Rough draft of our three questions!

[mfourcustom]

AGAIN this is a rough draft of our first three question please shoot feedback back at me on these so we can have the three best questions possible!

 

PVP:

 

The community feels that Vanguards lack both survivability and utility in comparison to the other two dps/tank classes. When we look at the defensive cooldown that shadows possess (stealth, force speed, force wave, deflection, phasewalk, and resilience), we see a greater potential for surviving an encounter. The same is true when we look at a guardians list of cooldowns (guardian leap, force leap, saber ward, saber reflect, enure and force push). Looking at the vanguards short list of (reactive shield, hold the line, and adrenaline rush), what could be done to address these weaknesses?

 

PVE:

With the nerfs following 2.0 currently in PVE the highest parsing spec is a hybrid dps spec with assault and tactics, is this intended to be the case? If not what changes could be made to ensure each tree is capable on its own in a PVE setting?

 

Other:

With the nerfs to assault spec in 2.0 and the redesign of the top tier talent assault plastique the vanguard community feels that vanguard DPS is now suffering heavily in PVP lacking burst, is there anyway in the near future the assault spec weaknesses and the overall weaknesses of the spec could be addressed so assault vanguards could stack up to other DPS classes like guardian smashers and infiltration shadows?

[ZeroPlus]

Looks good!

[mfourcustom]

Looks good!

 

Thanks hopefully when more people wake up we can get some more feedback and fine tune these

[jillun]

PVP : We cannot seriously fulthil any role : we are "good" solo node guarder in shield tech spec, not because we can win 1vs1, but because we have enough hp to survive, waiting for reenforcement.

We cannot dps efficiently : tactics/advanced proto has the weakest burst ever. AP/Pyro is fluff dot damage that looks good on the scoreboard.

 

We are, right now, the worst ac of this game. At least scoundrels/operatives have a good/OP? build (healer).

 

Just make us competitive. betterstronger burst, betterstronger survavibility, better everything, because we are trash since 2.0

 

Best regards

Edited August 5, 2013 by jillun

[ScytheEleven]

AGAIN this is a rough draft of our first three question please shoot feedback back at me on these so we can have the three best questions possible!

 

PVP:

 

The community feels that Vanguards lack both survivability and utility in comparison to the other two dps/tank classes. When we look at the defensive cooldown that shadows possess (stealth, force speed, force wave, deflection, phasewalk, and resilience), we see a greater potential for surviving an encounter. The same is true when we look at a guardians list of cooldowns (guardian leap, force leap, saber ward, saber reflect, enure and force push). Looking at the vanguards short list of (reactive shield, hold the line, and adrenaline rush), what could be done to address these weaknesses?

 

PVE:

With the nerfs following 2.0 currently in PVE the highest parsing spec is a hybrid dps spec with assault and tactics, is this intended to be the case? If not what changes could be made to ensure each tree is capable on its own in a PVE setting?

 

Other:

With the nerfs to assault spec in 2.0 and the redesign of the top tier talent assault plastique the vanguard community feels that vanguard DPS is now suffering heavily in PVP lacking burst, is there anyway in the near future the assault spec weaknesses and the overall weaknesses of the spec could be addressed so assault vanguards could stack up to other DPS classes like guardian smashers and infiltration shadows?

 

I would (personally) do two things:

 

1). For the PVP question, I'd like to see a specific mention of a request for a Force/Tech resist.

 

2). You could *possibly* merge the "OTHER" question and the PVE. That would give us room for another question. Re-worded, it could be this:

 

With the changes to the Assault tree and even with the small tweaks to the Tactics tree, many players for higher-end content (i.e. TFB/SV NiM) opt out of the top tier talents in both trees and instead run a hybrid spec. The general player consensus behind this option is that a full-tree Assault build is simply not viable, and that Tactics is missing a few key components to make it a truly great spec. In Assault, Assault Plastique's damage is disproportionate to other classes top-tier talent (not to mention having its burst potential neutered in 2.0), and lacks any kind of synergy with the tree. Tactics is a bit better, but players are forced to put a point into Blaster Augs (which gives a frustrating 1% boost to elemental attacks), and once again, the top tier talent Fire Pulse features a long cooldown while lacking any real punch. The hybrid spec, rather, is a simple priority system that combines Tactics AoE capabilities via Pulse Generator and pre-2.0 Assault's single target damage potential with three different DoT's and hard-hitting HiB. Was this hybrid intended to out pace the full tree builds of Assault/Tactics? If not, we as the player base feel as if the top-tier talents in both Tactics and Assault should be re-considered to make it worthwhile for players to climb all the way up the tree, so what can be done to increase their usefulness?

