Marauder class representative: Sample questions!

[KeyboardNinja]

We can certainly agree on Carnage representing much more of the "archetypical" marauder/sentinel spec than the other two. I've always felt that, thematically, both Annihilation and Rage were a bit odd. (a spec that kills by a thousand cuts, three at a time?) Carnage just feels really great from a theme perspective, and I really love the way that it plays. So yeah, subjectively, I'll use Carnage on any fight where I'm not categorically gimping my group.

 

I think that if you have enough AoE from your other DPS, there's absolutely no problem using Carnage on Draxus. Melting the swipe add and the guardians before they have a chance to do anything horrible is a really fantastic benefit to the spec. Frankly, I would take either Carnage or Rage to any of the fights without feeling like we're sacrificing much either way.

 

Speaking of spec swapping:

Fast forward to the first Black Obtuse. :-)

[Sappharan]

I am a bit alarmed at something I read earlier. Forgive me for not linking it, but I believe it is against forum--well, there are so many darn forum rules that I just don't know anymore. It concerns the answers given to the Mercenary questions and those were quoted by someone in the Sentinel forums regarding the strength of the defensive cooldowns of Sentinels and Marauders.

 

The Combat/Carnage spec is still rather squishy and is plagued with RNG problems--and our answer comes in the form of a foreshadowed nerf to the whole class' defensive capabilities? Someone else is suggesting in that same thread that Sentinel/Marauder damage could be reduced a bit. Really?

 

Gudarzz? Could you take up the gauntlet and argue cogently against this? Or if it is necessary or acceptable, explain it in light of the squishiness of Combat/Carnage while suffering from RNG problems and resource management issues?

[countpopeula]

We can certainly agree on Carnage representing much more of the "archetypical" marauder/sentinel spec than the other two. I've always felt that, thematically, both Annihilation and Rage were a bit odd. (a spec that kills by a thousand cuts, three at a time?) Carnage just feels really great from a theme perspective, and I really love the way that it plays. So yeah, subjectively, I'll use Carnage on any fight where I'm not categorically gimping my group.

 

I think that if you have enough AoE from your other DPS, there's absolutely no problem using Carnage on Draxus. Melting the swipe add and the guardians before they have a chance to do anything horrible is a really fantastic benefit to the spec. Frankly, I would take either Carnage or Rage to any of the fights without feeling like we're sacrificing much either way.

 

Speaking of spec swapping:

Fast forward to the first Black Obtuse. :-)

 

I stand corrected. HM Dread Masters is a 100% Annihilation fight. FML. Trying to survive our strat in either other spec would be total failure.

 

I haven't the slightest clue why you would respec Focus for that phase. Fun to watch though, at least I'm not the only one doing it. Currently applicable in HM Dread Masters, considering respecing from survivability Anni to DPS Carnage mid fight.

Edited October 3, 2013 by countpopeula

[KeyboardNinja]

I haven't the slightest clue why you would respec Focus for that phase. Fun to watch though, at least I'm not the only one doing it. Currently applicable in HM Dread Masters, considering respecing from survivability Anni to DPS Carnage mid fight.

 

She likes Focus a lot better, and generally plays the spec at a higher level than she plays Watchman. She would run Focus in Phase 1 as well if it weren't for the Data Core AoE bugs. Especially with the Black Obtuse downtime, she's found that she picks up a *lot* of DPS in the second phase by going Focus (even counting the downtime due to respec). Also, it mostly trivializes the adds, which is a nice perk.

 

In our first clear, she stayed Watchman throughout the whole fight.

Edited October 3, 2013 by KeyboardNinja

[countpopeula]

I am a bit alarmed at something I read earlier. Forgive me for not linking it, but I believe it is against forum--well, there are so many darn forum rules that I just don't know anymore. It concerns the answers given to the Mercenary questions and those were quoted by someone in the Sentinel forums regarding the strength of the defensive cooldowns of Sentinels and Marauders.

 

The Combat/Carnage spec is still rather squishy and is plagued with RNG problems--and our answer comes in the form of a foreshadowed nerf to the whole class' defensive capabilities? Someone else is suggesting in that same thread that Sentinel/Marauder damage could be reduced a bit. Really?

 

Gudarzz? Could you take up the gauntlet and argue cogently against this? Or if it is necessary or acceptable, explain it in light of the squishiness of Combat/Carnage while suffering from RNG problems and resource management issues?

