Proposed Dev Juggernaut Questions *Not Final*

[Marb]

I only ask, because today is the day. And I was curious if/when he would post the final questions, as presented to the devs.

 

I'm not sure on the deadline, but I wouldn't worry too much.

 

I was hoping he could add to the PvP discussion a bit, as it has been a chat between essentially 3 people in here for the last 48 hours.

[Marb]

As a PvP'er that does play at the highest level of competition-

 

Asking for an offensive CD for a jugg is NOT a good idea for a PvP question. In PvP they have some insane damage output, asking for more is not what is required for the class to be usable in high level play. I would gladly trade some of the damage to have an even slightly better Enraged Defense, and so I view that as being the important question for PvP.

 

Vengeance in arenas is good, but needs no Rage cost on ED. Rage in Arenas is ok- but needs a slight bit more defensives as 3 minute CD's / 1 minute 3 second Reflect are NOT good for arena. I'd like to see ED have buffed healing in Rage tree with no rage cost as a baseline effect as well.

 

Have a read of the general question, is this sufficient to address enraged defense concerns in PvP? if not, then maybe the PvP question needs to be about improving survivability?

[Treblt]

Have a read of the general question, is this sufficient to address enraged defense concerns in PvP? if not, then maybe the PvP question needs to be about improving survivability?

 

Its fine, but I'd rather see your PvP and General Question switched. Using the PvP question for what is effectively a PvE question is wrong and in your drafts the General Question is what the high level PvP community wants to ask, where as the offensive cooldown question would fall more easily under "more people just want to know about this, but isn't needed nor wanted by the PvP community". You have to remember, to us "Enrage" is practically an offensive cooldown on Short CD

[UndyingHadyn]

None taken. I didn't mean to be dismissive, I am just not sure how to make that into an easily digestible question while keeping it short AND covering an offensive cooldown. I like to think having an offensive cooldown would help with bursting through sorc bubbles, so I see a bit of a potential overlap here. Would adding some sort of interesting secondary effect onto Enrage be an alternative implementation?

 

I am seeing a way something like what you are describing could be mentioned as an example in the pvp question, but devoting the entire question to it would be alienating those concerned with the lack of an offensive cooldown in return for a 50/50 gamble at a specific unique utility suggestion.

 

Could you put what you have in mind into a question as an example? By shield break I assume you mean sorc bubble break? or do you mean breaking force barrier? or ignoring a players shield chance?

 

 

Well I could phrase a question, but you are far more eloquent than I lol.

 

What I mean is shield break in regards to the Guard ability that tank classes can apply on a friendly target. As you already know, it is a 50% damage reduction, with the difference of damage getting sent back to the tank.

 

 

Just wrap up your original rhetoric, with an invitation for the developers to consider:::

 

- a temporary shield break ability, that allows vengeance jugs to bypass the applied guard that tanks give to their friendly targets. This ability does not affect existing class specific damage reduction abilities, or adrenals, but instead only acts as a temporary "shield break/bypass" ability. Placing it within the seething hatred talent, would provide great synergy with the existing pve-centric cooldown reductions. Not only is this suggestion a great synergy for both pve and pvp'ers, it would also provide an excellent, and specific option for burst(something that vengeance can lack). The exact details or durations/cooldowns of said ability would be up to the developers.

 

It is only our job to make sure they consider it.

[Marb]

Its fine, but I'd rather see your PvP and General Question switched. Using the PvP question for what is effectively a PvE question is wrong and in your drafts the General Question is what the high level PvP community wants to ask, where as the offensive cooldown question would fall more easily under "more people just want to know about this, but isn't needed nor wanted by the PvP community". You have to remember, to us "Enrage" is practically an offensive cooldown on Short CD

 

That was my initial understanding as well, the only complication is that enraged defense's base design is the classes only threat drop ability, which made it difficult to frame a PvP question without paying any attention to its primary use in PvE. Removing the rage cost would solve the issue for PvE flat out without any other special considerations, its just that some PvP juggs thought that removing the rage cost was actually a PvE bias'd suggestion.

 

I feel that any alternative implementation that keeps the rage cost would have to result in the threat drop being removed completely and segregated into another ability, a change that would be complicated and a very roundabout way of improving pvp staying power.

