Commando Rep 3 Questions Discussion

[DeludedProphet]

General:- Please explain, in details, the design philosophy/requirements behind Commando DPS and Healing Specs, specifically both in isolation and in relation to the composition of Raids in a PVE environment and Teams in a PVP environment.

 

I think this is THE absolutely key question as all Dev decisions will be made through the prism of this philosophy/requirement. Understanding this will allow us to actually engage with the Devs in a meaningful and constructive fashion. Also, documents detailing this information will already exist.

 

PVE:- Given the recent shift in challenge for Operations (healers now actually have to heal instead of having to simply avoid falling asleep during raids) and the increased rigorousness of the DPS checks, raid composition is driven primarily by taking classes that can perform in their specific role (as defined by the Developers themselves). I.e. DPS who can produce high DPS numbers and Healers who can produce high healing numbers.

 

Given that it is effective 'Toon' performance rather than player skill that dictates raid slots, can the Devs comment on why they are deliberately excluding Commando players of either spec from participating in end-game content?

 

Perhaps we will see the addition of a 4th category in the Group Finder roles? “Classes who can’t pull their weight as DPS or heal but suck at both.”

 

A quick note on the questions that have been indiciated will be raised:-

Ammo management – Ammo management is fine. Gunnery uses all but two of its rotation abilities on CD. Of those two, one is tied to making it ammo free (justifiably given its massive ammo cost) and one is interwoven with Hammer shot. If you improve ammo management for Gunnery then you are basically saying “I want to spam all my abilities, instantly, all the time.” That’s not the point of resource management. When the Sorcs raised this they were, quite rightly, told to L2P.

 

Whilst a case could be made for improving ammo management for the healing tree as an indirect method to boost our output, a cleaner, specific solution would simply be to improve the potency of that output rather than messing with a cross-spec macro mechanic.

 

Mobility – Is this really being flagged as an issue for healing? We have amazing mobility.

Hammer shots:- Free, boosts our cell stacks.

Kolto bomb:- AoE heal plus number-unlimited area HoT and buff to future healing (as well as potential applying an armour buff).

Concussion charge – Number-unlimited AoE heal

Emergency scan – Free mid-size heal

Trauma probe – Reactive HoT

Medical probe – Can be made instant (and free if you want) and is a huge heal (mine crits for well over 11k) and will boost our cell stacks.

 

Utility – We do have limited raid-wide utility. However, is this really one of the three key areas we should be seeking to learn more about/affect? Gaining a raid-wide shield/stealth rez/etc isn’t going to make up for being 10%+ off the pace in both DPS and Healing.

 

Skill trees - Every class has chaff in their trees. Going through it line-by-line obscures the wood for the trees and allows the Devs to focus on minutiae rather than the root-cause issues.

 

As an aside, off the back of the Devs saying that popping Bloodthirst/Inspiration and Predation/Transcendence shouldn’t stop the build up of Fury/Centering, it would be good to know if they will apply the same thinking to Combat Support Cell. I.e. pop the cell but allow us to start gaining stacks in it whilst we are under the affects of the buff. Whilst I think this would be a significant buff we a) need every bit of help we can get with matching the other two classes healing output and b) it seems to match the logic the Devs are applying to the Sentinel/Marauder.

Edited September 4, 2013 by DeludedProphet

[ArchangelLBC]

General:- Please explain, in details, the design philosophy/requirements behind Commando DPS and Healing Specs, specifically both in isolation and in relation to the composition of Raids in a PVE environment and Teams in a PVP environment.

 

I think this is THE absolutely key question as all Dev decisions will be made through the prism of this philosophy/requirement. Understanding this will allow us to actually engage with the Devs in a meaningful and constructive fashion. Also, documents detailing this information will already exist.

 

I disagree. Wasting a question on this isn't likely to be very revealing. We can already infer a lot based on the original state of the class. Whatever their intent, it seems clear they don't have a clear idea of how that intent has worked out in practice.

 

 

 

A quick note on the questions that have been indiciated will be raised:-

Ammo management – Ammo management is fine. Gunnery uses all but two of its rotation abilities on CD. Of those two, one is tied to making it ammo free (justifiably given its massive ammo cost) and one is interwoven with Hammer shot. If you improve ammo management for Gunnery then you are basically saying “I want to spam all my abilities, instantly, all the time.” That’s not the point of resource management. When the Sorcs raised this they were, quite rightly, told to L2P.

 

Whilst a case could be made for improving ammo management for the healing tree as an indirect method to boost our output, a cleaner, specific solution would simply be to improve the potency of that output rather than messing with a cross-spec macro mechanic..

 

And this is where I want to say I'm glad you aren't our class rep. The fact is that old dread guard set bonus matches the newer set bonuses in DPS, purely because of the easier ammo management. Ammo management in gunnery is *tight*, and punishes mistakes pretty brutally. Combat Medic is widely acknowledged to have the tightest ammo management of the three healing classes.

 

I'd feel worse about that "I want to spam all my abilities" if I wasn't already doing that on both Sharpshooter Gunslinger and Lightning Sorc.

[XORDYH]

A few things I'd like to see for Combat Medic/Bodyguard (PvE perspective, I'm not masochistic enough to PvP with it):

 

 

• The ability to use Hammer Shot on myself. This one annoys me to no end. Sometimes I tunnel vision on the raid frame HP bars without reading the names, and get stuck trying to shoot myself only to get spammed with error messages. It just feels so much more clunky to have a heal I can't use on myself compared to my Sage or Scoundrel healers.
  
• A QoL adjustment to our group healing options. I'm not really sure what I'm looking for here. When I'm on my Sage I simply throw down Salvation and watch everyone flock to it like moths to the flame. On my Scoundrel, if I can't get people to group up for Kolto Cloud I can fall back on spamming Slow-Release Medpac and still get the job done. On my Commando? Try to aim Kolto Bomb ever so carefully so that I hit as many people as possible, and then scream, "People, get in the green stuff. GET IN THE GREEN STUFF. Too late, it's gone." Kolto Pods was a nice addition, but it doesn't last long enough for people to reactively run into it, so you have to pretty much hope they are already stacked and stay put when you drop KB. Kolto Wave is nice too, but again you have to get people grouped up to use it, and dps/tanks go nuts if you accidentally knock mobs away. (Actually, I think that's a plus; it's fun to troll melee dps by knocking their mobs away right after they leap in and then claim, "it was for the heals.")
  
• Some more magic on Supercharge Cells. I think someone already mentioned this, but why the ammo cost reduction on Charged Bolts and Full Auto? Why not more healing goodness? I don't know if this would cause problems for PvP, but it just seems weird to have dps boosts on a healing talent.
  
• Frontline Medic made optional. I don't want it or need it for PvE, make it optional so I can use the points somewhere else. Enough said.
  

 

I don't really know how to best encapsulate all that into a question, but it would be great if we could get one or more of those issues addressed.

[DeludedProphet]

I disagree. Wasting a question on this isn’t likely to be very revealing. We can already infer a lot based on the original state of the classes. Whatever their intent, it seems clear they don’t have a clear idea of how that intent has worked out in practice.