 

C/C is the most dependent upon heals to survive, but I don't think the spec or the class is squishy at all. I have tanked 16man HM TC in Combat through the entire soft enrage with only one healer, as our tanks and the other 3 heals had died. There are no resource management issues inherent in the class, if you are out of resource then it is entirely your own fault for not planning ahead. This is a class that builds its own resource, high end DPS comes from efficient and well timed resource management in C/C. When it parses higher than any other spec in the game if you don't factor in broken SA relics, you can't say there's a resource issue. It does rely a bit on RNG to maintain optimal DPS output, but it's not nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

[Projawa]

Randomness is part of the fun in combat/carnage. Predictive resource bulidup in anticipation of gore windows is also part of the fun. I'd rather try to master a "difficult" spec than have them tamper with something that doesn't need tampering. Edited October 3, 2013 by Projawa

[Sappharan]

C/C is the most dependent upon heals to survive, but I don't think the spec or the class is squishy at all. I have tanked 16man HM TC in Combat through the entire soft enrage with only one healer, as our tanks and the other 3 heals had died. There are no resource management issues inherent in the class, if you are out of resource then it is entirely your own fault for not planning ahead. This is a class that builds its own resource, high end DPS comes from efficient and well timed resource management in C/C. When it parses higher than any other spec in the game if you don't factor in broken SA relics, you can't say there's a resource issue. It does rely a bit on RNG to maintain optimal DPS output, but it's not nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

 

I have no idea what TC is. I could not care less about pve. My only concern is about pvp.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Sappharan

[countpopeula]

I have no idea what TC is. I could not care less about pve. My only concern is about pvp.

 

That's even worse of a complaint, Marauders have the best combination of defensive cooldowns of any class for PvP. The point stands, it's the tankiest of the DPS classes.

[Sappharan]

That's even worse of a complaint, Marauders have the best combination of defensive cooldowns of any class for PvP. The point stands, it's the tankiest of the DPS classes.

 

There are several reasons that we have the best suite of cooldowns. We have no hard stun, we have only medium armor (my mitigation without rebuke and saber screen is a meager 21.95%--and Rebuke is down at least 30 seconds of every minute, let's not forget), we cannot cleanse, we have no long term stealth and we have to BUILD resources--we don't start ready to dish out unbelievable burst and finally, we cannot heal while 'in combat'.

 

Every melee has it's advantages and disadvantages. I am not suggesting that we need a buff. I am suggesting we do NOT need a nerf. Focus, maybe. Combat/Carnage? No. And I was asking the Representative to explain why and how a nerf would be acceptable, I was not asking you So if you don't mind, I'd rather have his opinion on this.

[Berjiz]

There are several reasons that we have the best suite of cooldowns. We have no hard stun, we have only medium armor (my mitigation without rebuke and saber screen is a meager 21.95%--and Rebuke is down at least 30 seconds of every minute, let's not forget), we cannot cleanse, we have no long term stealth and we have to BUILD resources--we don't start ready to dish out unbelievable burst and finally, we cannot heal while 'in combat'.

 

Every melee has it's advantages and disadvantages. I am not suggesting that we need a buff. I am suggesting we do NOT need a nerf. Focus, maybe. Combat/Carnage? No. And I was asking the Representative to explain why and how a nerf would be acceptable, I was not asking you So if you don't mind, I'd rather have his opinion on this.

There is a difference between better and a lot better. No other class is even close to the mauarders cooldowns. And that's because you have to use battering assult and delay the burst with 1 gcd? And compare it to most of the other dpses, juggernaut and PT can't do anything of what you said but they have much worse cds. It's insane how long a marauder can survive against even enraged bosses and how useful it is, it can easily by 4 more seconds which can be difference between kill and a wipe.

[znihilist]

There is a difference between better and a lot better. No other class is even close to the mauarders cooldowns.

Yes there are, they are called snipers and they outmatch marauders in defensive CDs.

And that's because you have to use battering assult and delay the burst with 1 gcd?

And then you are out of resources very quickly and have to build resources again. Warriors are by design "nerfed" in having to build the resources, powerful attacks but toned down in the energy part.

 

It's insane how long a marauder can survive against even enraged bosses and how useful it is, it can easily by 4 more seconds which can be difference between kill and a wipe.