[ceelaniri]

I would (personally) do two things:

 

1). For the PVP question, I'd like to see a specific mention of a request for a Force/Tech resist.

 

2). You could *possibly* merge the "OTHER" question and the PVE. That would give us room for another question.

 

3. How about an execute move/talent to be on par with both Shadow and Guardian? it could solve burst/shorten TTK for Shield/Assault/Tactic.

Edited August 5, 2013 by ceelaniri

[Fellow-Canadian]

Other:

With the nerfs to assault spec in 2.0 and the redesign of the top tier talent assault plastique the vanguard community feels that vanguard DPS is now suffering heavily in PVP lacking burst, is there anyway in the near future the assault spec weaknesses and the overall weaknesses of the spec could be addressed so assault vanguards could stack up to other DPS classes like guardian smashers and infiltration shadows?

 

Both assault and tactics burst damage is pretty meh so I wouldn't phrase this question to only address assault spec.

[Zoom_VI]

I think the questions need to be expanded out a lot more, in order to avoid the devs slipping out on them or not fully answering what we want. I recommend looking at how Kitru is doing the questions for shadow as an example.

 

I am a little concerned that there is no direct question about the tank tree either, considering how underpowered vg are compared to gaurdians in both pve and pvp, not to mention bring a tank vg is gimping a pvp team as much as bring a dps one.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Zoom_VI

[Kitru]

I recommend looking at how Kitru is doing the questions for shadow as an example.

 

For ease of reference, here is the post likely being referred to here. Depending upon what the Zoom is saying, it could either refer to the primary/secondary construct I used for each question category or to the sheer depth of complexity referring to continued elaboration upon specific points of the given subject.

[mfourcustom]

I think the questions need to be expanded out a lot more, in order to avoid the devs slipping out on them or not fully answering what we want. I recommend looking at how Kitru is doing the questions for shadow as an example.

 

I am a little concerned that there is no direct question about the tank tree either, considering how underpowered vg are compared to gaurdians in both pve and pvp, not to mention bring a tank vg is gimping a pvp team as much as bring a dps one.

 

Yup they will be expanded I just want feed back so i can do my best for you guys!

[BARSAL]

I would definitely expand question three to include all specs lack of burst damage which is huge in pvp, especially vanguards lack of finishing power (ie. execute, strong burst finisher). Burnout just doesn't cut it in pvp.

[Betadurin]

Please strike the word "nerf" and replace with "changes" Let's not give them a silly reason to be grumpy, and try to keep things professional. Yeah minor, but sometimes it's the little things...

 

I'll echo the suggestions / concerns that VGs "seem" to be less able to mitigate damage than the other tanks classes, at least according to parses [or other data we can give them to back up the statement] What, if any tweaks to the Shield spec do you, the Devs have in store?

 

This may be rolled up into "The top of the VG trees seem to not have abilities powerful enough compared to Hybrids. Would you agree, and, if not, what are we missing?"

[Kitru]

This may be rolled up into "The top of the VG trees seem to not have abilities powerful enough compared to Hybrids. Would you agree, and, if not, what are we missing?"

 

Energy Blast is *plenty* strong enough. It the DPS top tier abilities that aren't good enough to justify pure specs and which need to be improved commensurately.

 

If could be rephrased as "Vanguard hybrid DPS has been demonstrated to perform better than either of the pure build VG DPS. Is there any plan to improve the top tier abilities of the DPS trees, which are surprisingly lackluster, so as to discourage hybrid specs and improve the performance of non-hybrid VG DPS?"