 

Please detail exactly what the inferences are, what the underpinning definitive evidence is, what the Devs’ goals are for both the advanced class in isolation and in relation to the other advanced classes and how, exactly, the Devs have deviated from their goal for the class during implementation. Otherwise, you’re just guessing without any relative basis of understanding…which is why I’d like to know the facts.

 

The Devs aren’t going to U-turn their development plan unless they agree with our conclusions. Without understanding their plan (i.e. where they are coming from and trying to get to) we won’t be able to engage in a meaningful discussion to reach that agreement. No meaningful engagement means no change.

 

There’s also a secondary reason. I want the very top Commando healers to be capable of healing as well as the very top healers of other classes (averaged across a number of scenarios). I want the very top Commando DPS to be capable of the same DPS as the very top DPS of other classes (averaged across a number of scenarios). If this is not in the Devs’ plan, then I’d like it clearly and explicitly confirmed so that I know to stop playing the class seriously (hence, the question).

 

And this is where I want to say I’m glad you aren’t our class rep. The is that old Dreadguard set bonus matches the newer set bonuses in DPS, purely because of the easier ammo management. Ammo management is *tight*, and punishes mistakes pretty brutally. Combat medic is widely acknowledged to have the tightest ammo management of the three healing classes.

 

Don’t worry, come right out and say it…oh, you have. It’s ok though. To be honest, I feel the same way. I think it’ll prove a thankless task undermined by misconception and popular opinion. However, discussions about class reps are pointless are they not? The rep has already been elected (and I have a great deal of respect for him).

 

Yes, ammo management is tight. Unless you are good, in which case it isn’t. Yes, mistakes are punished, that’s kinda the point of having a finite resource. Fortunately, both these issues are something that it is in the hands of the player to deal with. Plenty of us do.

 

Complaining about ammo is, unfortunately, the same as saying “I’m not good enough/can’t be bothered to learn to play” (as the Devs have already highlighted and they are the ones who are going to answer the question). It’s also, as I pointed out, a macro mechanic which, if changed, will have impacts across every spec of both advanced classes. I would have thought it would have made sense to target the specific issue(s), rather than experimenting with a complex-impact macro system which is far more difficult to model.

 

For instance, Commando healing is well behind the curve. Making ammo management easy will help that because you can just spam big heals. Or, you can tune the heals themselves (or even the passive boost from our cell). These boosts will be specific to Commando Healing and won’t have any other knock on affect to other specs or advanced classes.

 

Similarly, Commando DPS is behind the curve (to much lower, but still significant extent). Tuning Commando specific DPS abilities will close this gap and, like any increases to our healing, it should come at the expense of some general utility (for instance, making healing harder when DPSing and making DPSing harder when healing).

 

I‘d feel worse about that “I want to spam all my abilities” if I wasn’t already doing that on both Sharpshooter Gunslinger and Lightning Sorc.

 

Then I’d suggest that those classes have their own issues. At least one of them isn’t exactly happy about their current position (so perhaps they are balanced in other areas).

[ArchangelLBC]

Please detail exactly what the inferences are, what the underpinning definitive evidence is, what the Devs’ goals are for both the advanced class in isolation and in relation to the other advanced classes and how, exactly, the Devs have deviated from their goal for the class during implementation. Otherwise, you’re just guessing without any relative basis of understanding…which is why I’d like to know the facts.

 

The Devs aren’t going to U-turn their development plan unless they agree with our conclusions. Without understanding their plan (i.e. where they are coming from and trying to get to) we won’t be able to engage in a meaningful discussion to reach that agreement. No meaningful engagement means no change.

 

There’s also a secondary reason. I want the very top Commando healers to be capable of healing as well as the very top healers of other classes (averaged across a number of scenarios). I want the very top Commando DPS to be capable of the same DPS as the very top DPS of other classes (averaged across a number of scenarios). If this is not in the Devs’ plan, then I’d like it clearly and explicitly confirmed so that I know to stop playing the class seriously (hence, the question).

 

I doubt even if they answered your question they would come out and say that they don't intend for commando healers to match other DPS classes or healers. Closest they get is their old "all DPS within 5% of each other line", but even then I doubt they'd ever say they intend for commandos to be on the bottom 5% of that.

 

As for inferred class design, I would say that they originally significantly overweighted the value of our off healing for the DPS specs, and damage for Combat medic, perhaps thinking the class would actually be a true "hybrid" DPS/Healer, or simply didn't completely think the class through when actually designing it. I point to three primary facts upon which I base this inference.

 

1) The original lack of an in-combat revive.

2) The original lack of an interrupt (which persisted till, I *think* around 1.4).

3) Significant lack of non-healing utility, especially until 2.0

 

1 leads me to believe they simply didn't think it through. It's a pretty huge and obvious oversight for any healing class to not have a battle rez. This one was fixed around 1.1 I think.

 

2 is much more telling. Specifically because when we asked about it, their original answer was that handing us an interrupt would give us too much utility when combined with our off heals. I remember being pretty dumb struck at the time (some would say I'm still pretty dumb). Remember at the time, our only off heals were hard casted, and the spammable one had a 2.5 second cast time.

 

3 actually kind of plagues us today. We still lack any kind of baseline root or snare on a reasonable cooldown, though things have improved significantly with the addition of Hold the Line and Kolto Bomb as baseline abilities, and electronet is kind of a quirky neat addition, though the cooldown is a pretty significant balancing factor.

 

Kolto Bomb also reinforces my belief that the intent is for us to have decent off healing. It's on the move, it hits multiple people, it does a decent amount of healing, and the cost is very reasonable in the context of our other abilities. We're the only class that gets a baseline AoE heal, and I note that SCC also boosts charged bolts and full auto, which suggests they want the healing class to be able to throw out that damage (though that may be more PVP oriented). Of course if that last is correct then the problem is that we have very little reactive healing to give us the space to cast damage abilities in a heal spec.

 

One reason I don't think asking for what amounts to the design doc for the class, is that the past two rounds of class rep questions haven't really been much of a dialogue. Questions are asked, they're answered, and that's it. The followup from the devs on sorc and vanguard I think were purely a reaction to the firestorm on the forums that erupted. A more serious and engaging dialogue would I agree need that kind of starting point so we're all on the same page. The current system seems, at best, to request more practical changes and address practical issues that are kind of independent of whatever class design was originally intended.

 

Also, I kind of suspect that whoever originally created the class isn't there anymore and the current combat team is more interested in just making classes that work (or interested in keeping forum firestorms from happening depending on how cynical you are).

 

 

Don’t worry, come right out and say it…oh, you have. It’s ok though. To be honest, I feel the same way. I think it’ll prove a thankless task undermined by misconception and popular opinion. However, discussions about class reps are pointless are they not? The rep has already been elected (and I have a great deal of respect for him).

 

Fair enough, and for what it's worth I feel the exact same way about not being the rep myself.

 

 

Yes, ammo management is tight. Unless you are good, in which case it isn’t. Yes, mistakes are punished, that’s kinda the point of having a finite resource. Fortunately, both these issues are something that it is in the hands of the player to deal with. Plenty of us do.

 

Listen you can level condescending "L2P" comments at me all you want, and if it was just me you might have a point, but there's a pretty large consensus on the issue. Odawgg is probably the best Arsenal Merc in the game and he thinks the same. Are we really going to say that he doesn't know what he's doing?

