Since Nibbon has quit: Sage/Sorcerer Top issues discussion

[GOLANX]

the sage emergency heal is a 1.5 activation time ability that costs 70 force, Operatives emergency heal pre 2.7 is free and instant and regrants tactical advantage on targets below 30% health making it spammable. the least they could do is to flip the conveyance buff, 30% cost reduction on Benevolence, 60% crit chance on deliverance. a cheaper benevolence and more Powerful Deliverance would make both more valuable IMO

[Master-Nala]

OK, I put up the Visual/fun question. Now is the time folks. If you have another topic that you think should edge this out, now is the time to speak up.

 

There are many issues that people have expressed, but the question I just posted has been mentioned in various forms since launch. While many people in the community could not care less about visual issues like this, I think we need to realize that these issues are meaningful for folks. Heck, I'm concerned more Dyvim will go postal over these animations! (j/k )

 

So from a strict "Where is the passion?" This is winning for now. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

[AdamLKvist]

OK, I put up the Visual/fun question. Now is the time folks. If you have another topic that you think should edge this out, now is the time to speak up.

 

There are many issues that people have expressed, but the question I just posted has been mentioned in various forms since launch. While many people in the community could not care less about visual issues like this, I think we need to realize that these issues are meaningful for folks. Heck, I'm concerned more Dyvim will go postal over these animations! (j/k )

 

So from a strict "Where is the passion?" This is winning for now. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

I think you've done a splendid job with the questions. I would prefer not adding in things about benevolence as I feel that the buff to the healing tree should not be located with our "emergency" heal but instead something that removes the reliance on channeling (some) instead of making it more relevant.

 

Like the visual question as well, surprisingly

[Master-Nala]

Just as an added paragraph

 

While Benevolence has its uses in emergency situations and off healing as a DPS, for Seer Sages this ability is very underwhelming and rarely used. In your 2.0 blog you mentioned that the ability is to be used when Force efficiency is not a concern. Unfortunately, in most emergencies efficiency is a concern as wasteful rotations will only lead to a prolonged emergency. Similarly, the Scoundrel ability Kolto Pack had an issue of being undesirable and has received a boost since. The Sage healing community would like to see a similar treatment given to Benevolence.

 

The stuff in italics is optional. It may be that it is just me feeling so strongly about it. If they repeat what they said on 2.0 let them but it has been a while and lot has changed.

 

Original post updated. I think your italicized portion is essential, but I removed your comparison portion because the fact is Scoundrels cannot heal to full.

.

.

.

.

wait.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Master-Nala

[AlrikFassbauer]

He

 

Nala = Alan backwards

 

Thank you. Didn't know that.

[GOLANX]

imo id also like to see a question on Force Management, are the devs happy with it as it is now? ever since my Madness Sourc hit level 30 the energy management has become a chore, Lightning Burns doesn't Proc often enough or restore enough energy to be serious energy management, leaving Force lightning (the filler) and consumption which doesn't have any mitigation in Madness like it does in corruption.

 

but i would also like to address another point, Lightning/Telekenetics has brain-dead force management from level 22 with lightning effusion and subversion i don't think i could expend all of my energy if i tried.

 

my sage is a level 44 Seer if i run out of force, i have to run and hide to Meditate, if i use Noble Sacrifice the next smash-monkey to leap me will roast me alive. at least its a much less nerf to use while seer spec which is the main reason its viable in PVE

 

so basically force management

Telekenetics/lightning: too easy?

Madness/Balance: Too hard?

Seer/Corruption unreasonable in PVP situations?

Edited March 29, 2014 by GOLANX

[AlrikFassbauer]

Noble Sacrifice is a whole question in itself.

It has so many questiomns surrounding it is not even funny.

 

- What did the devs had in mind when developing "Noble Sacrifice" , especialoly in terms of lore ?

- Did they take into account that it makes the Sage / Sorceror an desirable target - especially in PvP when the Noble Sacrifice has been freshly performed ?

- Why is there no other, less self-harming method available ? What was the design goal it forcing the Sorc / Sage to self-harm ?

- Why self-harming ? Why not "leeching" others ?

 

And so on.

[AlrikFassbauer]

OK, I put up the Visual/fun question.

