Since Nibbon has quit: Sage/Sorcerer Top issues discussion

[KeyboardNinja]

I have been wrestling with the Survivability question. In an earlier draft, I had a statement similar to the highlighted. The problem is this, that's a comparison. And that's what led to the H2F comment in the first place.

 

The question, as I see it, is that the community feels that Sage survival tools are lacking in all play environments. The PvE problem is specific to high level raiding, but that's not where all the complaints flow from. Ultimately, I get the impression that the Sage/Sorcerer community just isn't happy being a glass without enough cannon. I suppose I could state it like that, but I can imagine the answer I'll get.

 

From the perspective of high-end PvE, survivability is very important, but it isn't a deal-breaker. Sage DPS is different from the other ranged specs. It has a very different set of tradeoffs and brings a different set of utilities. Even ignoring the utilities though, from a pure DPS standpoint, I can see a lot of reasons to bring a Sage rather than a Gunslinger or a Commando. Similarly, I can see a lot of reasons to bring a Gunslinger rather than a Sage or Commando. It cuts both ways. Ultimately, the answer depends a lot upon what strengths and weaknesses you want to build into your group composition.

 

As an example of how this thought process might follow out, we can look at the process which led to my guild's main group DPS composition.

 

We started off with a Focus Sentinel. This gives us the advantage of massive on-demand AoE and substantial, controlled burst DPS. The disadvantage we bear is the sustained DPS is appreciably lower than the other two specs. So, we need to focus on three more DPS who bring above-average sustain with the allowance that their burst can be slightly lower than their AoE can be negligible.

 

The second slot we filled in this conceptual argument was an assault commando who is capable of playing gunnery when fights require it. This gives us an enormous amount of sustained DPS at the cost of weak burst and very middling AoE. Between the assault commando and the focus sentinel, we now have a practically balanced "half group", where the strengths and weaknesses are directly complementary.

 

The third slot we filled with a gunslinger who switches between hybrid and sharpshooter. This gives us an armor debuff when the commando is in assault (vital), solid burst with very long setup, solid sustained ranged AoE when in hybrid, and above-average sustained single target DPS.

 

Because the third slot doesn't bring any pronounced advantages or disadvantages (beyond slightly weakening the group's on-demand burst potential), we could fill the fourth slot with any spec, really. We considered some melee and ranged alternatives, and nearly went with a TK Sage. TK would have strengthened our AoE quite a bit (an appreciable advantage in NiM DF) as well as our on-demand burst, and the sustained DPS is quite strong in 2.7. Ultimately though, we decided go with a second gunslinger just due to personnel availability. The second slinger plays all four specs at a high degree of proficiency, so we are able to rotate between an AoE-biased, burst-biased and sustained-biased group depending on the fight.

 

This is largely how PvE groups are min-maxed. Starting from a different set of assumptions, you can build a very different group. If we didn't have a Focus Sentinel, then it would be categorically necessary to fill that fourth slot with a class that had substantial AoE, or at least an substantial AoE spec. If the melee was something like a Balance Shadow or a Watchman Sentinel, then it would have also been necessary for that fourth slot to be able to shore up the on-demand burst role. TK fills those roles very well while also being a ranged spec, which would have made it one of the only viable options in that case. The survivability of the spec is a somewhat sideline concern.

 

Sage survivability is more a concern when you have a group which is roughly balanced and you need to fill a fourth slot without substantial constraints. There, you have to consider a lot of other properties, such as utility, survivability, mobility, etc. I do still maintain that survivability is the single biggest balance problem with Sages (of both specs) in 2.7, but it's not the frontline question that is asked when min-maxing a group. Which is to say that survivability does need to be improved, but it's not something that is directly weighed against DPS (i.e. the "glass" vs "cannon" argument).

Edited March 31, 2014 by KeyboardNinja

[Dyvim]

...

 

Well written...and before we start feeling too sorry for ranged dps, remember how hard melee dps has it when it comes to getting a spot in a serious grp...you aren't going to see 3 melee and one ranged, compared to the one melee and 3 ranged scenario KN laid out...lol.

 

In other words, yes we could use some tweaks, but I do not see us as an outlier...