We all play this game, yes we can tank that elite the tank forgot about, but it is not insane how long a marauder can survive against an enraged boss and it is almost never the difference between a kill and a wipe in OPs, that simply does not happen. But a smart player however can make some difference in how long he can survive against enraged bosses no matter what his class is.

On the mention of this, trivia question which class"es" can cheese mechanics in HM/NiM mode ?

 

Anyway in the current state of the game a nerf to survivability of Rage is in order, but a general nerf to the class would be disastrous, specially for Annihilation which is a sustained spec (needs it more than rage for example). To be honest, there are two things that can be done, remove the extra time on undying rage (PvP set gear) and remove the reduced HP loss on its use (back to 50%). On that note, I like what they did for Annihilation (survivability wise), like the extra healing on saber ward and the 5% damage reduction on bleeding targets.

Edited October 5, 2013 by znihilist
grammar

[znihilist]

• Merciless Slash/Annihilation buff duration is now 24s.
  
• Juyo form buff duration is now 24s as well.
  
• Guarded by the Force got it's 50% health cost moved from the front end to the back end, this means that you get the damage immunity first and then when it ends you lose 50% of you health.
  
• Inspiration/Bloodthirst is now Operation-wide.
   
  
• Possible change to damage reduction talents.
  

 

New changes from the PTS (so don't go around celebrating or whining yet).

I would offer a link to where I found that but forum rules are tricky, just PM me and I will send a message back with the link.

Edited October 5, 2013 by znihilist

[Gudarzz]

There are several reasons that we have the best suite of cooldowns. We have no hard stun, we have only medium armor (my mitigation without rebuke and saber screen is a meager 21.95%--and Rebuke is down at least 30 seconds of every minute, let's not forget), we cannot cleanse, we have no long term stealth and we have to BUILD resources--we don't start ready to dish out unbelievable burst and finally, we cannot heal while 'in combat'.

 

Every melee has it's advantages and disadvantages. I am not suggesting that we need a buff. I am suggesting we do NOT need a nerf. Focus, maybe. Combat/Carnage? No. And I was asking the Representative to explain why and how a nerf would be acceptable, I was not asking you So if you don't mind, I'd rather have his opinion on this.

 

I saw the post about the changes from the PTS. I would like to see a verified list before we start discussing things in detail. Znihil, do you mind PMing me that information?

 

Theoretically, I think a nerf to the defensive cooldowns is ok, but I am almost positive it will be executed poorly (I would rather have Juggernauts and DPS Assassins buffed to match our defensive capabilities and leave the marauder defensives alone). In this case, balance "up", not "down". Due to the fact that Marauders and Juggernauts have to engage close up to build resources and to DPS, our defensive capacity must remain relatively stronger than ranged DPS classes. The viability of melee in this game relies on their ability to take damage while outputting DPS. I must admit, I would be more accepting of Marauder defensive nerfs if changes were also made to the defensive/escape capabilities of operative healers and snipers. Regardless, I guess we have to wait until official changes are announced.

[CellPerfect]

I said it before in this thread but nerfing undying rage across the board like they are going to isn't the fix that marauders need. The nerf to undying rage hurts carnage and annihilation much more than it hurts rage. Rage is the spec that everyone complains about, carnage and annihilation don't need any nerfs. I'll quote part of what I said in that threat so that I don't have to type everything back out again.

 

I actually really don't like this idea because it would be more of a nerf to carnage and annihilation than it would be to rage. Rage (or smash spec for those of you who don't know) is the spec that gets the most complaints and would be more in need of a nerf than the other two. The reason it would be less of a nerf for rage is that in the rage tree, the talent "force vigor" causes you to only lose 25% of your HP when you use undying rage rather than the normal 50%. This means that if the changes take place, then at maximum, a non rage marauder could be healed to 50% when they use undying rage (pop the ability, get healed to 100%, then lose half of their current HP which would put them at 50%) where as a rage marauder would be able to be healed to 75% at maximum (again, pop the ability, get healed to 100%, lose 25% after the 5 seconds which puts them at 75% HP). This isn't much of a nerf for rage in my opinion and it would hurt carnage and annihilation, two specs that aren't in need of a nerf, more than rage.

 

As you can see, this nerf wouldn't really affect rage too much, where as it would hurt carnage and rage quite a lot.