 

 

This is what it would look like minus any mention of a threat drop to keep it PvP focused:

 

PvP) Enraged Defense is designed to work while under the effects of a hard CC (like a stun) and Vengeance can spec into Deafening Defense to give it 15% damage reduction while active. However, it is underwhelming as a defensive cooldown for Rage Juggernauts and unreasonably expensive (in rage cost) for all Juggernaut specs.

 

Would the team consider revisiting Enraged Defense's design, perhaps improving the defensive benefits for the Rage spec in addition to removing its current rage cost/rage consumption effect?

Edited August 30, 2013 by Marb

[UndyingHadyn]

That was my initial understanding as well, the only complication is that enraged defense's base design is the classes only threat drop ability, which made it difficult to frame a PvP question without paying any attention to its primary use in PvE. Removing the rage cost would solve the issue for PvE flat out without any other special considerations, its just that some PvP juggs thought that removing the rage cost was actually a PvE bias'd suggestion. Would this be better:

 

 

PvP) Enraged Defense is designed to work while under the effects of a hard CC (like a stun) and Vengeance can spec into Deafening Defense to give it 15% damage reduction while active. However, it is underwhelming as a defensive cooldown for Rage Juggernauts and unreasonably expensive (in rage cost) for all Juggernaut specs.

 

Would the team consider revisiting Enraged Defense's design, perhaps improving the defensive benefits for the Rage spec in addition to removing its current rage cost/rage consumption effect?

 

 

nah nah nah

 

Don't stray from your order. Keep enraged defense as the general question. Reply to my post above regarding offensive cooldowns/potential shield bypass for the pvp question.

 

We're good. We're good.

[Marb]

nah nah nah

 

Don't stray from your order. Keep enraged defense as the general question. Reply to my post above regarding offensive cooldowns/potential shield bypass for the pvp question.

 

We're good. We're good.

 

Considering the time difference where I am, I have to call it a night and get some sleep. For reference this is where those questions were up to if anyone wants to develop them further: http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=6709427&postcount=67

 

Also, the rough draft thread is full of proposed questions from the community and a lot of quality material for whole new questions as well.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Marb

[SkiaTheShade]

As a PvP'er that does play at the highest level of competition-

 

Asking for an offensive CD for a jugg is NOT a good idea for a PvP question. In PvP they have some insane damage output, asking for more is not what is required for the class to be usable in high level play. I would gladly trade some of the damage to have an even slightly better Enraged Defense, and so I view that as being the important question for PvP.

 

 

Vengeance in arenas is good, but needs no Rage cost on ED. Rage in Arenas is ok- but needs a slight bit more defensives as 3 minute CD's / 1 minute 3 second Reflect are NOT good for arena. I'd like to see ED have buffed healing in Rage tree with no rage cost as a baseline effect as well.

 

Yes this! Something needs to be done so that a DPS Juggernaut does not get so easily eclipsed by other classes in PvP. At the moment there isn't much a DPS Jugg can do that a Mara can't do better.

 

I saw a comment earlier about how PvP was not being discussed enough, and I agree. This thread seems mostly focused on PvE. I would like to see some more PvP discussion.

 

I think centering the question around group utility, or Enraged Defense is great! The question about Enraged Defense so far looks decent. It seems some grammatical fixes however. I would type out more but I'm on my cell phone :/.

[Thundernuts]

As far as the ED is concerned, i think it would be great if it were tree specific. For example:

Immortal = root/slow cleanse

Vengeance = 15% increase in DR

Rage = Costs no rage

 

These specific abilities on top of the current ability would be great. I do think it's worth rewording this to address all aspects of the Juggernaut class.

 

The PVE question looks good.

 

The general question is great as long as Immortal's are kept out of it. Immortal Juggs are already walking the Nerf line, adding that ability would be too much. But something that may be beneficial, is allowing the armor debuff to stack from different trees, this could be tied to stances or something. This would create some synergy between the different Jugg specs.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Thundernuts

[paowee]

When do you plan to pose these questions? Do we have until the end of the day?

