

 

That's part of what sparked the idea... we're using different builds in each setting. And because I'm all about convienence... it would be nice to not have to re-spec every time you go from an operation to a war zone. A minor thing... but it's small things that create that feeling of polish on a game. Aside from it making balancing easier, it makes the game flow smoother.

[UGLYMRJ]

First off- this would assume that pve was actually balanced- unfortunately that would require some data to actually prove- but even without data the game doesn't look any more balanced in pve.

 

I actually wrote this assuming that PvE has the same issues. Because even though it seems that PvE takes priority... I think it's safe to assume that they don't completely ignore PvP and class changes are made with trying to find a happy medium, thus making it more difficult on both ends.

 

This idea would potentially make it easier to improve balance for both without affecting the other.

 

(I think it's hilarious how different I type in comparison to how I speak.... I would never in my life use the word "thus" while talking, but I typed it without hesitating)

Edited November 27, 2012 by UGLYMRJ

[CharterMonkKent]

I actually wrote this assuming that PvE has the same issues. Because even though it seems that PvE takes priority... I think it's safe to assume that they don't completely ignore PvP and class changes are made with trying to find a happy medium, thus making it more difficult on both ends.

 

This idea would potentially make it easier to improve balance for both without affecting the other.

 

(I think it's hilarious how different I type in comparison to how I speak.... I would never in my life use the word "thus" while talking, but I typed it without hesitating)

 

You're right, they are looking for a happy medium. That's one problem with Arsenal mercs. They can effectively off heal/cleanse and deal huge dps, great for PvE. When people tell me the devs in this game don't consider PvP at all I always use Merc knockback and root as an example that they do. Completely worthless ability in PvE. No one would waste points specing into buffs regarding the KB.

 

Oh, and Arsenal is a beast in PvE. Go figure.

 

I hate to think about where this game could be headed. Turning every class into an effective dps at melee range...

[fungihoujo]

I actually wrote this assuming that PvE has the same issues. Because even though it seems that PvE takes priority... I think it's safe to assume that they don't completely ignore PvP and class changes are made with trying to find a happy medium, thus making it more difficult on both ends.

 

This idea would potentially make it easier to improve balance for both without affecting the other.

 

(I think it's hilarious how different I type in comparison to how I speak.... I would never in my life use the word "thus" while talking, but I typed it without hesitating)

 

Yeah- I still stand by though that if you want to make changes in pvp that won't touch pve- look at mobility, CC, CC breaks, defensives- because those are things that ultimately make very little change to pve if any at all.

 

Now, on the flip side- unfortunately you can't make too many changes to pve that won't change pvp much- but, those discussions belong in the pve forum- which doesn't look to be nearly as volatile and not too many are complaining about another class there- ultimately a minor buff in pvp that also buffed pve a bit probably wouldn't be negatively recieved- unless it got to the point where one class wasn't been taken to operations, while another was so good people end up taking 3 or 4 all the time.

[UGLYMRJ]

Yeah- I still stand by though that if you want to make changes in pvp that won't touch pve- look at mobility, CC, CC breaks, defensives- because those are things that ultimately make very little change to pve if any at all.

 

Now, on the flip side- unfortunately you can't make too many changes to pve that won't change pvp much- but, those discussions belong in the pve forum- which doesn't look to be nearly as volatile and not too many are complaining about another class there- ultimately a minor buff in pvp that also buffed pve a bit probably wouldn't be negatively recieved- unless it got to the point where one class wasn't been taken to operations, while another was so good people end up taking 3 or 4 all the time.

 

Even damage of abilities could be different too... as long as they aren't drastically different. The less the better but I'll go back to one of my primary examples just because it's something I'm familiar with. I think it would have to be percentages that are spec'd into. LIke the self heal from bleeds with annihilation. While it may have been a necessary change for PvE it was definitely unnecessary for PvP. That's something that EVERY annihilation marauder would spec into... for the PvP tree it could have stayed at 1% per point and they could have only reduced it for the PvE tree. Small changes go a long way in this game.

 

Changing small things such as percentages in the trees and how they affect certain abilities would make a big difference. If the trees were separated from PvE & PvP they could tweak those percentages individually and say... give DPS sorcs some burst in PvP without making them OP within a PvE environment.

[iPvP]

I don't like how AC's share a tree and its more powerful for one.....that' needs to change

[fungihoujo]

I don't like how AC's share a tree and its more powerful for one.....that' needs to change

 

The trees have the same name and basic idea- but ultimately they're considerably different due to how different the ACs are- you'll never confuse a pyro PT and merc, the sniper and op, and absolutely not the sin and sorc madness trees.... only one you might confuse is lolsmash since the complaints about both are the exact same- the lolsmash.

 

They can be similar though because jugg/mara are both mobile, leaping, melee classes with good pvp survivability (it's arguable which is better there). A madness sorc though is a running away, kiting glass canon without the canon part, while a madness sin is a melee stealth damage dealer. A pyro merc is ranged, a pyro PT is mid range, etc...