 

If they want to fix marauders in terms of their defenses, I think they should:

• Remove the passive damage reduction talents in the rage tree (I believe it is 7%)
  
• Remove the buffs to undying rage in the rage tree
  
• Move defensive roll up in the carnage tree so that rage cannot get it (this would hurt annihilation as well but keep reading)
  
• move something down in place for defensive roll in the carnage tree (perhaps brooding?) or add a new talent in
  
• give annihilation a slight buff in defenses (for losing defensive roll) I would suggest either giving them the passive damage reduction from the rage tree or giving them back the 2% heals from crit bleeds rather than 1%.
  

 

I think these changes would fix the crying about marauders without breaking anything. Rage would arguably be the squishiest spec we have, but it's damage would still be great. The other two specs would not be affected too much (which they shouldn't be seeing as they aren't overpowered). Rage would have to get some talents added / reworked because 2 of their talents would be changed, but they wouldn't be so tanky for a dps then.

[countpopeula]

I don't think it's worth putting down anything as far as recommendations for what they should/shouldn't do with the class anymore. The more I read the responses to class questions and they leak information about changes to the classes, it becomes sadly apparent the developers are going to do vateva ze fack zey plays. Many, many solid suggestions have be pushed forward and they all have been ignored. Seems like they're saying "Oh, yeah, that's a really good idea. We're gonna go ahead and NOT do that, and do this instead, which doesn't make any sense."

[oofalong]

I don't think it's worth putting down anything as far as recommendations for what they should/shouldn't do with the class anymore. The more I read the responses to class questions and they leak information about changes to the classes, it becomes sadly apparent the developers are going to do vateva ze fack zey plays. Many, many solid suggestions have be pushed forward and they all have been ignored. Seems like they're saying "Oh, yeah, that's a really good idea. We're gonna go ahead and NOT do that, and do this instead, which doesn't make any sense."

 

I agree offering more recommendations is not a productive use of anyone's time. However, I differ on the rest of Ranick's perspectives. I imagine it is incredibly difficult to balance classes while simultaneously ensuring each is unique.

 

Fundamentally, I would like to see the community and BioWare invest more time in reaching consensus on the problems. It's like the adage: Spend 95% of the time defining a problem and 5% actually solving it. The previous questions and answers have shown that the community and BW are not on the same page here.

 

For example, back in the initial thread Musco said:

...In talking with the Combat guys, they plan to put some serious work into these answers whenever possible. This could include design philosophy and math....

 

At times the question the questions have asserted that a certain spec is X% behind in DPS, and the Devs response typically it's not X%, but Y% (which is typically less). However, there is rarely any math supporting either of these claims.

 

Further, BioWare has eluded to numerous changes in 2.5 already. Thus, for us to recommend something based on an already changing - albeit unknown - landscape would be problematic.

 

Whenever this Class Rep concept picks up again, I think the community needs to spend more time describing and documenting the current state of things rather than suggesting changes. I believe this will allow BW to more quickly/readily realize and accept the problems.

[countpopeula]

I imagine it is incredibly difficult to balance classes while simultaneously ensuring each is unique.

 

 

 

At times the question the questions have asserted that a certain spec is X% behind in DPS, and the Devs response typically it's not X%, but Y% (which is typically less). However, there is rarely any math supporting either of these claims.

 

Honestly it isn't. There are only so many ways to present gameplay. Proc systems, priority rotations, gameplay mechanics. Both stealth classes work the same way, stand behind your target, stunlock, crit, #win. Oversimplification but it's accurate. I have taken part in balancing in RTS, specifically SC2 and HOTS. THOSE are difficult as hell to balance, since there is no linear gameplay. A difference of 50 minerals in the first minute of the game translates to an exponential income difference at 20 minutes when both players are going with macro builds. You have to balance each and every army unit weighing unit cost, unit effectiveness in combat, unit gameplay mechanics, and the AMP required to use that unit against the mechanics inherent with each race. These differ for every single on of the matchups. It's very difficult to do, but they have a clearcut standard of overall win % when ranking professional players. Blizzard's definition of balance in RTS is that every race must be within a 1% win ratio at elite level to be balanced, I think that's extremely fair. SWTOR is simple, there are 8 classes, 3 specs for each. Balancing damage is very, very simple. Melee > Ranged by 2.5%, DPS only classes > Multirole classes by 2.5%. Very easy. Tanks involve inherent mitigation and cooldown balancing, healers are gameplay mechanics balancing. It's actually very very easy in my opinion. Balancing overarching mechanics is what is difficult, the stun/Resolve system in SWTOR is incredibad and presents so many more issues than anything else in the game as far as PvP is concerned.