 

I like it. Very well worded, imho.

[Master-Nala]

imo id also like to see a question on Force Management, are the devs happy with it as it is now? ever since my Madness Sourc hit level 30 the energy management has become a chore, Lightning Burns doesn't Proc often enough or restore enough energy to be serious energy management, leaving Force lightning (the filler) and consumption which doesn't have any mitigation in Madness like it does in corruption.

 

but i would also like to address another point, Lightning/Telekenetics has brain-dead force management from level 22 with lightning effusion and subversion i don't think i could expend all of my energy if i tried.

 

my sage is a level 44 Seer if i run out of force, i have to run and hide to Meditate, if i use Noble Sacrifice the next smash-monkey to leap me will roast me alive. at least its a much less nerf to use while seer spec which is the main reason its viable in PVE

 

so basically force management

Telekenetics/lightning: too easy?

Madness/Balance: Too hard?

Seer/Corruption unreasonable in PVP situations?

 

Balance is getting a substantial improvement to force management in 2.7 and force management for Seers is already incorporated into their question.

[MirrimFaranth]

OK, I put up the Visual/fun question...

 

So from a strict "Where is the passion?" This is winning for now. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

I very much would like to hear their answer to the visual/feel/animations question...thanks for putting it in...as you say, they have been a sore point since before launch...

[ShadowMudkip]

Project animation is not a happy sandwich.

[Dyvim]

OK, I put up the Visual/fun question. Now is the time folks. If you have another topic that you think should edge this out, now is the time to speak up.

 

...Heck, I'm concerned more Dyvim will go postal over these animations! (j/k )

 

So from a strict "Where is the passion?" This is winning for now. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

lol, thanks Nala.

 

Question looks good, I would just add a few sentences in the background part about how many suitable alternate animations are already in the game, and could be tweaked to get us in better shape...variation of saber throw, Electric Judgment, and then the companion skills...force burst (ashara), force burst (raina), force tremor (kira), etc. So to get something to us, fast, and well done, does not require them to start from scratch...far from it...

 

Or just refer them to the thread in the cartel market forum...lol.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Dyvim

[MusicRider]

Regarding the first question about survivability... as I mentioned on my previous post I am reluctant to bring this keyword up again given the 2.7 changes and how it has been met before. Most importantly the actual question has nothing to do with survivability but allowing the class to bring into a group its offhealing utility without hindering its primary role; ok maybe in the case of the seer tree it actually increases the survivability as you can bubble and heal on a single gcd. But genearlly speaking the title looks to me as something like realization of group utility without penalties to main function...

[AdrianDmitruk]

Regarding the first question about survivability... as I mentioned on my previous post I am reluctant to bring this keyword up again given the 2.7 changes and how it has been met before. Most importantly the actual question has nothing to do with survivability but allowing the class to bring into a group its offhealing utility without hindering its primary role; ok maybe in the case of the seer tree it actually increases the survivability as you can bubble and heal on a single gcd. But genearlly speaking the title looks to me as something like realization of group utility without penalties to main function...

 

It makes perfect sense when viewed in the context of PVP (the "defensive cooldowns" we have--and that our survivability is balanced around--requiring globals/time while the defensive cooldowns of other classes don't). But in PVE the devs should not be too proud of the heal-to-full "instants" they've given us as we're expecting the healers to heal us and the ability to heal ourselves to full is insignificant next to the power of the enrage timer.

 

The question comes across as awkward because it tries to shoehorn a concern that is relevant to both PVP and PVE (though it manifests differently in both as described above) into a PVE only question.

[AlrikFassbauer]

Maybe it should be clearer that it rather affects PvP than PvE ? Just a thought.

[colemanron]

For the record it is rather obvious that Force Barrier is not a defensive cooldown, but an escape. It's enough to look at how it interacts with other game mechanis: mobs just ignore you when you enter Barrier, and what really gives i t away is Electronet, as it does not affect DCDs, but it shuts Barrier down.

 

The devs has clearly said it before, Sages/Sorcs will never get a defensive cooldown, so to be honest asking for one would be just straight up dumb. I very much support asking for Unnatural Preservation and possibly bubble on self to be taken off the GCD though.