 

Anytime during the day should be fine. BioWare took at LEAST a week before they replied to the sniper questions.

 

No rush/hurries If you guys want to fine-tune in more you can even have up until midnight to do so.

 

imo

Edited August 30, 2013 by paowee

[MasterFeign]

*SNIP*

 

So I'm not sure if this first post has been revised, there's quite a few pages to read. My first impressions so far is that the devs may give you a l2p response, based on how and what you say it.

 

Starting with the pvp response, the devs don't need to know that enraged defense really great to have (they know this already). By mentioning it, they'd probably just throw it back at you (similar to the sorc response). As well, while I may be wrong, juggernaut rage has low survivability but high damage, so this could be their reasoning for such a discrepancy. A need for them to clarify as such may also help. However, the discrepancy between rage jugg and rage mara is quite obvious (the mara being the more survivable of the two). Giving your own (without their foreknowledge) may be a waste, it'd be best for a response to what they have to say about the class first. As they have mentioned for the PT that they'd certainly look at things due to feedback. Basically you could almost cut down the very first question to something like "Is enraged defense for each tree, designed for that playstyle or is it at this point lacking?"

 

On to the pve question, again the devs know that the armour debuff can be applied by other classes. The off-tanking remark sounds as though it would invite baiting, regardless if it was useful or not. The tanks in EC need that off tank (for example) because of the armour debuff applied to the main tank. I'm sure the devs wouldn't design an op that would force off-tanks or players with taunts to die readily easy, if there was taunting to be had, but I could see them applying some sort of pressure. After all, it's not only the tank that will be taking damage. Again, the devs don't need to know about the cause and effect of taunting vs damage, I'm pretty sure they're already aware, and that if it was asked in such a way, you'd again, get a similar response to as the sorc question. The last remark before the question is too general too. While we haven't heard the devs response to dpsers that have taunt abilities, and if their dps should or shouldn't be on par with straight dps classes, the above information provided before the question intends to believe so, forming a bias. If dps is lacking, it's easier just to go out and say it, you don't need a sad back story:

 

"Of the juggernaut dps trees, because a juggernaut can optionally tank, do they have less dps and team utility than a pure dps class?"

 

Plus this leaves room for the guardians to go into specfics with their questions.

 

As for the third question, again, mentioning other classes won't merit any "points" or sympathies. If you want to make sure this is how they wanted it to be designed, you should ask that question instead, and ask them to clarify if it's what they would like to see in the class and whatnot. It may be better to ask something more generic and again non-hostile such as:

 

"Is the design to the vengence tree what the combat had in mind, and could they clarify on what they would like to accomplish with it, as to make room for improvement to its dps and mobility and playstyle?"

 

**note: the questions I kind of came up off the top of my head.

 

Essentially what I'm trying to get at is that the OP questions are pretty much going to get a Sorc-like response in their current form, and I hope that what I've written above will at least help to clear up some of the longer premises to the actual questions. I don't think the devs need to know how to play the class, but rather they need to clarify on how the class was designed, and if possible, improvements for it as well.

Edited August 30, 2013 by MasterFeign

[ArenCordial]

@MasterFeign

 

Marb has been kind enough to try and slim those down and we've revised some. What do you think of these?

 

 

 

PvP) Enraged Defense is designed to work while under the effects of a hard CC (like a stun) and Vengeance can spec into Deafening Defense to give it 15% damage reduction while active. However, it is underwhelming as a defensive cooldown for Rage Juggernauts and unreasonably expensive (in rage cost) for all Juggernaut specs.

 

Would the team consider revisiting Enraged Defense's design, perhaps improving the defensive benefits for the Rage spec in addition to removing its current rage cost/rage consumption effect?

 

 

________

 

 

PvE) Vengeance doesn't translate very well to a live operation environment, where the reliance on a channeled melee ability (Ravage) is consistently punished due to encounter design. Additionally, Vengeance can't reliably refresh Ravage, as both Impale and Shatter have notable cooldowns and rage costs accompanied with low proc chances (30%). Outside of Impale and Shatter, there is no way to trigger Rampage.

 

Would the combat team consider making some changes (like faster ravage channel and improved proc chances) to ensure Vengeance can more easily deal reliable and consistent single target damage in a dynamic operation environment?

