No Intentional Hybrid Tax

[oaceen]

salient parts in bold.

 

It is not intended for the Juggernaut/Guardian damage specializations’ output and group utility to be sub-par because Juggernauts/Guardians can specialize to fulfill the role of a tank. We do realize that Juggernaut/Guardian damage dealers and some other damage dealers that can specialize in tanking or healing feel like they are not currently desirable group members in operations, and this is a high-priority issue for us to address.

 

Unfortunately, this is not a small issue that is standing in line for a quick and simple fix – it affects far more than just Juggernaut/Guardian damage dealers. As such, changes made to address this issue will be rolling out slowly, over time, in class-specific ways. The upcoming 2.4 changes for Powertech damage dealers are an example of this, and our much longer-term plans for this include adding new utility to the advanced classes and roles that seem to lack it. The gaps between our damage dealing specializations are already small for a game with this many specializations, but we will be working to shrink those gaps even further over time.

 

 

i know it was gleaned from the sorc/sage questions that there was, in fact, an intentional hybrid tax in the game, but perhaps it was just a misunderstanding?

Edited September 10, 2013 by oaceen

[ImpactHound]

They won't just come out and say it in plain english either way, which is why we had the "heal to full" debacle.

[TUXs]

i know it was gleaned from the sorc/sage questions that there was, in fact, a hybrid tax in the game, but perhaps it was just a misunderstanding?

 

I think the misunderstanding stems from developers thinking some skills are better than they are. They may claim it's "unintentional", but I think it's rather obvious that it exists.

[oaceen]

I think the misunderstanding stems from developers thinking some skills are better than they are. They may claim it's "unintentional", but I think it's rather obvious that it exists.

 

well they pretty much came out and admitted that it exists. i think the problem is that it seemed from the sorc answers that it was intended, and here they are saying it's not intended, and they want to address it.

 

 

edited the OP a slight bit to reflect that point and make it more clear

Edited September 10, 2013 by oaceen

[hadoken]

As long as they consider hard casting heals to be the equivalent of a defensive cooldown for a dps class, there always will be a tax and they won't be able to shrink that gap (unless they just make their damage output obscene to compensate for wasted time healing). Edited September 10, 2013 by hadoken

[Andryah]

I think the misunderstanding stems from developers thinking some skills are better than they are. They may claim it's "unintentional", but I think it's rather obvious that it exists.

 

It takes both parties to create and deploy a misunderstanding.

 

Players are want to define what "hybrid tax" means and then imperiously apply the definition to the backs of developers and use it as excuse to flog the devs.

 

Like so many terms and memes in MMO gaming forums.. the term is over used, and without consistent agreement as to what the boundaries of such a term in actual use and meaning are actually fair discussion. It's become a weapon to apply against the devs.

 

I think a better way to discuss it is not in absolutes, but in relative terms. All hybrids, by definition have a "tax" of some sort or another upon them in MMOs. The real discussion is not about flogging the devs over a term.. but rather.. is the penalty for being a hybrid in balance, or is it too extreme.

 

Unfortunately when discussing hybrid classes.. players will never reach consensus.. because they each want different things maximized in their particular use of any particular hybrid. The DPS guy wants no DPS penalties. The Healing guy wants no Healing penalties, and the Utility guy wants no compromise on utility. To please all parties.. you would have to make an over-powered class... and that should not happen.

 

Hybrid classes are by definition "compromises" in abilities to seek a relative balance while offering flexibility outside of pure class constraints. Players in my experience have little appreciation for this reality.. and instead focus on their special interests. The only thing the players agree on is that the devs are evil people who are out to destroy their particular desired class nuance in a hybrid.

 

If you want "pure" class play results.. don't play a hybrid. Don't compromise if you can't handle the results. Stick to pure trinity roles.

 

Any MMO veteran knows that in reality hybrid classes are imperfect and will always be imperfect.. yet players want their personal version of perfection stamped into the hybrid anyway. Not very realistic to be honest.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Andryah

[hadoken]

Players are want to define what "hybrid tax" means and then imperiously apply the definition to the backs of developers and use it as excuse to flog the devs.

 

Like so many terms and memes in MMO gaming forums.. the term is over used, and without consistent agreement as to what the boundaries of such a term in actual use and meaning are actually fair discussion. It's become a weapon to apply against the devs.

 

Just because you don't understand what it is, doesn't mean the players using the term nor the devs responding to its use don't. You're right it exists in a lot of MMOs, but not all of them and several MMOs (including, apparently, this one) are trying to move away from having it in place. They've said all along through development and live they want the dps roles of every class to be competitive with each other (~5% was the figure then). That's why the 'heal to full' thing became such a big deal - they were apparently moving away from that philosophy. This latest quote seems to reinforce their original stance, but it's very confusing when combined with their stance on defensive cooldowns for hybrids.