 

Perhaps though we're just having a different definition of "tight ammo management". From where I sit, in order to get maximum DPS you have to push ammo as far as possible. If you aren't then you're going to fall very noticeably behind in DPS. However the line between "pushing ammo for max DPS" and "crossing the line and hammer shotting while you regen ammo" is absolutely razor thin. Yes you can stay on top of it, but that is what I feel is the limiting factor on our slightly-behind-the-curve DPS.

 

I mean I didn't think pre 2.0 ammo management was brainless, and that's really all I think any of us are asking for.

 

Complaining about ammo is, unfortunately, the same as saying “I’m not good enough/can’t be bothered to learn to play” (as the Devs have already highlighted and they are the ones who are going to answer the question). It’s also, as I pointed out, a macro mechanic which, if changed, will have impacts across every spec of both advanced classes. I would have thought it would have made sense to target the specific issue(s), rather than experimenting with a complex-impact macro system which is far more difficult to model.

 

We're talking about either adjusting the 4 piece set bonus or Special Munitions for Gunnery and alleviating the stress somehow in the CM tree. NOT a complete ammo revamps. And again, the fact that top tier players, not just us bads, are pointing out the impact on DPS that the old set bonus gives now despite the loss of something like 74 mainstat and lower damage on HiB is pretty damning. It's a pretty specific issue, and I don't get what you're talking about with this "complex-impact macro system".

 

For instance, Commando healing is well behind the curve. Making ammo management easy will help that because you can just spam big heals. Or, you can tune the heals themselves (or even the passive boost from our cell). These boosts will be specific to Commando Healing and won’t have any other knock on affect to other specs or advanced classes.

 

Similarly, Commando DPS is behind the curve (to much lower, but still significant extent). Tuning Commando specific DPS abilities will close this gap and, like any increases to our healing, it should come at the expense of some general utility (for instance, making healing harder when DPSing and making DPSing harder when healing).

 

Again, a simple reversion of the old set bonus, or changing Special Munitions to make HiB free or cost 1 ammo (5 ammo cost reduction per point) for AP cell would still be a gunnery specific change, and based on the performance of old DG set bonus (which grants a 2 ammo HiB) would put us right on the curve.

 

Then I’d suggest that those classes have their own issues. At least one of them isn’t exactly happy about their current position (so perhaps they are balanced in other areas).

 

Sorc you have a point certainly, but Sharpshooter gunslinger is pretty telling. In a complete vanilla rotation you never have energy issues at all, and still do pretty acceptable DPS. You do however have other things you can add into your rotation, like Flyby and Vital Shot and Sabo Charge, which pushes your energy pretty tight, but rewards the skill that comes from doing that properly by much higher DPS. Sorc sadly you can't run out of force ever in Lightning Spec, but there's also not really much you can do to significantly increase DPS at the expense of pushing your force. I kind of wish there was. Commando, as a comparison, has to be pushing ammo as tight as possible, with no real margin for error, just to get up to a good competitive level, and not doing that results in lower DPS. Worse failing to get a CoF proc for a long time will force you to hammer shot even more since it's our only ammo neutral ability.

[ManiacDavis]

One reason I don't think asking for what amounts to the design doc for the class, is that the past two rounds of class rep questions haven't really been much of a dialogue. Questions are asked, they're answered, and that's it. The followup from the devs on sorc and vanguard I think were purely a reaction to the firestorm on the forums that erupted. A more serious and engaging dialogue would I agree need that kind of starting point so we're all on the same page. The current system seems, at best, to request more practical changes and address practical issues that are kind of independent of whatever class design was originally intended.

 

Also, I kind of suspect that whoever originally created the class isn't there anymore and the current combat team is more interested in just making classes that work (or interested in keeping forum firestorms from happening depending on how cynical you are).

 

^This. These three questions will be the only meaningful dialogue we will have with bioware in regards to class balance. I completely agree with Arc that they are better suited to propose meaningful practical changes then to discuss philosophical paradigms of what a commando should be.

[iPvP]

I feel like Bodyguard needs to be the priority, sorry you dps out there but there are only 3 healing classes and mercs are dramatically behind and need a ton of work.

 

A proposed General question would be...

 

 

The commando healing has been the worst PVE/PVP healing spec since launch, easiest to shutdown and VERY easy to BURST through the heals. What are your plans to dramatically improve commando heals in the future. (hopefully before arenas go live because currently operatives are required to beat the best teams)

[DeludedProphet]

I doubt even if they answered your question they would come out and say that they don't intend for commando healers to match other DPS classes or healers. Closest they get is their old "all DPS within 5% of each other line", but even then I doubt they'd ever say they intend for commandos to be on the bottom 5% of that.

I thought the Devs have been pretty honest in their answers (as they said they would be). It's also demonstrable that we are far below that 5% variation.

 

Agree with 1, agree with 2 too. Went through that period of being kicked on the basis of no interrupt. Can't speak about 3 in terms of PvP so I'll trust your judgement.

 

I also see your point on the length/depth of dialogue. I'm (optimistically) hoping that this is the start of an ongoing discussion. It might well not be. Although, on the point of forums storm, not sure how much of the player base is regularly on the forums and would be affected (genuinely no idea).

 

Listen you can level condescending "L2P" comments at me all you want, and if it was just me you might have a point, but there's a pretty large consensus on the issue. Odawgg is probably the best Arsenal Merc in the game and he thinks the same. Are we really going to say that he doesn't know what he's doing?

It wasn't designed to be condescending. I apologise if it came across that way.

 

Please also bear in mind two points. A large consensus means taking account of a wide range of people from different skills, knowledge backgrounds and levels. This is not necessarily the best route to base technical decisions on.

 

Additionally, Odawgg might be very good. I might also be very good.

 

Perhaps though we're just having a different definition of "tight ammo management"...I mean I didn't think pre 2.0 ammo management was brainless, and that's really all I think any of us are asking for...We're talking about either adjusting the 4 piece set bonus or Special Munitions for Gunnery and alleviating the stress somehow in the CM tree. NOT a complete ammo revamps.

Tweaking set bonuses or specific abilities was the point I was hoping for. Perhaps we've misconstrued one another. When I saw people talking about "Ammo Management" I assumed they were talking about it in general, much as the Sages did. Specific tuning of the ammo costs of specific abilities would help. However, I believe that we are limited far more by the damage/Heal output of our abilities. However, there are valid arguements for both sides and healing is much harder to quantify.

 

And again, the fact that top tier players, not just us bads, are pointing out the impact on DPS that the old set bonus gives now despite the loss of something like 74 mainstat and lower damage on HiB is pretty damning.

Again, I never said you were 'bads'. I gave you the benefit of the doubt around your Rep comment, I'd appreciate reciprocation. The written word is hardly an ideal medium for avoiding missing tone/subcontext.

 

It's worth noting that the impact of the set bonus change is minimal. Certainly not enough to come close to closing the DPS gap.