 

 

________

 

 

General) Out of all the classes in the game, the Juggernaut holds the distinction of being the only advanced class that lacks an offensive cooldown in a literal sense. Enrage gives more rage, but doesn't feel very interesting and has no secondary dps benefit.

 

Would the developers consider granting the Juggernaut an offensive cooldown? Alternatively, would adding an interesting secondary effect onto Enrage be something to consider?

[SkiaTheShade]

@MasterFeign

 

Marb has been kind enough to try and slim those down and we've revised some. What do you think of these?

 

 

 

PvP) Enraged Defense is designed to work while under the effects of a hard CC (like a stun) and Vengeance can spec into Deafening Defense to give it 15% damage reduction while active. However, it is underwhelming as a defensive cooldown for Rage Juggernauts and unreasonably expensive (in rage cost) for all Juggernaut specs.

 

Would the team consider revisiting Enraged Defense's design, perhaps improving the defensive benefits for the Rage spec in addition to removing its current rage cost/rage consumption effect?

 

 

________

 

 

PvE) Vengeance doesn't translate very well to a live operation environment, where the reliance on a channeled melee ability (Ravage) is consistently punished due to encounter design. Additionally, Vengeance can't reliably refresh Ravage, as both Impale and Shatter have notable cooldowns and rage costs accompanied with low proc chances (30%). Outside of Impale and Shatter, there is no way to trigger Rampage.

 

Would the combat team consider making some changes (like faster ravage channel and improved proc chances) to ensure Vengeance can more easily deal reliable and consistent single target damage in a dynamic operation environment?

 

 

________

 

 

General) Out of all the classes in the game, the Juggernaut holds the distinction of being the only advanced class that lacks an offensive cooldown in a literal sense. Enrage gives more rage, but doesn't feel very interesting and has no secondary dps benefit.

 

Would the developers consider granting the Juggernaut an offensive cooldown? Alternatively, would adding an interesting secondary effect onto Enrage be something to consider?

 

These are quite good and to the point n I like how all the fluff was removed.

 

Are we getting answers today? Or are we just simply posing the question today and waiting for answers?

Edited August 30, 2013 by SkiaTheShade

[Thundernuts]

@MasterFeign

 

Marb has been kind enough to try and slim those down and we've revised some. What do you think of these?

 

 

 

PvP) Enraged Defense is designed to work while under the effects of a hard CC (like a stun) and Vengeance can spec into Deafening Defense to give it 15% damage reduction while active. However, it is underwhelming as a defensive cooldown for Rage Juggernauts and unreasonably expensive (in rage cost) for all Juggernaut specs.

 

Would the team consider revisiting Enraged Defense's design, perhaps improving the defensive benefits for the Rage spec in addition to removing its current rage cost/rage consumption effect?

 

 

________

 

 

PvE) Vengeance doesn't translate very well to a live operation environment, where the reliance on a channeled melee ability (Ravage) is consistently punished due to encounter design. Additionally, Vengeance can't reliably refresh Ravage, as both Impale and Shatter have notable cooldowns and rage costs accompanied with low proc chances (30%). Outside of Impale and Shatter, there is no way to trigger Rampage.

 

Would the combat team consider making some changes (like faster ravage channel and improved proc chances) to ensure Vengeance can more easily deal reliable and consistent single target damage in a dynamic operation environment?

 

 

________

 

 

General) Out of all the classes in the game, the Juggernaut holds the distinction of being the only advanced class that lacks an offensive cooldown in a literal sense. Enrage gives more rage, but doesn't feel very interesting and has no secondary dps benefit.

 

Would the developers consider granting the Juggernaut an offensive cooldown? Alternatively, would adding an interesting secondary effect onto Enrage be something to consider?

 

Why is the Immortal tree completely left out of every question?

[ArenCordial]

These are quite good and to the point n I like how all the fluff was removed.

 

Are we getting answers today? Or are we just simply posing the question today and waiting for answers?

 

That depends on the dev time. I think it took some time before some of the other classes got their answers.