 

The problem with the X class is Y% behind Z class in DPS is that many, many players at this game are straight up bad gamers and only the top 1% of each class should be considered when weighing DPS balance. The only issue with balancing DPS is the difficulty of the spec's gameplay, when a spec like Rage/Focus can be played by terrible gamers and out damage high end players of all other classes, the spec is broken and needs to be addressed. The top 1% will take that spec and do ridiculous things with it, when I can accumulate more damage than the top 3 players of the other team in a warzone, the spec is broken.

Edited October 9, 2013 by countpopeula

[oofalong]

Honestly it isn't.

...

SWTOR is simple, there are 8 classes, 3 specs for each. Balancing damage is very, very simple. Melee > Ranged by 2.5%, DPS only classes > Multirole classes by 2.5%. Very easy. Tanks involve inherent mitigation and cooldown balancing, healers are gameplay mechanics balancing. It's actually very very easy in my opinion. Balancing overarching mechanics is what is difficult...

 

Your outline seems simple, but once you consider:

• Twenty different specs plus hybrids,
  
• Four Specs that span two Advanced Class,
  
• Six Offensive Stats, five Healing Stats and six Defensive Stats,
  
• Impact of temporary buffs and debuffs,
  
• Instant vs. Channeled vs. Cast abilities,
  
• Balance through leveling including a new level cap,
  
• Overall combat math,
  
• Different tiers of gear,
  
• And many many more things...
  

 

I believe balance becomes incredibly challenging. Plus, BioWare has to operate within an existing framework. I never got the sense that BW was previously overly concerned with balance so to start balancing efforts 18+ months into a live game is difficult and complex from my perspective. I don't think they have done themselves any favors either as they seem to make significant infrequent changes, which often exacerbate the problems.

 

The problem with the X class is Y% behind Z class in DPS is that many, many players at this game are straight up bad gamers and only the top 1% of each class should be considered when weighing DPS balance. The only issue with balancing DPS is the difficulty of the spec's gameplay, when a spec like Rage/Focus can be played by terrible gamers and out damage high end players of all other classes, the spec is broken and needs to be addressed. The top 1% will take that spec and do ridiculous things with it, when I can accumulate more damage than the top 3 players of the other team in a warzone, the spec is broken.

 

My first reaction was that generally I agree and only those who know what they are doing should be listened too. However, I am not sure that is the best long-term approach. I would specifically worry about BW's ability to create appropriately challenging content for all while optimizing around the top tier of players. Further, I am not sure how the top players would be identified.

 

In any event, you raise an interesting point should some specs be easier to play than others. This implies there would be greater parity between good players and bad players. That is a mediocre player can perform at closer to the level of a great player.

 

I don't have an opinion on this yet, and it is an interesting topic to ponder.

[countpopeula]

Your outline seems simple, but once you consider:

• Twenty different specs plus hybrids,
  
• Four Specs that span two Advanced Class,
  
• Six Offensive Stats, five Healing Stats and six Defensive Stats,
  
• Impact of temporary buffs and debuffs,
  
• Instant vs. Channeled vs. Cast abilities,
  
• Balance through leveling including a new level cap,
  
• Overall combat math,
  
• Different tiers of gear,
  
• And many many more things...
  

 

I believe balance becomes incredibly challenging. Plus, BioWare has to operate within an existing framework. I never got the sense that BW was previously overly concerned with balance so to start balancing efforts 18+ months into a live game is difficult and complex from my perspective. I don't think they have done themselves any favors either as they seem to make significant infrequent changes, which often exacerbate the problems.

 

 

 

My first reaction was that generally I agree and only those who know what they are doing should be listened too. However, I am not sure that is the best long-term approach. I would specifically worry about BW's ability to create appropriately challenging content for all while optimizing around the top tier of players. Further, I am not sure how the top players would be identified.

 

In any event, you raise an interesting point should some specs be easier to play than others. This implies there would be greater parity between good players and bad players. That is a mediocre player can perform at closer to the level of a great player.

 

I don't have an opinion on this yet, and it is an interesting topic to ponder.