 

I'll stress that my viewpoint is tainted by my own experiences. I'm very used to acting within the constraints of our ammo. I essentially view it in the same light as the GCD. It's just part of the environment to work around. Therefore I focus on the direct output of our abilities. However, their frequency is limited by Ammo (and GCD) so easing the strictures there would have a similarly positive affect. I just don't believe that it would have anywhere near enough.

 

I believe we're arguing for the same thing, I just believe that raising a generalised complaint, and one that received short-thrift from the Devs last time, will not be as constructive. However, I may well be proved wrong. Similarly, if the plan is not to talk about ammo management, but about the costs of specific abilities as part of a much larger question around DPS/HPS output, then I'm all for it.

 

Regardless, it's been an interesting conversation and it's been good to talk about the old times, reminded me of lots of fond memories. I've basically contributed what I wanted to contribute to the dialogue though so I'll bow out here. Good luck with the questions (and thanks to our Rep for volunteering) and I'll await the answers with interest.

Edited September 5, 2013 by DeludedProphet

[oaceen]

^This. These three questions will be the only meaningful dialogue we will have with bioware in regards to class balance. I completely agree with Arc that they are better suited to propose meaningful practical changes then to discuss philosophical paradigms of what a commando should be.

 

i don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.

 

ericmusco already admitted that he's forwarding suggestions made in these threads since the program started, so i think we can safely bank on them at least looking at our ideas here in the forums (even if they won't comment on them directly)

 

i think in the questions, we definitely can put some suggestions forth, but asking about their design philosophy isn't bad, nor does it automatically detract from suggestions. paowee did that with sniper and now he's furthering that discussion about laze target. will we see a response? probably not directly and probably not right away, but i'd be willing to bet if he determines that the community is behind a change, we would see one.

and i'm sure some suggestions that have been tossed around on the forums since this thing started will probably start to pop up in some form when the next round of balance passes comes along.

 

of course we'll have to wait until 2.5 or 2.6 to see what the devs liked as far as suggestions go, but i think that's another concern/discussion entirely.

Edited September 5, 2013 by oaceen

[cashogy_reborn]

My question probably counts as more than one, but here is my Combat Medic question (for both PVE and PVP) -

 

Combat Medics have always seemed to be designed for a different game. From the get-go they were missing basic utilities (healing cleanse, in-combat revive, interrupt)and there never was a clear strength present that justified these. Repeated nerfing to the class' survivability, output, and ammo management has only caused them to continue to fall behind the rest on average. Although the class is very well-built for single-target healing, sustained healing, and survivability, other healers can arguably do the same or better, while at the same time outperforming in group-healing and utility. The spec has always been viable in PVP and PVE by skilled players, but the amount of effort it takes to do well is not reflected in the results (especially when compared to the other healers). So what is the philosophy behind Combat Medics healers and are they performing to this standard? Combat Medics have a distinct group healing weakness, so why are the other healers encroaching upon their role? Why are Combat Medic strengths routinely undermined, while exacerbating their existing weaknesses? Why (and this is true for the AC in general) are the utility cooldowns so dreadfully long and why is the ammo management so punishing for anything less than perfection? What is being done to improve these issues -- both to Commando healers themselves and the other healing ACs -- and how do they factor into the design for the spec/role design?

 

 

You can tell a class is under-performing when the Scoundrel (or Sage) in your group is complaining that they cannot heal with their weapons (like a healing Backblast) and you, the Commando, casually remind them that you'd just like basic healing functionality like them.

 

So Odawgg has asked me to provide a question or two for the PvP portion of the Mercenary questions. I am going to poach this question from SpaniardInfinity, since I think that it is the best summation of the problems that Mando/Merc healing has right now. I will probably reword it a bit so that there are not like 10 individual questions, but the gist will be the same.

 

Just wanted to cite my source

 

 

Im also going to offer up a question about how the length of our utility cooldowns negatively effect us in PvP, and if the devs are aware of that and plan to fix it.

[cashogy_reborn]

Okay, so I will be sending these 2 questions to Odawgg tomorrow afternoon, both are 'PvP' questions.

 

Healing related

 

Bodyguard Mercenary healers have always seemed to be designed for a different game. From the get-go they were missing basic utilities (healing cleanse, in-combat revive, interrupt) and there never was a clear strength present that justified these. Repeated nerfing to the class' survivability, output, and ammo management has only caused them to continue to fall behind the rest on average. Although the class is very well-built for single-target healing, sustained healing, and survivability, other healers can arguably do the same or better, while at the same time outperforming in group-healing and utility. The spec has always been viable in PVP and PVE by exceptionally skilled players, but the amount of effort it takes to do well is not reflected in the results (especially when compared to the other healers). This makes it difficult for us to understand what the general philosophy is for Bodyguard healers, and whether or not you (the devs) think that the AC is fulfilling its intended role properly.

 

Combat Medics have a distinct group healing weakness, yet the other healers are encroaching on that role by being capable of similar, if not greater, single target healing output. Our utility cooldowns are also dreadfully long, and do not provide benefits that reflect the length of their cooldown timers (specifically Kolto Overload, Thermal Sensor Override and Power Surge). Resource management for Bodyguard healers is also the most unforgiving of the three healing ACs, basically requiring perfection in order to maintain optimal healing output. Bodyguard Mercenaries also have the least mobility of the healing ACs, and lack the utility to maintain even a semblance of their healing output while under heavy pressure from opponents. Several talent tree options make little sense in terms of healing (specifically being forced to take Peacekeeper when the majority of Merc healers will place Kolto shell on a teammate, and Supercharged gas which provides DPS output buffs within a healing class [Power Shot and Unload heat cost reduced to 0 for the duration]). With such little utility, poor group-wide healing capabilities, and the worst mobility of the 3 healing ACs, there is absolutely no reason to ever take a Bodyguard Mercenary over a Sorcerer or Operative healer.

 

What is being done to address these issues, and improve Bodyguard healing so that it is a competitive option for PvP healing?

 

 

 

Utility Cooldowns

 

Mercenary utility cooldowns are all exceptionally long and seem designed around a much slower pace of combat. Most of them do not offer a benefit that accurately reflects the length of the cooldown, and in comparison to similar abilities belonging to other ACs simply do not make sense.

 

Power Surge, the only baseline cooldown that offers a way to avoid being interrupted in an AC so heavily dependent on casting, has by default a 120s cooldown and affects only 1 ability (it can be talented down to 90s and affect 2 abilities). Mercenary’s only other interrupt resistance comes from the Bodyguard (healing) tree, so for both DPS specs Power Surge is the only way to attempt to maintain DPS output while under pressure. Unfortunately for Mercenary DPS players, pressure from opponents is going to occur much more often than just once every 90s. While proper positioning and use of LoS can help to mitigate this weakness, competent melee opponents have more tools at their disposal to continue to apply pressure (and damage). If Power Surge is not available for use, the Mercenary DPS will be unable to maintain even a semblance of their damage output and will be an easy target for competent opponents.

 

Thermal Sensor Override (TSO) also suffers from the same cooldown problem (default of 120s, can be talented to 90s) and also only affects one ability. As only 1 of two skills the class has that help to provide emergency resource management utility (and the same cooldown as an ability (Vent Heat) that refunds 50% of our resource), TSOs cooldown is much too long in terms of the benefit that it is providing.