Edited March 31, 2014 by Dyvim

[MusicRider]

I have been wrestling with the Survivability question. In an earlier draft, I had a statement similar to the highlighted. The problem is this, that's a comparison. And that's what led to the H2F comment in the first place.

 

The question, as I see it, is that the community feels that Sage survival tools are lacking in all play environments. The PvE problem is specific to high level raiding, but that's not where all the complaints flow from. Ultimately, I get the impression that the Sage/Sorcerer community just isn't happy being a glass without enough cannon. I suppose I could state it like that, but I can imagine the answer I'll get.

 

I agree with you that this is an indirect comparison and should be avoided, this statement of mine was more of a rhetorical question within the thread and not to be included in the questions.

 

The issue is that asking a question about survivability in terms of overall damage taken is IMHO another rhetorical question cause sages are by design the class that takes the most damage, and I am afraid this won't change. So we have to accept it and live with it. Of course discussing spike damage if there is a chance of one-shot death is another issue as no class should be "threatened" by such.

 

So when you have a class that takes the most damage what are the reasons to bring it in an ops group? IMO the other two factors is dps (burst, aoe, sustained, whatever and given field respec all classes have trees appropriate for each, ok maybe shadows dont but that's not relevant to this topic) and group utility. These can be thought as a sum, and the class with the highest score we can assume that it will be preferred over another class. Sages have on par more or less dps with the other classes and in theory good utility with their off-healing abilities. Unfortunately at the same time they are the only ranged class that their utility hinders their dps which is not really desirable against enrage timers.

 

So maybe IMHO the question about survivability should be asked from a different angle.... that of given that sages will always be the class that requires more healing as they take the most damage (with a note about one-shot deaths) and that it is unlikely to see any drastic improvements to their dps that will allow them to top the charts with ease (this second part about dps not needed to be included), how do the devs feel about allowing them to self-heal and bring their group utility without hindering their dps? Some solutions to that is either by tweaking their current abilities or maybe with a new one (such as an aura that gives some group healing for some time or increases the groups alacrity as another form of utility).

 

Of course whether the question should be reconsidered or go ahead as it is, is something to be discussed and agreed by the community and yourself as the class rep.

[Ycoga]

Some solutions to that is either by tweaking their current abilities or maybe with a new one (such as an aura that gives some group healing for some time or increases the groups alacrity as another form of utility).

Nala, this question here is vastly superior to the survivability one

 

An aura that boosts groups' healing or alacrity is an indirect boost to sage survivability. Indirect is as good as a DCD, right?

 

Group buffs could easily be added to top tier talents in each tree. E.g.:

• Seer: each use of salvation increases healing output for all group members by 3%. Doesn't stack; lasts 6 seconds. (Similar to Transcendence, as only 1 Sage's buff can be effective at a time)
  
• Tele: 'TeleBuff': Each use of turbulence gives +1% damage boost to group, stacks up to 4 times. Lasts 6 seconds. Can stack with TeleBuff effects created by other Sages in the group (but their combined total can only total +4%, obviously)
  
• Balance: each use of sever force increases group alacrity by 1%, stacks up to 3 times. Lasts 10 seconds. Can stack with other Sage's buffs, but only to a total of +3%
  

 

Please reconsider your survivability question in this context because these changes give unique group utiilty benefits at a very low dev cost for BW.

 

I'd definitely want to take 3 sages on a Ops then, as they give extra healing, damage and alac!

Edited April 1, 2014 by Ycoga

[Chemic_al]

Why don't you know about the knockback which roots in Lightning, a stun bubble again in Lightning and in 2.7 we get immunity to roots and slows when we force speed which is a definite boost to DPS kiting and escaping. If you've played a bounty hunter you'll know that resistance to roots means you can dodge leaps from knights when you see it coming. The only reason a leap lands is because it roots you first, with no root the melee lands behind you if you keep moving.

 

As for the 10s Bubble you need to keep up to date on old news, 2.7 gives us an absorb shield after it ends which is approximately 75% of your max health for 5-6 seconds. On top of that you become immune to interrupts for that time. In practice it needs a huge team focus to kill someone through that absorb shield before it ends.

 

Nothing is better than a sorc at kiting, self healing and when it comes to CC no other class can snare/root/stun as much.