 

the devs are certainly aware of the fact that TK is the only spec in the game with rotational abilities that lack any pushback protection.

 

Do you know that for a fact?

Edited March 30, 2014 by colemanron

[AdamLKvist]

For the record it is rather obvious that Force Barrier is not a defensive cooldown, but an escape. It's enough to look at how it interacts with other game mechanis: mobs just ignore you when you enter Barrier, and what really gives i t away is Electronet, as it does not affect DCDs, but it shuts Barrier down.

 

The devs has clearly said it before, Sages/Sorcs will never get a defensive cooldown, so to be honest asking for one would be just straight up dumb. I very much support asking for Unnatural Preservation and possibly bubble on self to be taken off the GCD though.

 

 

 

Do you know that for a fact?

 

Yes Rob Hinkle replied in the PTS thread here

[colemanron]

I may be blind and deaf, but I don't see him saying anything about that anywhere. If you mean he said they are considering removing pushback overall, on one hand that doesn't mean they realize TK/Lightning is screwed right now, and on the other let me quote myself from another thread:

 

 

"if we are lucky, it might happen 2 months from now, but more likely it will only be in 3.0 (and that would be closer to 6 months).

 

However in 2.7 they removed pushback for everything they recognized as rotational abilities, but thanks to their earlier mistakes in class design, which apparently they don't want to admit, Lightning will still be screwed over. Now not having anyone in their combat team seeing this issue is sad enough as it is, but also ignoring the countless posts on the PTS forums which they are actually reading and the class forums which I would assume they read is just a whole different level of awesome. I would laugh at their incompetence if only it weren't about my main toon and my one true love in this game.

 

Also my point remains valid wether they take out pushback in 2.8 or 3.0 or not, because with these issues not corrected Lightning will be broken in 2.7, when we know they could have fixed it easily."

 

 

If I missed another post somewhere, my apologies, I am well-known for being stupid.

Edited March 30, 2014 by colemanron

[MusicRider]

It makes perfect sense

Not sure if you are referring to the question or my post here...

 

when viewed in the context of PVP (the "defensive cooldowns" we have--and that our survivability is balanced around--requiring globals/time while the defensive cooldowns of other classes don't).

Agree that sages' dcds are on gcd while other classes's ones are not. However, in the context of pvp taking bubble and mend off gcd is not a straightforward task cause if you allow a sage to cast armor/mend/a heal like lets say benevolence and a medpack then if mend and heal crit which could be near guarranteed with potency then you allow in the best case scenario to replenish nearly 100% of their hp in the worst case scenario at least 2/3 of their health in 1-2 gcds; add that barrier in the presence of a healer can give a second life... Then we are talking now that sages have 3 lives and their damage, at least as balance, is perfectly viable then why would you bring any other dps class other than sages in arenas?

 

But in PVE the devs should not be too proud of the heal-to-full "instants" they've given us as we're expecting the healers to heal us and the ability to heal ourselves to full is insignificant next to the power of the enrage timer.

I agree that it true and that's what I said, or at least try to express, on my previous post. However, the offhealing ability of a sage is the only utility they bring in a raid group... But, this utility comes at a cost against enrage timers, particularly when dps specced.

 

The question comes across as awkward because it tries to shoehorn a concern that is relevant to both PVP and PVE (though it manifests differently in both as described above) into a PVE only question.

If I understand well, and correct me if I am wrong, you are referring to the question proposed to be asked on post #1...

 

It will be difficult to find a balance between all these issues... IMHO one of the new questions should not focus on "survivability" before 2.7 changes are very widely tested on live. IMHO again I think that the topics that should be covered from the questions should be:

 

1) Definitely the healing tree especially from a pvp perspective... Also in this question it could be asked about the philosophy of noble sacrifice and how it is seen from a pvp as well as pve point of view; as having NS on the main gcd is/might be an "issue" for both and for pvp in particular the health spent too.

 

2) What utility do the devs think that sages bring in a group (both for pve and pvp) and whether they feel this utility is satisfactory and realized in a way that does not hinder the main role of the sage (mostly referring to dps), or it is meant to be penalizing their main role (again referring to dps) as off-healing is the "greatest utility" of all. Of course this then opens the door to all types of comparisons with mandos and scoundrels that can also off-heal.