 

Kolto Overload (KO) has a 180s cooldown for Mercenary players. While it is a decent defensive ability (changing the upper healing limit to 35% was appreciate), the cooldown has the potential to be excessively long. If KO is used preemptively, say as enemies are approaching, and is never activated (your health remains >35%), after 60s KO will go on cooldown. This effectively makes the cooldown of KO 4 minutes before it can be used again.

 

These three abilities are just a few examples of utility skills that provide important benefits to Mercenary players in certain situations, but have cooldowns that are so long that they are rarely available when using said ability(s) would be beneficial. While these utility abilities are obviously not intended to be used in every encounter, the cooldown length is prohibitively long (players find themselves not using an ability where they normally would/should because the cooldown is so long and they want to use it at the perfect moment. This results in the ability being used far less than intended). The median cooldown of Mercenary utility skills is 105 seconds. Compare that to Sniper, who has a median utility cooldown of 60s (that’s ~40% lower than Mercenary). Are the developers aware of how the excessive length of Mercenary utility cooldowns have a negative effect on their capabilities in PvP, and how do they plan to improve this situation for Mercenary players?

 

 

 

I wanted to run these by you all before I passed them on to Odwagg. Critique away, let me know if there are specific changes you guys think should be made. If you all think I should emphasize one of these questions more than the other, I will tell Odawgg which one we like to see posted more. Thanks.

Edited September 6, 2013 by cashogy_reborn

[schooch]

Okay, so I will be sending these 2 questions to Odawgg tomorrow afternoon, both are 'PvP' questions.

 

Healing related

 

Bodyguard Mercenary healers have always seemed to be designed for a different game. From the get-go they were missing basic utilities (healing cleanse, in-combat revive, interrupt) and there never was a clear strength present that justified these. Repeated nerfing to the class' survivability, output, and ammo management has only caused them to continue to fall behind the rest on average. Although the class is very well-built for single-target healing, sustained healing, and survivability, other healers can arguably do the same or better, while at the same time outperforming in group-healing and utility. The spec has always been viable in PVP and PVE by exceptionally skilled players, but the amount of effort it takes to do well is not reflected in the results (especially when compared to the other healers). This makes it difficult for us to understand what the general philosophy is for Bodyguard healers, and whether or not you (the devs) think that the AC is fulfilling its intended role properly.

 

Combat Medics have a distinct group healing weakness, yet the other healers are encroaching on that role by being capable of similar, if not greater, single target healing output. Our utility cooldowns are also dreadfully long, and do not provide benefits that reflect the length of their cooldown timers (specifically Kolto Overload, Thermal Sensor Override and Power Surge). Resource management for Bodyguard healers is also the most unforgiving of the three healing ACs, basically requiring perfection in order to maintain optimal healing output. Bodyguard Mercenaries also have the least mobility of the healing ACs, and lack the utility to maintain even a semblance of their healing output while under heavy pressure from opponents. Several talent tree options make little sense in terms of healing (specifically being forced to take Peacekeeper when the majority of Merc healers will place Kolto shell on a teammate, and Supercharged gas which provides DPS output buffs within a healing class [Power Shot and Unload heat cost reduced to 0 for the duration]). With such little utility, poor group-wide healing capabilities, and the worst mobility of the 3 healing ACs, there is absolutely no reason to ever take a Bodyguard Mercenary over a Sorcerer or Operative healer.

 

What is being done to address these issues, and improve Bodyguard healing so that it is a competitive option for PvP healing?

 

 

 

 

I like this question. There is not a lot of comparing merc heals to one of the other healers (which BW hates when people do side beside comparisons.) +1

[TimmehSolo]

Healing related

 

Bodyguard Mercenary healers have always seemed to be designed for a different game. From the get-go they were missing basic utilities (healing cleanse, in-combat revive, interrupt) and there never was a clear strength present that justified these. Repeated nerfing to the class' survivability, output, and ammo management has only caused them to continue to fall behind the rest on average. Although the class is very well-built for single-target healing, sustained healing, and survivability, other healers can arguably do the same or better, while at the same time outperforming in group-healing and utility. The spec has always been viable in PVP and PVE by exceptionally skilled players, but the amount of effort it takes to do well is not reflected in the results (especially when compared to the other healers). This makes it difficult for us to understand what the general philosophy is for Bodyguard healers, and whether or not you (the devs) think that the AC is fulfilling its intended role properly.

 

Combat Medics have a distinct group healing weakness, yet the other healers are encroaching on that role by being capable of similar, if not greater, single target healing output. Our utility cooldowns are also dreadfully long, and do not provide benefits that reflect the length of their cooldown timers (specifically Kolto Overload, Thermal Sensor Override and Power Surge). Resource management for Bodyguard healers is also the most unforgiving of the three healing ACs, basically requiring perfection in order to maintain optimal healing output. Bodyguard Mercenaries also have the least mobility of the healing ACs, and lack the utility to maintain even a semblance of their healing output while under heavy pressure from opponents. Several talent tree options make little sense in terms of healing (specifically being forced to take Peacekeeper when the majority of Merc healers will place Kolto shell on a teammate, and Supercharged gas which provides DPS output buffs within a healing class [Power Shot and Unload heat cost reduced to 0 for the duration]). With such little utility, poor group-wide healing capabilities, and the worst mobility of the 3 healing ACs, there is absolutely no reason to ever take a Bodyguard Mercenary over a Sorcerer or Operative healer.

 

What is being done to address these issues, and improve Bodyguard healing so that it is a competitive option for PvP healing?

 

 

I think you hit on the major points. My opinion has always been that Merc/Mando healers are viable, but are just so outshined by the other healing classes that we seem bad. Our healing is more difficult for a sub-par result, but we don't get any significant buffs in other areas to counter balance this. You of course said it a lot better than me though, lol.

[ArchangelLBC]

Dang, those are both really good questions Cash. I'm not sure. Is there a way to fold the second a little into the first without making the length just completely untenable? There's an opening there afterall. What's Odawgg planning to do for the wildcard questions? If it has to do with our cooldowns already then go with the first one and maybe just elaborate a tiny bit more on usability of our cooldowns. If he's planning on doing something different maybe go with the second question.

 

I thought the Devs have been pretty honest in their answers (as they said they would be). It's also demonstrable that we are far below that 5% variation.

 

Agree with 1, agree with 2 too. Went through that period of being kicked on the basis of no interrupt. Can't speak about 3 in terms of PvP so I'll trust your judgement.

 

I also see your point on the length/depth of dialogue. I'm (optimistically) hoping that this is the start of an ongoing discussion. It might well not be. Although, on the point of forums storm, not sure how much of the player base is regularly on the forums and would be affected (genuinely no idea).

 

It wasn't designed to be condescending. I apologise if it came across that way.

 

How demonstrable is it though? Absolute top tier mercs are within that 5% margin or pretty close. Looking at the Torparse leaderboards for the dummy, the highest parsing Merc or Commando is Pizza (Odawgg) at 3147. There are only 6 people above the threshold (3147/0.95 =3312) and those are gunslingers and snipers, and all 6 of them are using scatter bombs for those crazy inflated numbers. Fun fact: of the top 48 people on the dummy, 34 are sniper/slinger, while only one merc and one commando break that list, even though Arsenal Merc/Gunnery Commando is the ONLY AC in the game which can achieve absolute top damage potential on the dummy excepting Inspiration. I didn't go through any but the top 6 though to check who was lol-rolling and who wasn't.