Edited November 28, 2012 by fungihoujo

[ArchangelLBC]

Didn't read the thread that much. As a PVE gamer, and a commando main, I kinda resent the idea that you think it's PVE changes that affect PVP, when it goes the other way more often than not.

 

Both DPS Operative and Gunnery Commando took huge hits in early patches that VERY adversely affected them in PVE while the changes themselves were PVP based. Shadow tanks were made much squishier and I feel that was at least a heavily PVP influenced change.

 

 

Anyway, a slightly different system for PVP or PVE is a thought, but as you've noticed there are issues. Healers kinda have the same problem they always do. They have to balance to put out enough HPS to counter operations bosses smacking around tanks which tends to make them a tad OP in PVP if they aren't careful.

 

Overall I'd say class balance is mostly in a good place right now. Outside of commando/merc any significant changes would probably make the class either OP or a total joke.

[fungihoujo]

Didn't read the thread that much. As a PVE gamer, and a commando main, I kinda resent the idea that you think it's PVE changes that affect PVP, when it goes the other way more often than not.

 

Both DPS Operative and Gunnery Commando took huge hits in early patches that VERY adversely affected them in PVE while the changes themselves were PVP based. Shadow tanks were made much squishier and I feel that was at least a heavily PVP influenced change.

 

 

Anyway, a slightly different system for PVP or PVE is a thought, but as you've noticed there are issues. Healers kinda have the same problem they always do. They have to balance to put out enough HPS to counter operations bosses smacking around tanks which tends to make them a tad OP in PVP if they aren't careful.

 

Overall I'd say class balance is mostly in a good place right now. Outside of commando/merc any significant changes would probably make the class either OP or a total joke.

 

In all fairness- the nerfs to operatives really hurt them in pvp too- that was a change that wasn't good for them altogether... now, it was one widely asked for on the forums (by ask I mean screamed for in hundreds of threads).... the first time.

 

Problem with ops was- BW kept nerfing them over and over. The second time people were like 'what, why? you already did this, this was uncalled for'- the third, then fourth, etc... it just became rediculous. Pretty much it was at the point where people were joking that BW is contractually bound to nerf operatives every patch- but the reality was no joke. Mercs didn't even deserve the TM nerf at all- TM is so easy to counter that it is disgusting that BW catered to bads- bads with interrupts as low as 6 sec CD for anni marauders- rather than realizing TM didn't need a nerf. There was a video on it where a merc had nothing but TM on his hotbars and went around for a few matches dominating with only that one skill- he was interrupted like twice a match- yet people complained about how OP he is rather than saying 'wow, people are really so bad they didn't try to stop him'.

 

Also- while it's true that healers must heal through ops- remember they don't take a huge nerf to healing through trauma in ops, they don't have to be always moving, they aren't being CCed and interrupted, they aren't being targetted constantly, they aren't being hit by a second trauma debuff from some classes, and they're healing a heavily decked character- while enjoying the stat benefits of more stats because you aren't spending so much on expertise. If I could endlessly freecast without fearing death in pvp- yeah, I'd be pretty OP- that's not the case though.

 

 

Again- don't buff up the healing or the damage if that's what people fear (well, mercs and sorcs do need some burst damage there's no question there). Focus the buffs and in some cases nerfs on CC, defensives and mobility- that doesn't change pve. Furthermore- make pure builds good- in pvp it's never been a good idea to take any 31 point build for sorcs- ANY of them over the hybrids. Why? Because thundering blast sucks, creeping terror is a root (irony that a sorc can only ever spec to one root- as a kiting class- while mara get one automatically and can get as much as three) with terrible damage, and while revivification is pretty nice- unfortunately there's so much movement that people often aren't standing in it- especially since standing in it makes you target for smashes- that, and lightning CC talents as well as resource regen are so much better near everyone is taking it instead.

[UGLYMRJ]

Didn't read the thread that much. As a PVE gamer, and a commando main, I kinda resent the idea that you think it's PVE changes that affect PVP, when it goes the other way more often than not.

 

Both DPS Operative and Gunnery Commando took huge hits in early patches that VERY adversely affected them in PVE while the changes themselves were PVP based. Shadow tanks were made much squishier and I feel that was at least a heavily PVP influenced change.

 

 

Anyway, a slightly different system for PVP or PVE is a thought, but as you've noticed there are issues. Healers kinda have the same problem they always do. They have to balance to put out enough HPS to counter operations bosses smacking around tanks which tends to make them a tad OP in PVP if they aren't careful.

 

Overall I'd say class balance is mostly in a good place right now. Outside of commando/merc any significant changes would probably make the class either OP or a total joke.

 

With the idea I kept both in mind and I know that it goes both ways... but I am much more of a PvP player and this is the PvP forums. Either way... it's just an idea but I think it's one that could benefit both sides of the game without affecting the other.