 

The idea seems to be that sorcs get self healing, absorbing and kiting abilities as the defensive side instead of yet another cloned defence of another class which doesn't kite, self heal or absorb damage.

 

Should they be off the GCD? Debatable.

 

I do know about it, but firstly it's one spec (or two if you count hybrid), whereas those things I listed are class abilities and secondly, it's easy to avoid, and as you point out knights leap and then move behind you for good reason. And I think 7 skill points is an outrageous skill point tax. Have you not noticed how sorcs get skill taxed for all the stuff mercs and snipers get for free?

 

I'm not sure why you are bigging up enduring bastion when you are susceptible to cc during it. Who cares about interrupt immunity when they just stun you for most of the duration?

 

No other class is better at kiting - Perhaps you haven't seen a good healing operative/scoundrel in action? Madness sorcs with the loss of instant whirlwind are not kiting two competent dps any time soon, a good sawbones scoundrel can with ease. At the end of the day we are suffering this time due to our assassin counterpart. Why are assassins getting execute like skills on their dots in madness where sorcs are not when they have an execute already? Why aren't sorcs getting the instant whirlwind.

 

At the end of the day, the buffs to sorcs have come from nerfs to other classes, and nothing has been done to address their survivability in PvP or PvE (or at least to my mind what they are giving us won't change the overall balance in any meaningful way), nor has their dps been increased to match the inherent squishiness of the class. Sorcs will still be focused first in PvP, because they are arguably the worst class now for healing, and the easiest dps to shut down under focus fire due to lack of any defensives (like shroud which they should have).

 

This has been the case for so many patches - or is it my imagination good players have left over the disgusting way in which the class has been gutted and the way the devs ignore any reasonable arguments for changing stuff? But whatever Wildstar is out soon.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Chemic_al

[Darth_Dreselus]

I need to make a correction here. If you try to sprint away from an inbound leap, you WILL get rubberbanded back. It won't root you, but it will rubberband you. To avoid the rubberbanding, you have to wait until the leap actually lands before sprinting.

 

I've had Fadeout since I returned to the game around 1.7, I know of what I speak.

 

So much of this, Master Strike is even worse as each tick rubberbands you. It is better to just try and walk away from it unless it also has a root. Knockback works unless Vig.

 

This has been the case for so many patches - or is it my imagination good players have left over the disgusting way in which the class has been gutted and the way the devs ignore any reasonable arguments for changing stuff? But whatever Wildstar is out soon.

 

Then go play it and leave us alone to come up with some questions, Goodbye.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Darth_Dreselus

[Hakkology]

Hello all.

This will be a thread about Sage DPS and its current state. Just would like put a couple of words about survivability.

 

What we have to accept, is that we are a class that comes with light armor. This is a handicap and with this fact we will never be as survivable as other classes. This is how it is with every MMO and how balancing should be done. Wearing light armor is taking risks and therefore, you have low survivability. However, with big risks, there should also be big rewards. What sage has is the fact that it is only "glass", not a cannon.

 

Balance always had this problem. It's one of the lowest dps dot mirror specs in game currently and even devs accepted this fact. However, we couldn't find a proper solid solution and decided to bury it until summer, 2.8 i believe.

 

TK however, never really had real high single target damage but it always was the king of AoE and thats what you need if you want to design a "glass cannon". It gave us a certain utility and a feeling of being a "glass cannon", all the damage you take is compansated with your massive AoE damage output. With 2.7, our AoE is nerfed massively, by removing the seperate ICD's for Forcequake and Turbulence/Disturbance. This is where it became a design flaw.

 

Neither Sage DPS specs currently offer the reward of taking the "survivability" risk. TK damage, while decent, is always supressed by having certain handicaps like pushback and Balance damage has always been low.

If this is the case with your class, a logical person would say "Why am i playing this class while i could play some other with more survivability ? I would put about the same dps on target anyway. Why am i being a burden to my healers, why would i take this risk ?" .

 

I believe this is the problem with the DPS Sage specs right now in game. Let's face it, getting a spot in PvE is always a competition in a way. You are expected to bring something more to the team, if you are going to take a lot more damage.

I hope these make sense.

All the best.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Hakkology

[AlrikFassbauer]

Ultimately, I get the impression that the Sage/Sorcerer community just isn't happy being a glass without enough cannon. I suppose I could state it like that, but I can imagine the answer I'll get.