 

It folds in the concerns about having to go hybrid as well as the fact that the top tier abilities suck.

[ScytheEleven]

Energy Blast is *plenty* strong enough. It the DPS top tier abilities that aren't good enough to justify pure specs and which need to be improved commensurately.

 

If could be rephrased as "Vanguard hybrid DPS has been demonstrated to perform better than either of the pure build VG DPS. Is there any plan to improve the top tier abilities of the DPS trees, which are surprisingly lackluster, so as to discourage hybrid specs and improve the performance of non-hybrid VG DPS?"

 

It folds in the concerns about having to go hybrid as well as the fact that the top tier abilities suck.

 

Yeah that's worded better than my essay length question.

[Chickensevil]

PVE:

With the nerfs following 2.0 currently in PVE the highest parsing spec is a hybrid dps spec with assault and tactics, is this intended to be the case? If not what changes could be made to ensure each tree is capable on its own in a PVE setting?

 

My problem with this question is how it is worded. I think this is a good thing to point out, but the way it is phrased puts all the negative on the hybrid which gives impression of "nerf hybrid"... instead of highlighting that the only way to be even remotely on par with other classes is to go hybrid (and even then we don't stand a chance of beating any decently played Jugg, Mara, Sniper, or Merc).

 

It should be worded in a way so as to point out something like:

"We are currently only competitive in DPS BECAUSE of hybrid (2/22/22) since the full tress are about a solid 200+ DPS behind making Hybrid the only option of end game (NiM mode) play (with maybe rare exception on very specific fights). What can be done to boost the abilities and talents unique to the tops of the trees so as to at the very least bring their damage output more in line with the Hybrid spec, and also to add synergy to both top tier abilities (which feel very forced into the rotations)?"

 

It's sad that Hybrid has the most synergy of them all since (excuse my PT talk on the VG forums... don't feel like translating) flame burst procs both the free rocket punch AND the free rail shot AND adds stacks of Prototype Flame Thrower and Retractable Blade buffs all damage being done. The ONLY thing that you use that doesn't really synergize well with the tree is Incendiary Missile. This is sad.

 

The core of Advanced Prototype is based around the flame thrower proc's which is gained at the halfway point, and the core of the Pyrotech tree is based around Rail Shot Procs... There is little to nothing gained (asside from a very disappointing ability) from going full tree in either, and I think that should be key to the question asked.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Chickensevil

[Ottoattack]

AGAIN this is a rough draft of our first three question please shoot feedback back at me on these so we can have the three best questions possible!

 

PVP:

 

The community feels that Vanguards lack both survivability and utility in comparison to the other two dps/tank classes. When we look at the defensive cooldown that shadows possess (stealth, force speed, force wave, deflection, phasewalk, and resilience), we see a greater potential for surviving an encounter. The same is true when we look at a guardians list of cooldowns (guardian leap, force leap, saber ward, saber reflect, enure and force push). Looking at the vanguards short list of (reactive shield, hold the line, and adrenaline rush), what could be done to address these weaknesses?

 

PVE:

With the nerfs following 2.0 currently in PVE the highest parsing spec is a hybrid dps spec with assault and tactics, is this intended to be the case? If not what changes could be made to ensure each tree is capable on its own in a PVE setting?

 

Other:

With the nerfs to assault spec in 2.0 and the redesign of the top tier talent assault plastique the vanguard community feels that vanguard DPS is now suffering heavily in PVP lacking burst, is there anyway in the near future the assault spec weaknesses and the overall weaknesses of the spec could be addressed so assault vanguards could stack up to other DPS classes like guardian smashers and infiltration shadows?

 

The questions are right on, but I think they can be given more muscle to put the devs on the spot. Remember that we want to corner them with evidence and solid information, so that they can't provide BS responses.

 

Question 1:

I think the comparison need to be more detailed as comparing tank to tanks and/or dps to dps. The question as it is above indicates that we are only comparing VG tanks to other tanks, and we and the devs know that the gap is not big there.The most likely response will be "working as intended." However. if we compare VG dps suriviability with other dps classes, especially melee the gap is big (extremely big for assault), we may get a stronger response.