 

Discounting the lol-rolls, which BW has said they want to address anyway, and in practical fights is only really good for one fight anyway, it would seem damage potential wise that Merc/Commando is right up there. Not the best maybe, but the potential certainly seems to be there.

 

Usability though, now there's a different way to view things. So FEW Mercs/Mandos can really get up there while the same list is pretty much littered with gunslingers and snipers, though again the scatter bomb lolroll really skews the data up a bunch. But that's why I keep harping on ammo management, and specifically bringing back the old set bonus. I personally think it's one of the biggest limiting factors for us. That and the RNG of CoF and the low crit rate (though BW has also said they plan to address how abysmal critical rating is right now as a stat). Since crit rating as a stat has sorta already been addressed, I figure best thing to tackle next is ammo management, especially since it can make both Gunnery and CM a bit more competitive.

 

The condescending thing mostly came from "Ammo management isn't tight if you're good", which you'll find is logically equivalent to "If ammo management is tight, then you aren't good", which is pretty condescending even accounting for the way tone gets lost over a text medium. Granted, I should admit that I probably started it with the "glad you aren't my rep!" line.

 

Please also bear in mind two points. A large consensus means taking account of a wide range of people from different skills, knowledge backgrounds and levels. This is not necessarily the best route to base technical decisions on.

 

Additionally, Odawgg might be very good. I might also be very good.

 

I should rephrase to mean "the general opinion I find among commandos and mercenaries who have demonstrated knowledge and competence of the class all seem to agree that ammo management is a bit tight in gunnery and that having the old eliminator's set bonus back would be preferrable".

 

Also you might be very good, I personally don't think I'm anything more than incredibly average or mediocre, but Odawgg most definitely IS very good, at least when it comes to PVE DPS. That one isn't really in question, and he's the one that started that massive thread on the merc forums asking for the set bonus to be reverted.

 

Tweaking set bonuses or specific abilities was the point I was hoping for. Perhaps we've misconstrued one another. When I saw people talking about "Ammo Management" I assumed they were talking about it in general, much as the Sages did. Specific tuning of the ammo costs of specific abilities would help. However, I believe that we are limited far more by the damage/Heal output of our abilities. However, there are valid arguements for both sides and healing is much harder to quantify.

 

I think we've been trying to mean ammo management in general because both CM and Gunnery could do with some spec specific tweaks here, and a more general question that can help two specs is better than asking a very specific question which only helps one. When you have as many issues as our class does (one could argue that in the grand scheme they're all minor, but there are a LOT of them) getting as much mileage out of a question is important. That being said, I've also been arguing, hopefully successfully, that while questions should fall under a general umbrella, they should include specifics (like DPS in both old and new set bonuses being equal, or something specific for CM) to avoid precisely the dismissive "L2P" comments the sorcs got.

 

So general umbrella, but with specifics so they know exactly what we're talking about. The fact that we had some confusion on what was being said is even more indication in my mind that the questions to the devs MUST include specifics, in order to avoid that confusion with them.

 

Again, I never said you were 'bads'. I gave you the benefit of the doubt around your Rep comment, I'd appreciate reciprocation. The written word is hardly an ideal medium for avoiding missing tone/subcontext.

 

Well like I said, there's tone and subcontext, and then there's saying "Ammo management isn't tight if you're good". I mean come on dude. You don't think maybe that was going a *tad* over the line? I mean I think we're on the same page now, but if either of us were even a tad less reasonable then that could have sparked a huge flame fest back and forth for no good reason. I did arguably start it though, and this did turn into a rather fruitful discussion I feel, or at least an enjoyable one, so no blood no foul =)

 

It's worth noting that the impact of the set bonus change is minimal. Certainly not enough to come close to closing the DPS gap.

 

Eh, are you sure of that. I would think that 73.97 mainstat and 8% damage on HiB would be a pretty sizable gap to overcome, or 37 Mainstat and 15% crit rate on Grav Round (back when 2 pc set bonuses stacked), but the good ole 4 piece dread guard was able to be competitive with both of them. I haven't seen where anyone has mathed out exactly what combining old and new set bonuses would mean in terms of expected DPS though so you may well be right.

 

Thing is though, I don't actually expect that kind of change to adjust the top end all that much. Damage potential would go up, but only slightly I agree. Where I think we'd see a big improvement though is in the average. I think we'd see a LOT more commandos pulling into the 2800-2900 range on the dummy sustained over 5 minutes (a lot of the top commando parses are barely over a minute). That's where I personally feel we're getting thrashed. Not in damage potential, but in how easy it is to meet 90-95% of that potential.

 

I'll stress that my viewpoint is tainted by my own experiences. I'm very used to acting within the constraints of our ammo. I essentially view it in the same light as the GCD. It's just part of the environment to work around. Therefore I focus on the direct output of our abilities. However, their frequency is limited by Ammo (and GCD) so easing the strictures there would have a similarly positive affect. I just don't believe that it would have anywhere near enough.

 

That's fair enough. My viewpoint is similarly informed by my experiences, including my, admittedly recent and more limited, experiences parsing on my sniper, gunslinger, and sorcerer, and getting a feel for how their turret specs act. It's really amazing how freeing Sharpshooter is in a lot of ways when you can get it down to where you don't have to worry about watching your ammo like a hawk, but can also be pushed to eek out even more DPS. It's like the perfect balance of Lightning Sorc, who has brain dead force management, and Gunnery Commando, whose ammo management is just a tad too tight.

 

Additionally, as I said, ammo is something that is more easily also parlayed into a question for other specs, whereas asking about CoF procs, or Demo Round crit rates, isn't so easily done. I doubt we could get away with a question asking for a cleaning up of all 3 skill trees with details about all the things that should be adjusted.

 

Once crit rate is fixed (assuming it ever is) I do think our output will be a lot better, and more specific questions like those mentioned above are more better addressed, in my opinion, once the ammo management issue is resolved (if it ever is).

 

I believe we're arguing for the same thing, I just believe that raising a generalised complaint, and one that received short-thrift from the Devs last time, will not be as constructive. However, I may well be proved wrong. Similarly, if the plan is not to talk about ammo management, but about the costs of specific abilities as part of a much larger question around DPS/HPS output, then I'm all for it.

 

Well, like I said, in my view the way to go is "General Umbrella, with specific examples". I mean a general question about damage output would be the same unless we can point to similar examples, but the devs are well known at this point for kind of ignoring dummy parses, though at least with us they can't pull that BS argument about execute phases. We all remember though how much easier ammo management was pre-2.0, the old set bonus reminds us of the damage potential that comes from getting that one more GCD or two used on a Grav Round instead of a Hammershots. It seems such a small thing, but the impact has been noticeable I feel.

 

Regardless, it's been an interesting conversation and it's been good to talk about the old times, reminded me of lots of fond memories. I've basically contributed what I wanted to contribute to the dialogue though so I'll bow out here. Good luck with the questions (and thanks to our Rep for volunteering) and I'll await the answers with interest.