 

The problem is they are too math formula based. In my experience, simple logic overtakes Calculus/Statistics the majority of the time. Also, coding issues. Look at Railshot/HIB right now, broken because of a simple bug. It's simple, you look through the metrics and see what specs are overperforming. No spec should be any better than any other available for a class, they should just play differently and have their individual applications. Best example for the case is actually Mara/Sent. Rage = AOE, Anni = Survivability, Carnage = Raaaaaape. None honestly outperform the others by a wide margin, the 10% STDPS loss from Carnage to Rage is more than made up for by it's ability to sustain insane AoE damage. I think you're overcomplicating the thought process here, and I think it's much more likely Bioware's remaining Dev team does not understand anything about how the game works. Balancing DPS is as simple as looking at combat log metrics, seeing what abilities do more damage than intended, and working in a % decrease during a patch to get them back down to a median level.

 

If anything, rebalancing the classes to all be within 5-8% of each other in STDPS would help more people clear endgame. Cater to the elite by making difficult/challenging mechanics, not Enrage DPS checks. Good players find a way no matter what, but for example the amount of damage a Sorc/Sage receives in raid makes me never want to bring them, even though I raid with a top 1% Sorc/Sage simply because they don't bring anything to the table to justify taking as much damage as they do. Finding the top 1% is easy, go to a metrics site like TORParse, look at the world rankings for DPS on the forums hosted by the game, check to see who the top ranked PvP guilds/players are, it's so easy to find the best players. Get them together in a private forum as a collective, have them discuss things in a civil manner under penalty of removal from the forums/in game bans, and things will get sorted. They will never do this though, and the game will continue to be marred by ridiculous imbalances.

 

There is a huge disparity in player skill within some overpowered specs, especially in Rage. I have been guilded with some absolutely atrocious players who roll Mara/Jugg alts and Smashfest around warzones, keeping within 10-20% of me in damage and outdamaging much more skilled players in other classes/specs. I'm not saying that the specs shouldn't make it apparently through metrics who is better and rewarding elite players with bigger numbers, but when one spec allows you to outperform the top 1/5% at a different class as a sub 50% player in your own, it is broken.

[KeyboardNinja]

There is a huge disparity in player skill within some overpowered specs, especially in Rage. I have been guilded with some absolutely atrocious players who roll Mara/Jugg alts and Smashfest around warzones, keeping within 10-20% of me in damage and outdamaging much more skilled players in other classes/specs. I'm not saying that the specs shouldn't make it apparently through metrics who is better and rewarding elite players with bigger numbers, but when one spec allows you to outperform the top 1/5% at a different class as a sub 50% player in your own, it is broken.

 

Warzones are a completely different question. Look at specs like Rage and Lethality Op. The former is highly valued in all competitive PvP, and generally considered to be the strongest DPS spec in the game. However, my guild is the only one I know of in which its main progression team uses a Focus Sentinel / Rage Marauder. Conversely, Lethality Operatives rival Marauders in terms of single-target DPS on boss fights, but they're generally considered to be among the worst DPS in PvP due to the long setup.

 

Defensive cooldowns, setup time, burst potential, counters and utility are all vastly more important considerations in PvP than in PvE. Carnage is a great example here. You don't see bosses timing their knockbacks and stuns to counter Gore windows, do you? Thus, Carnage gets its full burn every time in PvE (absent player derp or mechanics adjustment), but doesn't have that guarantee in PvE. Thus, while the full duration of the Carnage burn is far more devastating than the sharp burst from Rage, Rage cannot be directly countered, and thus the burst is guaranteed. I would argue that in a single-target situation, Carnage is still going to win out, since Gore + Scream is pretty much a guarantee, and it hits harder than Smash, but the AoE pushes Rage over the top.

 

DPS balance in PvE seems fairly easy from a class perspective. Or rather, refinements on what they have now seems fairly easy. I made a post in the DPS subforum building out a general framework for balancing the current PvE endgame DPS scene in a few easy steps, even ensuring that AoE specs remain not godlike, burst specs remain behind sustained, and melee specs sit ahead of ranged. The real problem is that tiny changes cause massive swings in the PvP balance, not necessarily due to mathematical changes, but because of metagame and player hysterics.