 

Even though VG tank could use a slight buff, they are not far behind juggs. Dps VG survivability compared other melee dps classes is severely lacking. Even some ranged dps classes have better survivability.

 

Question 2:

The hybrid question is right on, but we might want to mention that even the hybrid is behind compared to most other dps classes based on TOR parse. In addition assault is way behind.

 

Question 3:

I would add as well HIB nerf and CGC nerf (or rework if BW would call it that..), in addition that the tree was highly leveraged on critic chance, which was also reduced. All burst damage skills/enhancers for assault were nerfed with ver 2.0 not only AP, and the only noticeable improvement is SC which hits like wet noddles and pretty long CD.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Ottoattack

[Gullesvupper]

The core of Advanced Prototype is based around the flame thrower proc's which is gained at the halfway point, and the core of the Pyrotech tree is based around Rail Shot Procs... There is little to nothing gained (asside from a very disappointing ability) from going full tree in either, and I think that should be key to the question asked.

 

Be careful, Bioware logic would be to just switch the places of the rail shot proc talent with TD in Pyro, and Flamethrower proc with Immolate in AP. And I would bet they'd be all like "TADAAAAA!! Fixed!"

Edited August 7, 2013 by Gullesvupper

[ceelaniri]

Be careful, Bioware logic would be to just switch the places of the rail shot proc talent with TD in Pyro, and Flamethrower proc with Immolate in AP. And I would bet they'd be all like "TADAAAAA!! Fixed!"

 

Yeah i was thinking of something similar or some kind of nerf of the hybrid spec without fixing anything (i.e. tying the IP talents to their respective cells)..

[PaulieGa]

Both assault and tactics burst damage is pretty meh so I wouldn't phrase this question to only address assault spec.

 

Yeah I agree, both do lack burst and it would be good to address both at the same time.

[Justcae]

Would be nice if one of the questions were related to Tanking and it's outlook in the future.

[MarkXXIV]

Fix this class so I can play it -___-.

[SandsS]

My "for free" suggestions, so take 'em for what they're worth:

 

Add a bit more situational context and some specific examples to your questions. You're trying to tell more of a story, so adding background information will make it easier for anyone reading the questions to approach them from the same starting "viewpoint" as yourself.

 

Let's take giving feedback / writing a letter to a grocery company as an example:

 

Example 1

I ate an apple and it had a sour taste because of the worm in it. I don't think I'll ever eat an apple again unless the taste improves!

 

Example 2

I ate a Golden Delicious apple from Springdale Farms in California. There was a worm in this apple and it tasted awful! What steps are you taking to prevent worms from invading apples during the growing and harvesting process? How might those steps have been insufficient to prevent a worm from getting into my apple? Where might the process change in the future to prevent me from finding another worm?

 

Summary Comparison

In the first example, we're dealing with what the writer would view as a pretty straightforward situation. There's a worm in an apple and this is a BAD THING. From the company's point of view, there's not enough information to address the complaint and what they'll probably send is a form letter of the 'we're-sorry-for-the-inconvenience' type.

 

In the second example, there's quite a bit of specific context regarding the precise type of apple, the nature of the issue, the scope of the information that is wanted as a response, and the opportunity for a courteous -- and possibly both informative and extensive -- reply. The second example is more likely to get the desired response, and the company is more likely to find it easy and even rewarding to give the desired response to the customer.

 

***

 

TL;DR -- Takeaway for Vanguard Questions

 

1. (PVP) The community feels that Vanguards lack both survivability and utility in comparison to the other two dps/tank classes ... etc.

 

How to Revise

The different number of cooldowns is apparent, but there's little context for the specific strengths and weaknesses of the individual abilities. What precisely (other than number) do you find weak about your cooldowns? Ask the developers if they share your concerns about weaknesses -- preferably in a specific area as compared to another class with specific strengths in that area -- and how they evaluated that balance. If you want an even more detailed response, provide a specific example of an encounter or situation that you view as particularly problematic or stacked against you. Providing imaginary but realistic scenarios for the audience to imagine -- in their own turn -- is extremely useful in order to successfully communicate a point.