 

I've had a good time talking to you as well.

 

 

i don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.

 

ericmusco already admitted that he's forwarding suggestions made in these threads since the program started, so i think we can safely bank on them at least looking at our ideas here in the forums (even if they won't comment on them directly)

 

i think in the questions, we definitely can put some suggestions forth, but asking about their design philosophy isn't bad, nor does it automatically detract from suggestions. paowee did that with sniper and now he's furthering that discussion about laze target. will we see a response? probably not directly and probably not right away, but i'd be willing to bet if he determines that the community is behind a change, we would see one.

and i'm sure some suggestions that have been tossed around on the forums since this thing started will probably start to pop up in some form when the next round of balance passes comes along.

 

of course we'll have to wait until 2.5 or 2.6 to see what the devs liked as far as suggestions go, but i think that's another concern/discussion entirely.

 

Paowee did that within the context of an Offensive Cooldown question (i.e. not a question about an abstract paradigm for sniper), and he also has the luxury of representing a class which has very few issues because it's actually very well balanced. Even so he DIDN'T ask what the devs had in mind for snipers.

 

We on the other hand have a MYRIAD of issues which need to be addressed regardless of whatever their intent for the class was, and that kind of question is just not easily combined with any single one of those issues. Depending on what happens between now and November, that may change, but for now, I really think we should stick to more practical concerns. It's not that it's bad, but asking it does take away a question that could be spent on any one of those issues. Unless you just wanna try and sneak in a fourth question. "Oh by the way, what is your vision for the class?".

 

Also, you're a better man than me if you think Eric passing stuff on is gonna matter a good gosh darn. He supposedly passed on the shadow tank spikiness up the ladder, having a "very serious in-depth discussion", about it, over 2 months ago, and we still haven't heard so much as a peep from them, or indeed seen a THING which indicates such a conversation has even taken place. if their conclusions were that it's a non-issue, you'd think they'd have gotten back to us by now. Oh well. It's gonna be the very first shadow question, so they'll have to answer in a few weeks regardless.

 

Still, my personal feeling is that whatever suggestions he does pass up, the combat team just isn't gonna care about them.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ArchangelLBC

[cashogy_reborn]

Glad you guys are all liking the questions!

 

Another /tiphat to SpaniardInfinity for the healing question, I used one of his posts as the starting point for that one.

 

 

Dang, those are both really good questions Cash. I'm not sure. Is there a way to fold the second a little into the first without making the length just completely untenable? There's an opening there afterall. What's Odawgg planning to do for the wildcard questions? If it has to do with our cooldowns already then go with the first one and maybe just elaborate a tiny bit more on usability of our cooldowns. If he's planning on doing something different maybe go with the second question.

 

 

When I was writing the healing question I started to get into the cooldown stuff, but I thought it detracted a bit from the fact that there are more issues with Combat Medic/Bodyguard than just the cooldown lengths. They do certainly intertwine tho. It was also a page and a half long in the Word doc I sketched it out in rofl.

 

Im not sure of Odawgg's plan for the wildcard question, I would imagine something PvE related since that is his forte. I believe he will be posting rough drafts of the questions tomorrow night, so we should all know pretty soon.

 

Also, I am leaning a bit towards recommending the healing question, as over the last few weeks it seems like a majority of people posting in this thread have concerns with the healing spec. Whichever question does not get used I will be storing away for November tho

Edited September 6, 2013 by cashogy_reborn

[ArchangelLBC]

Well the cooldown question is pretty close to the (longer) one I was pushing awhile back, and if Odawgg takes that, or something similar, for his wildcard, then absolutely use the healing one.

 

In a vacuum the second just seems to address issues for ALL commandos in PVP rather than just healers, which is preferable, but the question is being asked along side two others, so if Odawgg covers cooldowns vs usability of our abilities on his own, then absolutely ask the healing question as getting us the most bang for our buck from all three.

 

My opinion anyway.

[oaceen]

Still, my personal feeling is that whatever suggestions he does pass up, the combat team just isn't gonna care about them.

 

well, if we're being glass half full about it, i don't see why asking it in a question would be any different other than being shot down right away.

 

but that's not really the point i was making. my main point is that they don't detract from each other. we can ask them to comment on certain suggestions while also asking 'hey, so what's the design philosophy and whatever for this class?'

 

if we only ask for fixes, we'll probably get a lot of vanguard/sorc responses 'no, we're not doing that at this time' and then there's no design intentions for the class to spark more conversation, just a lot of people really pissed off at the 'lolno' response.

 

but say we make a lot of proposals right now, and they say no (hell, they might even say yes), then we ask about the goals of each spec/classes, etc. we can then spark up more conversations here on the forums, and, like i said, it will take a very long time to get any (if any at all) response outside of these questions or magically seeing some patch note a few months from now, but i don't see that we should intentionally avoid doing that.

 

does that make more sense? i'm just saying that they don't detract from each other, and in fact, we probably want to ask about both so we get a fuller answer to our concerns instead of 'H2F 2.0'

[Rambeezy]

I hope bioware realizes they can't give us merc/mandos anything less than precise answers. The fact we can almost predict how the class will be buffed is testament to that. Not much if anything about this classes current state that I don't already know.

 

Questions look good btw

[oaceen]

 

Healing related

 

Bodyguard Mercenary healers have always seemed to be designed for a different game. When the game initially launched, we lacked basic utilities (healing cleanse, in-combat revive, interrupt) and there never was a clear justification for their omission. Although the class is very well-built for single-target healing, sustained healing, and survivability, other healers can arguably do this much better, while at the same time outperforming in group-healing and utility. Bodyguard has less AOE healing and strong, single-target burst healing compared to other healers, and we believe that this is by design. However, it can be strongly argued that our single-target healing is still outclassed by the other healers, so we are falling behind in both single-target and AOE healing.

 

Several talent tree options and design choices confuse players as to their usefulness. Our utility cooldowns are dreadfully long and do not provide benefits that reflect the length of their cooldown timers (specifically Kolto Overload, Thermal Sensor Override and Power Surge). Resource management for Bodyguard healers is also the most unforgiving of the three healing ACs, where an Operative and Sorcerer have many more energy management tools when they have overextended, Bodyguards simply use Rapid Shots until heat dissipates on its own if Vent Heat is unavailable. Bodyguard Mercenaries also have the least mobility of the healing ACs, and lack the utility to maintain decent healing output while under heavy pressure from opponents with the exception of Power Shield, which is on a very long cooldown. Being forced to take Peacekeeper to gain access to Bodyguard is a notable problem as well since Kolto Shell can only be placed on one ally at a time. We are essentially penalized whenever we decide to place Kolto Shell on ally by effectively having 2 wasted talent points. Players are also confused about the design intent for Supercharged gas. It appears to be a panic skill to help get out of tough spots while acting like a rotational filler and additionally provides DPS buffs which many Bodyguards would gladly trade for more healing output.