[Andryah]

Just because you don't understand what it is, doesn't mean the players using the term nor the devs responding to its use don't.

 

I understand that there is no consensus as to what = hybrid tax. It is a term used for the convenience of pressing a complaint against the devs actions in class design.

 

It's become a weapon in talking points.. and as such lacks meaning and value in the larger discussion.

 

As I said in my prior post.... hybrids are always imperfect, and always will be when viewed through any particular players desire for "purity" of some aspect of the utility within the class. If you demand purity.. you play a pure class.. or you play a class that you can accept compromises on for the sake of utility and flexibility.

 

By all means analyze and provide feedback to the devs about skill mechanics, effectiveness, etc. Absolutely. But stop with the "we are being taxed" rhetoric and the "you said you would not tax hybrids you bastages" rhetoric. It's pointless and goes nowhere.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Andryah

[oaceen]

any player with 36+ points in vigilance, scrapper, assault specialist, or balance is not a hybrid.

in fact, anyone with 36+ points in any spec is not a hybrid. just because my class affords me some basic healing or a taunt as a baseline, does mean that i am a hybrid.

[Andryah]

any player with 36+ points in vigilance, scrapper, assault specialist, or balance is not a hybrid.

in fact, anyone with 36+ points in any spec is not a hybrid. just because my class affords me some basic healing or a taunt as a baseline, does mean that i am a hybrid.

 

Then make a case for stances or other "switches" in the spec trees that move a 36 point spec choice to a point of "purity". Because that is the only way it is going to happen.. and frankly.. I think the devs and most people know this. Could be they are slow on the dev side because how to get there is a complicated move through the miles of code that this game is.

 

In other words.. drop all the "tax" rhetoric and concentrate on discussion of actual sensible mechanics that could address the problem.

 

Of course.. this is difficult.. because there are all those blended specs and their interactions that have to be properly considered as well.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Andryah

[TUXs]

any player with 36+ points in vigilance, scrapper, assault specialist, or balance is not a hybrid.

in fact, anyone with 36+ points in any spec is not a hybrid. just because my class affords me some basic healing or a taunt as a baseline, does mean that i am a hybrid.

 

She doesn't get it...save your breath. It's not worth trying to explain it.

[Andryah]

She doesn't get it...save your breath. It's not worth trying to explain it.

 

You are wrong.

 

But thanks for the pejorative commentary about me rather then the topic.

[TUXs]

You are wrong.

 

But thanks for the pejorative commentary about me rather then the topic.

 

It's obvious from your essay length replies you're confused. It's ok though...some of us get it and we think the Devs do too.

[ImpactHound]

There may not be a dictionary definition of 'hybrid tax' but there's a strong set of qualifiers that a majority can agree upon, with some outlying parts that can be argued. Devil's Advocating the argument doesn't do anyone any good. Inquisitors and Shadow Tanks need small buffs, and they can be re-evaluated from there. BW won't even do step 1.

[Andryah]

It's obvious from your essay length replies you're confused. It's ok though...some of us get it and we think the Devs do too.

 

The only thing that is obvious is that you did not read them. This is not unusual though.. is it?

Edited September 10, 2013 by Andryah

[ImpactHound]

The only thing that is obvious is that you did not read them. This is not unusual though.. is it?

 

Considering how many people put you on ignore after a particularly bad forum argument, no.

[TUXs]

The only thing that is obvious is that you did not read them. This is not unusual though.. is it?

 

I honestly try...but you go so far off topic that I generally stop at the first "hyperbole" or "conjecture" I reach.

 

Lemme ask you...in like 20 words or less, what do YOU think "hybrid tax" is?

[Andryah]

There may not be a dictionary definition of 'hybrid tax' but there's a strong set of qualifiers that a majority can agree upon, with some outlying parts that can be argued. Devil's Advocating the argument doesn't do anyone any good. Inquisitors and Shadow Tanks need small buffs, and they can be re-evaluated from there. BW won't even do step 1.

 

So... again.. it it valid and productive to stick with the "tax" rhetoric?

 

IMO.. no.. It actually hampers the discussion.

 

Some people want to play classes that clearly are designed for more then one role. The issue being they want to play these in one of a few pure roles (either pure DPS, or pure Healer, or Pure Tank)... yet others do in fact want to play them in hybrid manner. The players are at odds with each other here. Somehow.. Bioware is expected to cure this... because it is their game.

 

So.. let's discuss practical approaches to "pure" spec variants in otherwise hybrid designs.. wouldn't that make for more productive discussion?

 

Somehow.. if Bioware can find a way to provide spec based "purity" it would solve the problem for the purests. The difficulty of course is that the spec trees do not come into full force until late in the game, and some players do not want to sacrifice utility for purity. Discussion as to ideas to address this are productive and add to solving the problem, whereas this constant dramafest about "hybrid tax" derails the productive discussion and has the negative side effect of encouraging players to dump on the devs, rather then discuss meaningful solutions to what is clearly not a "no brainer" for the devs to fix properly.