2. (PVE) With the nerfs following 2.0 currently in PVE the highest parsing spec is a hybrid dps spec with assault and tactics, is this intended to be the case? If not what changes could be made to ensure each tree is capable on its own in a PVE setting?

 

How to Revise

Recap what nerfs exactly (i.e. crit rating was reduced on [sKILL]) happened in 2.0. Provide a link to the specific hybrid spec. Provide evidence of these parses (possibly with another link). Is the problem that "hybrid is very strong" or "Pure specs are weak"? These are two different questions. If the top-tier talents in the pure trees are weak and there is no "tax" involved in going hybrid, that situation needs to be illustrated and explained (i.e. [THIS SKILL] gives us these benefits, but they aren't enough to prevent many people who play the class from going for [THESE SKILLS] in the [RANDOM] tree, instead. The end result is that people who take [THIS SKILL] are weaker when doing [THIS THING] in [THIS SITUATION]). Successfully filling in those blanks for a PvE encounter will go a long way toward providing an appropriate amount of context. At the end, you could add something like: Do you share the community's concern about this hybrid spec? What are your views about the strengths and weaknesses concerning the performance of [sKILL] and [sKILL] in the pure trees, and are they in a good place right now?

 

3. (Other) With the nerfs to assault spec in 2.0 and the redesign of the top tier talent assault plastique the vanguard community feels that vanguard DPS is now suffering heavily in PVP lacking burst, is there anyway in the near future the assault spec weaknesses and the overall weaknesses of the spec could be addressed so assault vanguards could stack up to other DPS classes like guardian smashers and infiltration shadows?

 

How to Revise

Same as above. Outline the changes to Assault spec and the redesign of Assault Plastique. Outline exactly how PvP burst has suffered (and your feeling about the reason). Provide a specific example of weakness. Provide a specific situation in which smash guardians and infiltration shadows are outperforming and where you feel Assault is lacking (i.e. opening damage salvo on a player, bursting down a healer, etc.). Ask about views on strengths and weaknesses, whether or not perception of "weak burst" is shared, and what might be done to fix the issue.

 

The mantra here is 'context, context, context.'

 

Hope this all helps a bit. Good luck with your questions!

Edited August 8, 2013 by SandsS

[AngelFluttershy]

AGAIN this is a rough draft of our first three question please shoot feedback back at me on these so we can have the three best questions possible!

 

PVP:

 

The community feels that Vanguards lack both survivability and utility in comparison to the other two dps/tank classes. When we look at the defensive cooldown that shadows possess (stealth, force speed, force wave, deflection, phasewalk, and resilience), we see a greater potential for surviving an encounter. The same is true when we look at a guardians list of cooldowns (guardian leap, force leap, saber ward, saber reflect, enure and force push). Looking at the vanguards short list of (reactive shield, hold the line, and adrenaline rush), what could be done to address these weaknesses?

 

PVE:

With the nerfs following 2.0 currently in PVE the highest parsing spec is a hybrid dps spec with assault and tactics, is this intended to be the case? If not what changes could be made to ensure each tree is capable on its own in a PVE setting?

 

Other:

With the nerfs to assault spec in 2.0 and the redesign of the top tier talent assault plastique the vanguard community feels that vanguard DPS is now suffering heavily in PVP lacking burst, is there anyway in the near future the assault spec weaknesses and the overall weaknesses of the spec could be addressed so assault vanguards could stack up to other DPS classes like guardian smashers and infiltration shadows?

 

First suggestion, remove the word 'nerf' in every place and make it to 'change' or 'alteration'. Nerf is too suggestive of the writer's intent and could come off offensive or hostile. Change "guardian smashers and infiltration shadows" to "Focus Guardians and Infiltration Shadows." Using community slang, which is used typically negatively, isn't appropriate for this situation. When you bring up the Hybrid note the spec clearer so they know what you're talking about. Give the point allocation and possibly a hyperlink to a skill calculator of the spec so confusion is minimized.