 

The spec has always been viable in PvP by exceptionally skilled players, but the amount of effort it takes to do well in other classes is much lower by comparison. This makes it difficult for us to justify a post on a Ranked Warzone team and, as Arenas are fast approaching, we are still worried about our viability compared to the other healing ACs. Can the devs elaborate on the design philosophy for the class and how it applies to balancing with the other healing classes and comment on player concerns about lack of mobility, utility, and healing output compared to other healers, the length of cooldowns, talent trees, and the Supercharged gas skill?

 

 

reworded and rearranged a bit to help it flow better and put a stronger focus on the points we're trying to get across

 

Utility Cooldowns

 

Mercenary utility cooldowns are all exceptionally long and seem designed around a much slower pace of combat. Most of them do not offer a benefit that accurately reflects the length of the cooldown, and in comparison to similar abilities belonging to other ACs simply do not make sense.

 

Power Surge, the only baseline cooldown that offers a way to avoid being interrupted in an AC so heavily dependent on casting, has by default a 120s cooldown and affects only 1 ability (it can be talented down to 90s and affect 2 abilities). Mercenary’s only other interrupt resistance comes from the Bodyguard (healing) tree, so for both DPS specs Power Surge is the only way to attempt to maintain DPS output while under pressure. Unfortunately for Mercenary DPS players, pressure from opponents is going to occur much more often than just once every 90s. While proper positioning and use of LoS can help to mitigate this weakness, competent melee opponents have more tools at their disposal to continue to apply pressure (and damage). If Power Surge is not available for use, the Mercenary DPS will be unable to maintain even a semblance of their damage output and will be an easy target for competent opponents.

 

Thermal Sensor Override (TSO) also suffers from the same cooldown problem (default of 120s, can be talented to 90s) and also only affects one ability. As only 1 of two skills the class has that help to provide emergency resource management utility (and the same cooldown as an ability (Vent Heat) that refunds 50% of our resource), TSOs cooldown is much too long in terms of the benefit that it is providing.

 

Kolto Overload (KO) has a 180s cooldown for Mercenary players. While it is a decent defensive ability (changing the upper healing limit to 35% was appreciate), the cooldown has the potential to be excessively long. If KO is used preemptively, say as enemies are approaching, and is never activated (your health remains >35%), after 60s KO will go on cooldown. This effectively makes the cooldown of KO 4 minutes before it can be used again.

 

These three abilities are just a few examples of utility skills that provide important benefits to Mercenary players in certain situations, but have cooldowns that are so long that they are rarely available when using said ability(s) would be beneficial. While these utility abilities are obviously not intended to be used in every encounter, the cooldown length is prohibitively long (players find themselves not using an ability where they normally would/should because the cooldown is so long and they want to use it at the perfect moment. This results in the ability being used far less than intended). The median cooldown of Mercenary utility skills is 105 seconds. Compare that to Sniper, who has a median utility cooldown of 60s (that’s ~40% lower than Mercenary). Are the developers aware of how the excessive length of Mercenary utility cooldowns have a negative effect on their capabilities in PvP, and how do they plan to improve this situation for Mercenary players?

 

 

my only comment about this is that it's mentioned in the healing question. so that we're not asking the same question twice, i suggest either not submitting this question or simply removing its mention from the healing question.

 

if you guys decide on the latter, i can offer some suggestions for it then.

Edited September 6, 2013 by oaceen

[cashogy_reborn]

reworded and rearranged a bit to help it flow better and put a stronger focus on the points we're trying to get across

 

 

 

my only comment about this is that it's mentioned in the healing question. so that we're not asking the same question twice, i suggest either not submitting this question or simply removing its mention from the healing question.

 

if you guys decide on the latter, i can offer some suggestions for it then.

 

Only one of these questions will be used, so there would be no overlap.

[oaceen]

Only one of these questions will be used, so there would be no overlap.

 

in that case, i would suggest going with healing and perhaps adding in a little more about the cooldowns (and maybe how it applies to PvP in general, not just for healing?).

 

i know that the question's getting rather long at this point, but if you look at the actual question portion, it's only referencing like 3 or 4 things, so i think we can get away with it.

[cashogy_reborn]

in that case, i would suggest going with healing and perhaps adding in a little more about the cooldowns (and maybe how it applies to PvP in general, not just for healing?).

 

i know that the question's getting rather long at this point, but if you look at the actual question portion, it's only referencing like 3 or 4 things, so i think we can get away with it.

 

I made edits and sent it already, so we will see which question Odawgg goes with. I can advise him to add some stuff to it if need be; should be easy enough.

 

And length does bother me too much, as long as its all coherent. Going into obscene amounts of detail about specific problems is probably going to be more beneficial in terms of getting our points across to the devs, who seem to have trouble understanding all but the most basic logic.

Edited September 6, 2013 by cashogy_reborn

[ArchangelLBC]

well, if we're being glass half full about it, i don't see why asking it in a question would be any different other than being shot down right away.

 

but that's not really the point i was making. my main point is that they don't detract from each other. we can ask them to comment on certain suggestions while also asking 'hey, so what's the design philosophy and whatever for this class?'

 

if we only ask for fixes, we'll probably get a lot of vanguard/sorc responses 'no, we're not doing that at this time' and then there's no design intentions for the class to spark more conversation, just a lot of people really pissed off at the 'lolno' response.

 

but say we make a lot of proposals right now, and they say no (hell, they might even say yes), then we ask about the goals of each spec/classes, etc. we can then spark up more conversations here on the forums, and, like i said, it will take a very long time to get any (if any at all) response outside of these questions or magically seeing some patch note a few months from now, but i don't see that we should intentionally avoid doing that.

 

does that make more sense? i'm just saying that they don't detract from each other, and in fact, we probably want to ask about both so we get a fuller answer to our concerns instead of 'H2F 2.0'

 

It doesn't really make more sense. They detract from each other because there's just no good segue from one to the other, except possibly in a questions about cooldowns vs usability, and then asking why this happened. You like to edit so feel free to write up a question that addresses a practical concern while aslo asking about design philosophy. I have no problem with the idea of asking about design philosophy, I'm just against doing it in favor of practical questions, and if it comes off as too much of a tangent, they'll not answer the practical question.

 

Conversations about the design philosophy of the class are, frankly, meaningless without the devs taking part, and they aren't interested in taking part. If they were I would agree with you 100%.

[oaceen]

You like to edit so feel free to write up a question that addresses a practical concern while aslo asking about design philosophy.

 

i already did

 

 

i think there's still some confusion about what my suggestion would entail, so here's a better breakdown:

 

it would be a summation of players concerns and perceptions of the class and things we would like to see changed.

 

then followed by an actual question (ie: a sentence that ends in a ?) that asks about the design intent that brought us here and what sorts of things they're planning for the future to address player perception and alleviate concerns for the listed issues.

 

there's only one very insignificant difference between what a question that does and one that doesn't ask about it. so, for what i did for my edit for cashogy's healing question was very simple and as you can see, does not detract from the question at all:

 

Can the devs elaborate on the design philosophy for the class and how it applies to balancing with the other healing classes and comment on player concerns about lack of mobility, utility, and healing output compared to other healers, the length of cooldowns, talent trees, and the Supercharged gas skill?

 

in fact, i would consider it necessary to actually be able to address our concerns.

Edited September 6, 2013 by oaceen

[ManiacDavis]

I love your questions Cash, good job.