 

Also here could be asked also about whether they think that two sages are synergizing well together, as the community feels what is mentioned in the question... and if they are not is it a design decision (which seem to only apply to sages then).

 

3) The fun bits about animations etc.... presenting them in a way that they can actually bring revenue to BW and IMO I thing they will... e.g. the idea of having cartel market alternative animations is pretty cool for both the players and BW...

Edited March 30, 2014 by MusicRider

[Master-Nala]

It will be difficult to find a balance between all these issues... IMHO one of the new questions should not focus on "survivability" before 2.7 changes are very widely tested on live. IMHO again I think that the topics that should be covered from the questions should be:

 

From my perspective, I agree with you. BUT, this is without a doubt the most pressing unresolved issue for folks. I am very open for ways to modify this question so that it meets the goals of the community. As I see it there are a couple of goals for that question:

 

1) To try to understand the devs's philosophy towards Sage/Sorc survivability, i.e. how do they envision the class. Are we simply to be a D&D mage, standing in the back row finger-wiggling? Are we intended to be a Jedi?

 

2) Do they ever intend to address the community desire for an actual cooldown. While their intentions seem clear to me, they have softened on other issues since the H2F controversy.

 

The goal of this system is to give agency to the community's concerns. Even where there is a clear departure from the devs's ideas and the community's. I think the problem is that after the Sorcerer questions, everyone has been careful to over-lawyer their questions to rein in the developer responses. This is a shame, but inevitable. The good news is you guys have an actual lawyer to lawyer over your questions, so hopefully we'll be all good!

Edited March 30, 2014 by Master-Nala

[judgeender]

I've mentioned it before, but it probably bears repeating. Survivability in PvE is a current issue. The previous answers regarding the issue appear to be focused on a PvP aspect of the game because the response does not work in progression PvE. So long as Sages/Sorcs take extra damage from attacks in PvE (due to lower armor) and have no way to mitigate the damage, they are at risk of being less desired than any other dps class for progression content.

 

We were back in NiM DF working on Brontes yesterday and both myself and our sage healer were taking somewhere around 46-50k damage from Kephess' dread bomb (each time getting hit twice for around 23-25k). (We are aware that some have reported this as a bug, but in each case, only 1 person was in the circle to get hit, the target of the attack.) Force Barrier can let you survive one, but not more if you are targetted more than once. Our sniper and marauder on the other hand could survive every single one easily using their DCDs. There are other things that result in Sages/Sorcs taking more damage than other dps classes. Either we stop dpsing (use GCDs ourselves) or require additional attention from healers to keep us alive. None of this currently means we can't be part of the group, but it does put as at significant risk of being much less desired than other equally geared/skilled players of other classes for such content. When a group is working toward world/server firsts, relying on RNG or putting extra stress on healers or increasing the odds of hitting an enrage timer is less than ideal. So maybe the question is a little bit of a repeat, but is so we never got a real answer to the question. Based on more recent discussions with Bioware, I believe if the question is properly framed to emphasize PvE concerns (as the current draft does), Bioware will explain their thinking on this. I don't believe they want another H2F, LOS, Make them Pay reaction.

 

I would note that some, but not all, of these concerns can also be addressed at least in part by designing boss fights differently. For examply if they stop using as many attacks that are impacted by armor, at least the initial difference in damage taken (before DCDs) would be eliminated/minimized. Having some of these attacks do a fixed percentage of total health would also be an option. Whether it gets Bioware to think about what Sages/Sorcs need themselves or gets them to think about OP fight design, I believe the question is important for PvE.

 

Retsigam - hmd Magenta - The Shadowlands

Edited March 30, 2014 by judgeender

[Darth_Dreselus]

The good news is you guys have an actual lawyer to lawyer over your questions, so hopefully we'll be all good!

 

High Five my (learned) friend.

[MusicRider]

I've mentioned it before, but it probably bears repeating. Survivability in PvE is a current issue. The previous answers regarding the issue appear to be focused on a PvP aspect of the game because the response does not work in progression PvE. So long as Sages/Sorcs take extra damage from attacks in PvE (due to lower armor) and have no way to mitigate the damage, they are at risk of being less desired than any other dps class for progression content.