 

My impression is now that the Sage / Sorc os a glass cannon without much of a connon, but it has wheels instead, and Bioware is rather oiling and outfitting the otherwise squeaky wheels instead of giving it more glass or more cannon.

 

Because - this is the design as far as I can perceive it - the wheels are part of the concept. A Sage / Sorc without having "to wheel around" is not a Sage / Sorc in Bioware's design, I fear.

 

Sage survivability is more a concern when you have a group which is roughly balanced

 

Like in PUGs, for example.

 

I agree with you that this is an indirect comparison and should be avoided,

 

Meta : We are already wording our questions around the devs ... Cynically put : "Don't ask anything that he might not be pleased of !"

 

So when you have a class that takes the most damage what are the reasons to bring it in an ops group?

 

Especially since most of the Sage / Sorc damage mitigation relies on LOS, of which there isn't much in OPs.

 

Edit : I just remembered a Jedi "throwing junk" : http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Fay

But she is not in the movies.

Edited April 1, 2014 by AlrikFassbauer

[MusicRider]

Meta : We are already wording our questions around the devs ... Cynically put : "Don't ask anything that he might not be pleased of !"

Not true in my case. Even on the original questions I have expressed my concern by going into comparisons with other classes as this approach leads to non-productive dialog, would you like to compare vs dps shadows let's say? IMHO the questions should be focussing on your class only and nothing else, the only "comparison" that can be mentioned is a generic one... e.g. why would you choose to bring a sage over another dps class; and even then there are different ways of phrasing this.

 

Edit : I just remembered a Jedi "throwing junk" : http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Fay

But she is not in the movies.

 

IMO there has been a misunderstanding about jedis throwing rocks as they hardly appear in the SW universe doing so. The truth is (again IMO) that jedis are more than capable of throwing rocks, but simply due to the pacifist role of a jedi they choose to avoid doing so. In fact I believe they are more skillful in TK than their sith counterparts who focus lightning. Stopping and redirecting someone else's TK move IMO requires much more skill, and there are plenty of examples of jedis doing so, in some cases doing more than TK control at the same time. Try hitting a tennis ball from your hand and try hitting back the same ball when it is thrown at you from another player at 100 miles an hour. I also understand the concerns and that many people feel that TkT is underwelming in comparison to FL, even if I don't share this opinion as stones are as brutal as lightning; it's only that FL animation stands out much more than TkT one which is more discrete.

[Ycoga]

Just a suggestion - could we not derail the thread too much? Talks about what's canon could be considered such. We can still ask the 'sage as jedi' question without examining the lore too much.

 

It'd also help Nala if we posted matter relating to his draft questions, and not stuff about what BW's done to / for the class in the past.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Ycoga

[judgeender]

Unless I've missed it, I don't believe Bioware has every said that Sages/Sorcs are supposed to take more damage or be the glass cannon. That is an assumption many people are making about what Bioware's position is. It very well may be Bioware's position, but we shouldn't assume that is the case. While I think the first question can be added to with some of the suggestions regarding allowing self-heal or bringing group utility without hurting dps, I don't think we should remove the current questions about simply increasing our survivability.

 

As for group composition, survivability/utility does come into play when looking at NiM content. Keyboardninja's discussion misses the point. Assuming you have equally skilled/geared options for a slot, there is little incentive to take a sage/sorc over other options. Sages/Sorcs don't provide more dps than other various options, their utility (healing) is not really viable at this point and their survivability is among the worst in the game. Recent discussions suggest that they are even looking to give Snipers/Gunslingers more survivability which will put Sages/Sorcs further back in line for desired classes. Sure a Sage/Sorc can fill a spot, but the question is whether other options can do so better (whether that is more dps, more utility or simply more survivability thereby stressing healers less). Given fight design and the huge amount of damage going out at times, survivability becomes a factor unless the class brings something that is needed.