[MasterFeign]

*more snip*

 

1.Hmm I still feel as though that the premise for the pvp question (in regards to rage juggs not having a proper enraged defense CD, would get rebuffed), due to the fact that juggs in rage would put out heavy aoe dps, so the ratio of survivability vs. damage would be noticeable. Alternatively, that could be part of the question. That is to say, you can ask if the survivabilty to dps ratio for rage juggs is suitable. This would also enable you to omit the premise part of the question, and well, get straight to the question. In a way, you're also competing with the mara rage spec, wheren they have 4 seconds of 99% damage reduction, which doesn't seem fair as a comparison, especially as it's a 25% health drain.

 

2. Saying that it doesn't translate too well right off the bat may not be a good idea. This leaves room for the devs to say it does, arguing their side. By the sounds of the question, you could get away with just asking teh question itself (removing the premise) and further asking for a clarification of the design of the vengence spec. I myself know that at least in pvp, vengence has some burst but not a lot of pressure, so I certainly know what it feels like.

 

3. For the 3rd one you could ask if not having an offensive CD was part of the jugg design, instead of sort of accusing the dev team, saying it doesn't. If you ask something as I suggested in the previous sentence, you could get away with not having to post a premise to the question first.

 

I find that a premise is sort of an expectation, and if it's not fufilled, it's rebuffed, making the question moot. Getting clarification instead, helps to know what the intention of the class was, and by extention, it's play style. It's not to say that the devs or players are wrong, but rather to find a sort of median. As a player, we can only do so much with a class, and its expectations, and the devs sometimes need to understand this, but in the best way possible. That's why I hope there'd be follow up to the answers.

 

I hope that helps

 

Why is the Immortal tree completely left out of every question?

 

I believe it's because they're in a good place? I'm not too sure. That and also the consensus of the forum.

Edited August 30, 2013 by MasterFeign

[gogator]

Why is the Immortal tree completely left out of every question?

 

Do you think Immortal is lacking in any aspect? Compared to other tanks, they have the best defensive cooldowns, insane CC, remarkable damage mitigation, great mobility and quite good threat generation. And it has a pretty good flow of action too imo.

 

So it's better if we don't remind and make them reconsider the awesomeness of immortal so that we can avoid the nerf bat

[MasterFeign]

Ah well :3 hopefully they don't respond "in kind".

[Marb]

1.Hmm I still feel as though that the premise for the pvp question (in regards to rage juggs not having a proper enraged defense CD, would get rebuffed), due to the fact that juggs in rage would put out heavy aoe dps, so the ratio of survivability vs. damage would be noticeable. Alternatively, that could be part of the question. That is to say, you can ask if the survivabilty to dps ratio for rage juggs is suitable. This would also enable you to omit the premise part of the question, and well, get straight to the question. In a way, you're also competing with the mara rage spec, wheren they have 4 seconds of 99% damage reduction, which doesn't seem fair as a comparison, especially as it's a 25% health drain.

 

2. Saying that it doesn't translate too well right off the bat may not be a good idea. This leaves room for the devs to say it does, arguing their side. By the sounds of the question, you could get away with just asking teh question itself (removing the premise) and further asking for a clarification of the design of the vengence spec. I myself know that at least in pvp, vengence has some burst but not a lot of pressure, so I certainly know what it feels like.

 

3. For the 3rd one you could ask if not having an offensive CD was part of the jugg design, instead of sort of accusing the dev team, saying it doesn't. If you ask something as I suggested in the previous sentence, you could get away with not having to post a premise to the question first.

 

I find that a premise is sort of an expectation, and if it's not fufilled, it's rebuffed, making the question moot. Getting clarification instead, helps to know what the intention of the class was, and by extention, it's play style. It's not to say that the devs or players are wrong, but rather to find a sort of median. As a player, we can only do so much with a class, and its expectations, and the devs sometimes need to understand this, but in the best way possible. That's why I hope there'd be follow up to the answers.

 

These are all valid points.

 

1. I can't really comment on how applicable this is to pvp, the glaring issue with ED is the rage cost (this effects all specs). The rage specific flavor of the question is really trying to draw light upon how terrible enraged defense is, and how Vengeance actually gets some mileage out of the ability because of Deafening Defense. I agree with you though, if I had my way I wouldn't mention rage at all, because doing so is an indirect way of saying rage survivability needs to be buffed (which I don't agree with). ED should be the general question with a brand new PvP question. However, the PvP crowd has really funneled their gripes into ED, so this question is a compromise in its current state.