 

I don't think the PvP DPS scene will ever be balanced. I do, however, have hope for PvE. I think Bioware has been moving in the right direction since 2.0, and they show signs of continuing to move in that direction. Math and theorycrafting as well as combat logs and general compositional min-maxing are mostly in alignment at this point, and Bioware is (for once) making noises that agree with what the community believes needs to be done (e.g. reduction in Orbital's single-target potential; increasing AP's DPS; buffing Pyro, though not to bugged levels; etc). Whether that will ultimately yield balance is another question.

 

Incidentally, regarding the damage sorcs take, I sort of agree with you there. They do bring some fantastic benefits to the table (strong AoE and burst without sacrificing top-end sustain, at least in lightning), not to mention the cheapest off-heals in the game. They have some nasty downsides though, like pushback and an utter lack of defensive CDs. Given a choice between a Sorc and a Merc, I'd take the merc every time (even with Pyro unbugged).

Edited October 9, 2013 by KeyboardNinja

[oofalong]

...

I think you're overcomplicating the thought process here, and I think it's much more likely Bioware's remaining Dev team does not understand anything about how the game works. Balancing DPS is as simple as looking at combat log metrics, seeing what abilities do more damage than intended, and working in a % decrease during a patch to get them back down to a median level.

...

 

I think I am making it as complicated as it really is, and behind the scenes all of this is math. As to your solution of looking at combat log metrics, which logs should be used? Dummy parses obviously don't make sense as they are not a real battle. So if we look at boss fights, which one do we choose? In a PvP setting how do you ever get a consistent an accurate representation?

 

Some of this information might be directionally accurate and it would most likely allow BW to more quickly identify problems. However, I do not feel it easily or obviously provides the solution as you seem to suggest. Going back to my first post on this, I feel more time on problem identification as well as consensus on what are truly problems is the best path forward.

 

As an example, Smash appears to outperform nearly every other spec in PvP. (At this point, I believe BW has gotten that message.) Still, is the solution to buff other specs, or nerf Smash? If you are going to nerf it, how would you do so? Lower its base damage? Adjust the auto-crits, the Surge bonus, the damage boost after Smash... There are numerous ways to accomplish this, which is best? And, which ensures balance? (These are rhetorical questions.)

 

As I stated, I think BW could do a better job by making more frequent changes; class balance is an iterative process. However, their rate of iteration is very low.

 

(I don't really expect this conversation to go anywhere so I doubt I will respond again. I just wanted to chime in to say things are rarely as simple as they seem especially to those of use sitting on the outside guessing at the innerworkings of the black box.)

[countpopeula]

I think I am making it as complicated as it really is, and behind the scenes all of this is math. As to your solution of looking at combat log metrics, which logs should be used? Dummy parses obviously don't make sense as they are not a real battle. So if we look at boss fights, which one do we choose? In a PvP setting how do you ever get a consistent an accurate representation?

 

As an example, Smash appears to outperform nearly every other spec in PvP. (At this point, I believe BW has gotten that message.) Still, is the solution to buff other specs, or nerf Smash? If you are going to nerf it, how would you do so? Lower its base damage? Adjust the auto-crits, the Surge bonus, the damage boost after Smash... There are numerous ways to accomplish this, which is best? And, which ensures balance? (These are rhetorical questions.)

 

(I don't really expect this conversation to go anywhere so I doubt I will respond again. I just wanted to chime in to say things are rarely as simple as they seem especially to those of use sitting on the outside guessing at the innerworkings of the black box.)

The math formulas are definitely very complex, in all honesty way beyond my understanding of math nowadays. The fixes, however, are extremely simple percent based reductions for certain attacks. Adding in a line of code that applies a -% damage to an attack line is so simple if they're going to be lazy and not modify the damage multiplier for the attacks. The biggest issues with PvE damage are the bugs that cause certain specs to become broken, like TrollBang and Pyro right now. Neither should be topping DPS charts IMO, especially considering Merc is more of a support class than straight DPS.

 

I don't think there is any discussion on if Rage in PvP is overpowered or not. I just out out of an ACW where our premade had 3 Smashers, who in a 2-1 cap warzone length all smashed for 1.1mil each. Any one of us alone outdamaged the entire rest of the warzone. Reducing Smash AoE to fair levels is insanely easy. I've been saying it for over a year now, make it so that Singularity/Shockwave only effects the target, or a random target if the player has no target. Either that or the Dominate autocrit is a debuff and only applies to the Leap target. Either one immediately makes the spec more fair and balanced because the AoE damage is based off of RNG. None of the gameplay changes, and it's more difficult because you want to apply your damage to the target without cooldowns/lowest mitigation. /Specfixed

 

I understand how difficult balance is, as stated I have taken part in balancing RTS games. A game with linear combat such as this one is very very easy to balance by comparison, it comes back down to the "Bioware is lazy" or "Bioware can't" that we've been saying for a year.