 

We don't know how it will go live, but look at the current final part of Brontes and the amount of damage going out in that phase. Look at some of the reports posted about "ideal" group composition. What you see is the need for DCDs/raid cooldowns. "Given the nature of the final phase the fight heavily favors Marauders and Snipers to a huge degree in part due to the exclusive and powerful raid cooldowns they provide. I would love to try and tackle the fight with Bloodthirst + some sniper shields though our available roster dictated we could only bring one Sniper OR one Marauder. With permanent predation, bloodthirst and two sniper shields the last phase will be infinitely more manageable since you can afford to push through so many more supremacy stacks before pushing the first tentacle. I'm sure the fight is possible in its current state but without supreme luck for over 2mins I doubt we can manage it with our current composition. " From Drop It Like It's Hoth feedback http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=732383&page=2. Perhaps increasing our utility would result in Sages/Sorcs being more desired, but my concern is that with current fight implementation Sages/Sorcs are not desired because we lack the DCDs/survivability and do not bring much to the OPs group to overcome that issue (dps isn't above others to justify the risks and utility (healing) is not generally viable in these situations).

 

I'm not saying Sages/Sorcs cannot be part of a progression group. However, given the current NiM OPs design and the current status of the Sage/Sorc, bringing one over other classes/specs is being viewed as a less desirable, in part because of the survivability issue. I'm fine giving Bioware the option to address this with either (i) increased survivability or (ii) better utility to make Sages/Sorcs more desired despite the lower survivability, but I think it's best if the questions are framed to give them the option on how to address this rather than only giving them one of those options. I believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed in this set of questions. We should not wait until Sages/Sorcs are wholly unviable in progression PvE before making sure Bioware is aware of the concern.

[Hakkology]

I'm not saying Sages/Sorcs cannot be part of a progression group. However, given the current NiM OPs design and the current status of the Sage/Sorc, bringing one over other classes/specs is being viewed as a less desirable, in part because of the survivability issue. I'm fine giving Bioware the option to address this with either (i) increased survivability or (ii) better utility to make Sages/Sorcs more desired despite the lower survivability, but I think it's best if the questions are framed to give them the option on how to address this rather than only giving them one of those options. I believe it is an issue that needs to be addressed in this set of questions. We should not wait until Sages/Sorcs are wholly unviable in progression PvE before making sure Bioware is aware of the concern.

 

I agree with everything you said wholeheartedly, you make great points. Glass cannon part was my personal opinion, and i respect and agree what you say about it. Maybe that is never Bioware's intention.

This is exactly what i was saying. In fact, TK had this utility before the AoE nerf but clearly it no longer does. We have just lost one of the best utility/uniqueness we can offer in a raiding environment.

 

There is absolutely nothing at the moment to compensate for weak survivability atm, just some emergency offheals and i know commando can do better with tech override if really needed. You are not needed to offheal until you run out of force anyway, you are only needed to offheal in case your healer is subdued for a little time.

[Master-Nala]

ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH ADDED TO QUESTION ONE AND ANOTHER SENTENCE TO THE ACTUAL QUESTION.

 

I'm trying to incorporate the 'essence' of this very interesting conversation we've been having regarding Sage survivability.

 

Another note, shouting again so it gets noticed:

 

THERE HAS BEEN NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE "SAGE AS JEDI" QUESTION.

 

In fact, most commenters have seemed to like it. So it's staying in unless someone starts objecting. Thankfully we have a couple of weeks to go.

[judgeender]

ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH ADDED TO QUESTION ONE AND ANOTHER SENTENCE TO THE ACTUAL QUESTION.

 

I'm trying to incorporate the 'essence' of this very interesting conversation we've been having regarding Sage survivability.

 

Another note, shouting again so it gets noticed:

 

THERE HAS BEEN NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE "SAGE AS JEDI" QUESTION.

 

In fact, most commenters have seemed to like it. So it's staying in unless someone starts objecting. Thankfully we have a couple of weeks to go.

 

Sorry, haven't been focused on this question. I'm still not sure this is the best use of a question, but if there is nothing else pressing of concern it may be fine. Assuming 2.7 goes live next week (as planned), we may want to reevalute this question (or any of them) based upon how things look after it is live. We will luckily have a couple weeks of time with it live to evaluate the changes in their final form before the questions are due.

[judgeender]

Not really happy with the wording of these suggested additions, but wanted to throw it out there.