 

We were back in NiM DF working on Brontes yesterday and both myself and our sage healer were taking somewhere around 46-50k damage from Kephess' dread bomb (each time getting hit twice for around 23-25k). (We are aware that some have reported this as a bug, but in each case, only 1 person was in the circle to get hit, the target of the attack.) Force Barrier can let you survive one, but not more if you are targetted more than once. Our sniper and marauder on the other hand could survive every single one easily using their DCDs. There are other things that result in Sages/Sorcs taking more damage than other dps classes. Either we stop dpsing (use GCDs ourselves) or require additional attention from healers to keep us alive. None of this currently means we can't be part of the group, but it does put as at significant risk of being much less desired than other equally geared/skilled players of other classes for such content. When a group is working toward world/server firsts, relying on RNG or putting extra stress on healers or increasing the odds of hitting an enrage timer is less than ideal. So maybe the question is a little bit of a repeat, but is so we never got a real answer to the question. Based on more recent discussions with Bioware, I believe if the question is properly framed to emphasize PvE concerns (as the current draft does), Bioware will explain their thinking on this. I don't believe they want another H2F, LOS, Make them Pay reaction.

 

I would note that some, but not all, of these concerns can also be addressed at least in part by designing boss fights differently. For examply if they stop using as many attacks that are impacted by armor, at least the initial difference in damage taken (before DCDs) would be eliminated/minimized. Having some of these attacks do a fixed percentage of total health would also be an option. Whether it gets Bioware to think about what Sages/Sorcs need themselves or gets them to think about OP fight design, I believe the question is important for PvE.

 

Retsigam - hmd Magenta - The Shadowlands

 

What you are describing here is a specific case of survivability and IMHO if there is a question about this topic this is how it should be formulated. Asking about general survivabilty of the class, particularly if it has the slightest hint that it come from a pvp perspective might cause another h2f style of answer given the 2.7 changes.

 

However, 2.7 changes do not improve pve survivability in the slightestI think, and in particular the specific case you describe of spike damage survivability in pve. A focused question IMO is clearer and will get an answer that is more descriptive regardless of whether it contains what we want to hear. It is true that if the dps/hps of a class is similar to another which has better survivability and possibly utility then why bring the inferior class? Either bring on par their survivability or increase the dps of the class with lower survivability so at least there is the question of "high risk but high gain" to be considered when forming an ops group. The former (ie improving survivability) over the latter (ie increasing dps/hps) is easier to balance I think.

[MusicRider]

From my perspective, I agree with you. BUT, this is without a doubt the most pressing unresolved issue for folks. I am very open for ways to modify this question so that it meets the goals of the community. As I see it there are a couple of goals for that question:

 

1) To try to understand the devs's philosophy towards Sage/Sorc survivability, i.e. how do they envision the class. Are we simply to be a D&D mage, standing in the back row finger-wiggling? Are we intended to be a Jedi?

 

2) Do they ever intend to address the community desire for an actual cooldown. While their intentions seem clear to me, they have softened on other issues since the H2F controversy.

 

The goal of this system is to give agency to the community's concerns. Even where there is a clear departure from the devs's ideas and the community's. I think the problem is that after the Sorcerer questions, everyone has been careful to over-lawyer their questions to rein in the developer responses. This is a shame, but inevitable. The good news is you guys have an actual lawyer to lawyer over your questions, so hopefully we'll be all good!

 

Yes I understand. And I just replied to another post (see above). If pve survivability when spike damage is taken is the problem then maybe that's where the "survivability" question should focus on, as 2.7 changes address pvp survivability but not pve which remains unaltered.

[Aerilas]

OK, I put up the Visual/fun question. Now is the time folks. If you have another topic that you think should edge this out, now is the time to speak up.

 

There are many issues that people have expressed, but the question I just posted has been mentioned in various forms since launch. While many people in the community could not care less about visual issues like this, I think we need to realize that these issues are meaningful for folks. Heck, I'm concerned more Dyvim will go postal over these animations! (j/k )

 

So from a strict "Where is the passion?" This is winning for now. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

 

Sorry, but where can I find the questions you put up?