[ImpactHound]

I honestly try...but you go so far off topic that I generally stop at the first "hyperbole" or "conjecture" I reach.

 

Lemme ask you...in like 20 words or less, what do YOU think "hybrid tax" is?

 

I'll go first.

 

"An excuse for classes that can perform multiple roles to underperform when compared to a class with a single role."

 

BAM! On target.

[Andryah]

Lemme ask you...in like 20 words or less, what do YOU think "hybrid tax" is?

 

It is a meaningless term used as a literary weapon to express distaste for devs choices in class design.

[ImpactHound]

So... again.. it it valid and productive to stick with the "tax" rhetoric?

 

IMO.. no.. It actually hampers the discussion.

 

Some people want to play classes that clearly are designed for more then one role. The issue being they want to play these in one of a few pure roles (either pure DPS, or pure Healer, or Pure Tank)... yet others do in fact want to play them in hybrid manner. The players are at odds with each other here. Somehow.. Bioware is expected to cure this... because it is their game.

 

So.. let's discuss practical approaches to "pure" spec variants in otherwise hybrid designs.. wouldn't that make for more productive discussion?

 

Somehow.. if Bioware can find a way to provide spec based "purity" it would solve the problem for the purests. The difficulty of course is that the spec trees do not come into full force until late in the game, and some players do not want to sacrifice utility for purity. Discussion as to ideas to address this are productive and add to solving the problem, whereas this constant dramafest about "hybrid tax" derails the productive discussion and has the negative side effect of encouraging players to dump on the devs, rather then discuss meaningful solutions to what is clearly not a "no brainer" for the devs to fix properly.

 

The tax rhetoric is only a problem when people like you try to mince words. If you spec into a full damage tree with an Inquisitor, they should not be more than 5% away from a Sniper's damage parse just because they can occasionally toss out a bubble or heal. If they have to do it constantly, then their damage should obviously suffer from the break in damage rotation. The POTENTIAL to do so shouldn't bring their parses out of whack if they straight damage.

 

Now if they're going halfway down healing and damage trees, I have no sympathy. That's a different thread althogether, and cut-n-dry in my opinion.

 

 

It is a meaningless term used as a literary weapon to express distaste for devs choices in class design.

 

That's not a real answer and you know it. Define what you think other players consider hybrid tax, or what the perceived consensus is, if you can't seperate your opinion from it.

Edited September 10, 2013 by ImpactHound

[TUXs]

I'll go first.

 

"An excuse for classes that can perform multiple roles to underperform when compared to a class with a single role."

 

BAM! On target.

 

It is a meaningless term used as a literary weapon to express distaste for devs choices in class design.

 

Hmmm...given these 2 replies, it's very obvious that one of you gets it exactly!!! The other is just attacking people for...the sake of arguing?!

[Andryah]

Hmmm...given these 2 replies, it's very obvious that one of you gets it exactly!!! The other is just attacking people for...the sake of arguing?!

 

And this.. is an editorial comment, with bias.. and yet another pejorative.

 

Come on dude. You are better then this.

 

I'm in no way saying there is not an issue here. I simply refuse to engage in the sideways rhetoric about "taxes". They need to find a way to allow spec-2-purity for people who want the pure variant of classes designed to be flexible in play. That is what SOME players want.. those that want to play a hybrid as pure DPS for example. At the same time.. they need to not destroy the hybrid flexibility for players that want it, appreciate it, and want to flex spec the class. <--------This last statement is what is slowing down the devs IMO and talking taxes does not help.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Andryah

[Andryah]

That's not a real answer and you know it. Define what you think other players consider hybrid tax, or what the perceived consensus is, if you can't seperate your opinion from it.

 

Oh I'm sorry. you get to dictate my answers to me now?

 

You made your response to TUXs and I made mine. Stop making it personal and going into attack mode.

[TUXs]

And this.. is an editorial comment, with bias.. and yet another pejorative.

 

Come on dude. You are better then this.

 

I'm in no way saying there is not an issue here. I simply refuse to engage in the sideways rhetoric about "taxes". They need to find a way to allow spec-2-purity for people who want the pure variant of classes designed to be flexible in play. That is what SOME players want.. those that want to play a hybrid as pure DPS for example.

 

Then come up with another term for it Andryah...the problem exists and it has been pointed out by the DEVELOPERS as an issue they want to correct. Seriously...you're arguing over the TERMS used?! I still believe you're utterly confused on the whole issue...but whatever...you claim to be clear on it, but not one of your comments on what we're talking about makes any sense. You seem to be confusing (the player coined) "hybrid tax" with a "hybrid build"...they are not the same thing.