 

 

Survivability

 

The developers stated in the Sorcerer answers that healing is intended to make up a significant part of Sage survivability and the suggestion of providing defensive cooldowns besides Force Mend and Force Barrier were rejected outright. The community believes that Sage survivability suffers from a number of inherent problems with its defensive tools.

 

In order to use Force Armor or Force Mend on yourself, you need to use a global cooldown. And in the case of Force Armor use 5%-10% of your resources. That's simply an unacceptable trade off in most PvE situations. For example in Nightmare content (as we saw in TFB & S&V), there are very tight enrage timers which require maximum dps to meet. There is also a lot of "random" damage (where a raid member is targeted to take damage) and a lot of instances where there is significant AOE damage to the entire raid. In many of these cases, Sages take more damage than other classes simply because the damage is mitigated by armor and Sages have the worst armor.

 

This has caused many in the community to speculate that Sages are intended to be a "glass cannon," frail but able to pack a punch. Sages, however, don't have the inverse advantage in damage to survival that one would expect if that was the case. Nor do Sages have sufficiently desired utility (the utility of off-healing previously suggested is not very viable in NiM progression due to the lost dps considering tight enrage timers, pushback suffered by dps specced Sages in healing and the lack of resources, particularly for Balance) to overcome the increased damage they take. Many spirited discussions have issued debating this question of the theory of Sage survivability and we invite the developers to take part.

 

The actual question

 

Are the developers satisfied with Sage/Sorcerer survivability in all play environments? What is your philosophy towards the Sage class and its defenses? Are there any plans to improve the class's current survival tools? For example, by perhaps by providing a means with which to move our tools (Force Armor, Force Mend, etc.) off the GCD when cast on yourself? If not, are there any plans to increase the viable utility Sages bring to NiM PvE OPs in light of the increased damage taken to compensate for the disadvantages of taking more damage in such content?

[Hakkology]

The actual question

 

Are the developers satisfied with Sage/Sorcerer survivability in all play environments? What is your philosophy towards the Sage class and its defenses? Are there any plans to improve the class's current survival tools? For example, by perhaps by providing a means with which to move our tools (Force Armor, Force Mend, etc.) off the GCD when cast on yourself? If not, are there any plans to increase the viable utility Sages bring to NiM PvE OPs in light of the increased damage taken to compensate for the disadvantages of taking more damage in such content?

 

This sounds really good, i only with there was also a mention about pushback here as well considering its also an issue for PvE and basically we use our one question about Sage DPS PvE. Also it doesn't have to be utility only. I know, one can only dream but, could be "high risk, high reward", which means more dps .

 

Also guys, out of context here, i know i too dream of having execute in our dps class one day, never hurts to have one more button.

However, it really doesn't look like something we'll get unless there is some major rework, which points to some major patch like 3.0. I really think we should skip it if its within your questions and ask something better.

Just an opinion.

All the best.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Hakkology

[Master-Nala]

This sounds really good, i only with there was also a mention about pushback here as well considering its also an issue for PvE and basically we use our one question about Sage DPS PvE.

 

They have already commented on pushback in the 2.7 test forum. They've also commented quite heavily regarding Sage DPS issues. There is little reason to spend a question there.

[Hakkology]

They have already commented on pushback in the 2.7 test forum. They've also commented quite heavily regarding Sage DPS issues. There is little reason to spend a question there.

 

Well yes, true ...

[AdrianDmitruk]

ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH ADDED TO QUESTION ONE AND ANOTHER SENTENCE TO THE ACTUAL QUESTION.

 

I'm trying to incorporate the 'essence' of this very interesting conversation we've been having regarding Sage survivability.

 

Another note, shouting again so it gets noticed:

 

THERE HAS BEEN NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE "SAGE AS JEDI" QUESTION.

 

In fact, most commenters have seemed to like it. So it's staying in unless someone starts objecting. Thankfully we have a couple of weeks to go.

 

Eh I don't object to the content of the question per se, but I do feel we have more pressing concerns, namely the payment of the highest skill taxes in the game. Presently we have outright skill taxes in all three of our trees that must be paid, regardless of spec. (Other classes tend to have skill taxes in two of their trees at most, and there are fewer of them.) While making Fadeout possible for all pure DPS specs is much desired for PVP, this does also increase the skill taxes further. The excessive skill taxes paid by Sorcerers also encourage the "base" of the dreaded hybrid builds by discouraging specialization; they make it really difficult to justify spending more than 36 points in a single tree simply because there are so many of them.