 

Also, some of your questions are a bit too vague or attempting to trap the reader. I'd advise outlining your reasoning more by not only saying a possible weakness but stating what talent or ability is specifically in the under-performing in the spec. Also, instead of saying "what will you do about X weakness," try to keep it open-ended. For example:

 

"Players feel that the weaker tick and longer duration of the Plasma Cell DOT, and the latest redesign of Assault Plastique to have some of its damage spread out across a twelve second DOT has weakened the Assault spec's burst significantly. What are your thoughts of the current player perception of the Assault spec lacking burst, particularly in PvP? How would you assess the Assault Vanguard's strengths and weaknesses in PvP compared to other burst DPS classes, like Focus Guardians and Infiltration Shadows, who are generally outperforming Assault Vanguards?"

 

I know my example isn't perfect, but you get the idea. Too open-ended and you won't get what you want answered, too closed and you'll turn off the developers from answering your question correctly or appropriately.

 

SandsS's advice above is also bomb-diggity.

Edited August 8, 2013 by AngelFluttershy

[Mathemagica]

PVP:

 

The community feels that Vanguards lack both survivability and utility in comparison to the other two dps/tank classes. When we look at the defensive cooldown that shadows possess (stealth, force speed, force wave, deflection, phasewalk, and resilience), we see a greater potential for surviving an encounter. The same is true when we look at a guardians list of cooldowns (guardian leap, force leap, saber ward, saber reflect, enure and force push). Looking at the vanguards short list of (reactive shield, hold the line, and adrenaline rush), what could be done to address these weaknesses?

 

When I read this question, I get the impression that you try to address both, the concern of Vanguard tanks of not having enough/the right defensive cooldowns, and the concern of Vanguard dps (especially Assault) of not having enough survivability to do their job. I doubt that we can get an answer to both in one question, because the topics are too different.

I think we have to pick one side of the coin (tank or dps) and then be more specific about our concerns. For dps we might include this topic in the 'other' question. For tanks, we certainly can't hide it in the other two questions.

Anyway, this is my biased opinion about it.

 

The other two questions look good, but they need to be worded differently. Several people already wrote good posts about that in this thread.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Mathemagica

[Kitru]

The community feels that Vanguards lack both survivability and utility in comparison to the other two dps/tank classes. When we look at the defensive cooldown that shadows possess (stealth, force speed, force wave, deflection, phasewalk, and resilience), we see a greater potential for surviving an encounter. The same is true when we look at a guardians list of cooldowns (guardian leap, force leap, saber ward, saber reflect, enure and force push). Looking at the vanguards short list of (reactive shield, hold the line, and adrenaline rush), what could be done to address these weaknesses?

 

If you're going to bring up *every* CD that fills the role of either utility or survivability for Guardians and Shadows, you might want to include a similarly comprehensive list for VGs, like adding Harpoon, Neural Surge, and Stealth Scan. If you don't, you're pretty much inviting the devs to dismiss your concerns by saying that "we think they're fine because you're forgetting about XXX". If you want to tackle the whole "survivability CD" concern, don't bring the utility abilities into the debate since you're simply diluting the question while likely getting a more vague answer since survivability suites and utility suites are separate design concerns.

 

You may also want to qualify the comparative lists and give explicit reasons why the VG suite is inferior. Point out that, while Reactive Shield has a longer duration, it still doesn't provide anywhere near the same usefulness as is provided by 2 separate CDs of shorter duration. Point out the lack of a specific F/T CD, which the other 2 tanks now have thanks to the addition of Saber Reflect. Point out how bad the implementation of Adrenaline Rush is from a usability and functional standpoint (i.e. it's only useful for a *very* specific range of incoming damage thanks to requiring you be exceptionally low and continually remaining there for the duration). Ask where the hell Riot Gas is intended to be categorized since it's such a weird hybrid of what is normally very well defined. By doing so, you give the devs specific feedback on the abilities, rather than simply generic assignations of "bad CD suite", which (1) allows them to provide a response specific to the issues with the given abilities and (2) increases the likelihood that they'll actually solve the problems that the players have with the abilities rather than attempting to guess what sucks about them.