 

Defensive cooldowns, setup time, burst potential, counters and utility are all vastly more important considerations in PvP than in PvE. Carnage is a great example here. You don't see bosses timing their knockbacks and stuns to counter Gore windows, do you? Thus, Carnage gets its full burn every time in PvE (absent player derp or mechanics adjustment), but doesn't have that guarantee in PvE. Thus, while the full duration of the Carnage burn is far more devastating than the sharp burst from Rage, Rage cannot be directly countered, and thus the burst is guaranteed. I would argue that in a single-target situation, Carnage is still going to win out, since Gore + Scream is pretty much a guarantee, and it hits harder than Smash, but the AoE pushes Rage over the top.

 

Everyone says this, if a player is getting knocked back and losing Gore windows it's their own fault for not setting yourself up properly to do damage to your target. Top end players at any game bait and set up opponents to maximize effectiveness, and in SWTOR they can track multiple opponents' defensives all at one time while maintaining situation awareness of the objectives and their rotation. If players can't figure out when and where to apply their spec's abilities, it's not an issue with the functionality so much as it is they are just bad at the game. Nothing the Devs can do about that.

Edited October 10, 2013 by countpopeula

[milehighclub]

Reducing Smash AoE to fair levels is insanely easy. I've been saying it for over a year now, make it so that Singularity/Shockwave only effects the target, or a random target if the player has no target.

 

I've been thinking about that suggestion, and there is something to it that makes sense in theory. But I see two problems, the first is that Rage - by Design - is an AOE Spec. Gimping it too much will render it useless (at least as an AOE Spec, and what good is it then?), and for the sake of variety, that cant be the best solution. The other problem is that we will never know for sure how this would fair until Bioware tests this eventually before it hits PTS. My point is they should take a skilled player with both Combat and Rage that needs to kill a group of mobs asap. Apply your suggestion and just measure the average time necessary for said task.

 

You could also introduce a gradual range for Rage Smash, selected target Full DMG, up to 3m 66%, up to 5m 50% (just an example). But probably you would need to have a comparison against how the other Specs fair against those Damage numbers.

 

I think the Range aspect with gradual damage could be a viable solution. It's just my opinion, and FYI, I play two specs as Marauder, Rage and Combat.

Edited October 11, 2013 by milehighclub

[countpopeula]

I've been thinking about that suggestion, and there is something to it that makes sense in theory. But I see two problems, the first is that Rage - by Design - is an AOE Spec. Gimping it too much will render it useless (at least as an AOE Spec, and what good is it then?), and for the sake of variety, that cant be the best solution. The other problem is that we will never know for sure how this would fair until Bioware tests this eventually before it hits PTS. My point is they should take a skilled player with both Combat and Rage that needs to kill a group of mobs asap. Apply your suggestion and just measure the average time necessary for said task.

 

This isn't gimping the spec, it's putting it on a level of the others and balancing the output with the other classes. Reducing Shockwave/Singularity's effectiveness to one target reduces overall Smash damage done by ~23%, assuming players are not using defensives. Making the autocrit a debuff rather than a user buff will reduce damage done by ~32%, with the RNG chance to do much more. Either of these changes reward players who can find optimal Smash fields to get as many crit rolls/lesser damage autocrits as they can. Using metrics I've gathered over hundreds/thousands of warzones, either of these changes puts Smash specs back into reasonable output ranges. Good Mara/Sents will still be able to top the charts handily, but less skilled players will find themselves in need of improvement/going somewhere else and not be able to lolsmash their way to big numbers as they currently can. It gives the other classes a chance to compete, and puts Sorc/Sage AoE DPS arguably at the top of the charts on a difficulty of play/damage done rating.

[Gudarzz]

Game update 2.5 with class change updates: Pretty good read.

 

Nutshell:

Nerf to undying rage.

Rage spec defensive nerf.

Annihilation slight buff.

 

http://www.swtor.com/blog/game-update-2.5-class-changes