 

2. Part of removing a lot of fluff has meant that these questions do sound overly accusatory, which could potentially

be harmful to the answers. This question evolved from dps being an issue, into the actual way the spec is designed, with the main issue being how it plays in operations. I would be hesitant in removing the premise, because it makes some important points, but I do think it could do with some rephrasing to not be so aggressive.

 

3. Same as 2, it is a bit presumptuous to assume its an oversight and simply request one in the question.

 

I'm hesitant to touch the first question but I have made some changes to 2 and 3 with your concerns in mind:http://www.swtor.com/community/showpost.php?p=6709427&postcount=67

 

Is that an improvement?

Edited August 31, 2013 by Marb

[MasterFeign]

Yeah, I think they certainly sound better.

[Marb]

Why is the Immortal tree completely left out of every question?

 

Immortal hasn't been forgotten, it was just prioritized lower by consensus because of its relatively strong position in both PvP and PvE.

 

There are legitimate issues and concerns for the Immortal spec that I hope the guardian questions will explore when their turn comes up.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Marb

[ArenCordial]

Well the questions have been posted. We will just have to see what comes of it. Hopefully we did a good enough job to get some positive or at least thoughtful feedback. I think after the whole backlash with Sorcerers and Vanguards, the devs will play conservative on how the exactly answer our questions so that may play into our favor.

 

I don't really expect any significant class changes to come our way until probably 3.0 but maybe we gave them some things to think about and depending on how they answer the Guardians can always hone in on the issues/feedback.

 

I'm not the class rep but I still want to thank everyone who contributed, it was nice to share ideas with everyone.

Edited August 31, 2013 by ArenCordial

[MasterFeign]

Well the questions have been posted. We will just have to see what comes of it. Hopefully we did a good enough job to get some positive or at least thoughtful feedback. I think after the whole backlash with Sorcerers and Vanguards, the devs will play conservative on how the exactly answer our questions so that may play into our favor.

 

I don't really expect any significant class changes to come our way until probably 3.0 but maybe we gave them some things to think about and depending on how they answer the Guardians can always hone in on the issues/feedback.

 

I'm not the class rep but I still want to thank everyone who contributed, it was nice to share ideas with everyone.

 

I think the big thing with the sorc question was that it was sort of "open to feedback", as implied by the question and premises.

 

It's sort of like debating playstyle. A pyro PT may complain that they generate lots of heat now and are not that good at killing people because they put dots on everything, but their playstyle may indicate this only. As say someone else who likes the change, because when they focus a single target, they can burst the enemy down and not have heat issues. Sort of things like that. Of course some are more obvious than others, but it's sort of that idea anyway.

Edited August 31, 2013 by MasterFeign

[Marb]

Well the questions have been posted. We will just have to see what comes of it. Hopefully we did a good enough job to get some positive or at least thoughtful feedback. I think after the whole backlash with Sorcerers and Vanguards, the devs will play conservative on how the exactly answer our questions so that may play into our favor.

 

I don't really expect any significant class changes to come our way until probably 3.0 but maybe we gave them some things to think about and depending on how they answer the Guardians can always hone in on the issues/feedback.

 

I'm not the class rep but I still want to thank everyone who contributed, it was nice to share ideas with everyone.

 

I think everyone did a pretty good job, the questions really started to take shape towards the end with a lot of rapid iteration.

 

I'm a little concerned with the decision to go with the current PvP question, but I think we should still expect to get some useful feedback regardless.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Marb

[ArenCordial]

I think everyone did a pretty good job, the questions really started to take shape towards the end with a lot of rapid iteration.

 

I'm a little concerned with the decision to go with the current PvP question, but I think we should still expect to get some useful feedback regardless.

 

Oddly enough Enraged Defense I think its obviously such a questionable ability, I almost feel like the question could have been "So......Enraged Defense. What's up with that?"

 

Course I'm probably too optimistic about that.