 

Current skill taxes:

 

Corruption

2 points Forceweaver

3 points Seeping Darkness

2 points Fadeout (PVP after 2.7, also a skill tax for some PVE fights, compare to mandos' HtL baseline)

2 points Empty Body--not gonna count this for now but it does have the potential to become a skill tax for fights where sorc must be healed through a lot of damage, i.e. anti-ranged mechanics and/or PVP.

 

Lightning

2 points Reserves (There is no conceivable reason for the AC not having 600 Force baseline and this becoming some other talent entirely)

3 points Electric Induction

2 points in either Lightning Barrier (corruption) OR Subversion (Madness)--depends on spec

 

Madness

2 points Will of the Sith

Bonus: 2 points Sith Defiance--similar talents in other classes return 2/4%, while ours only returns 1/2%.

 

Total skill taxes: 14 points under the most conservative count and circumstances (PVE, not taking the "semi-optional" points above). PVP: 16 points. Subtract the ones from your spec and you still end up with precious few points past 36. 2.7 PVP madness will have to break its Force management entirely to get proper movement, due to the overabundance of Force management taxes in lightning. Want a 38 point tree grabbing that extra talent you want? Too bad, gotta pay the skill taxes in other places. Moreover, some of these skill taxes are for things that other classes were given baseline, such as granting a movement-impairment break/immunity to the class' movement cooldown (compare Force Speed with Hold the Line).

 

In a situation where we must pay so many skill taxes across our three trees, the top tier abilities had better be really, really good if Bioware wishes to discourage hybrids. Yet the top tier abilities are widely regarded as lackluster and we already have so many points required to be spent in other trees that we tend to look for hybrids because the class design/layout of talent trees almost encourages it anyway.

 

Does the Combat Team have any intention whatsoever of streamlining the skill taxes we must pay, and if not, why not?

 

The "look and feel of Jedi" question might properly be considered an extra "bonus" question like the shadows/sins had...

Edited April 2, 2014 by AdrianDmitruk

[Adaliaya]

What about Sage healing. I honestly think that should be buffed a bit; Commando became hilariously overpowered with recent buff, and I think slightly increased healing and 3 seconds increased duration to Rejuvanation and making Force Mend usable on others too would bring us to same level. Of course Scoundrel would need minor buff as well.

Other option is to limit Trauma Probe to 4 people and tone Commando's burst down a bit.

I hope Combat team takes this seriously or soon no one plays Sage

[Ycoga]

Hi nala, I'd like to see more explicit mention of group utility in your survivability question.

 

Adding group utility to top tier talents would kill many birds with one stone!

Edited April 2, 2014 by Ycoga

[Hichitsuki-hime]

What about Sage healing. I honestly think that should be buffed a bit; Commando became hilariously overpowered with recent buff, and I think slightly increased healing and 3 seconds increased duration to Rejuvanation and making Force Mend usable on others too would bring us to same level. Of course Scoundrel would need minor buff as well.

Other option is to limit Trauma Probe to 4 people and tone Commando's burst down a bit.

I hope Combat team takes this seriously or soon no one plays Sage

 

the bubble being able to heal people like the trauma probe & slow release medpac would probably do it. Force management still sucks however. be in in balance or in the seer tree =) an aggro drop that actually works would be awesome as well lol

[AdamLKvist]

...

 

I would honestly like a subquestion/paragraph added to the healing question. I do think the questions themselves are looking very good as is but the issue is that if they agree with us that something needs to be done we will have contributed with no ideas. I fear having a positive answer but getting no action taken to resolve said issue because well, they're known to be slow.

 

Can't you add the resplendance/force surge mechanic, ask them if it can reduce cast/cost on deliverance. You can do it easily by adding

 

"while we feel that we're not that far from target we suffer immensly from not having faster casts. Getting resplendance to affect deliverance and reduce cast+cost would, in our opinion, put us closer to par with the other healers"

[MusicRider]

I think the first question is fine. The way I see it is that sages are meant to be taking the most damage and require more healing, but without needing to put extra pressure (at least not so much extra as any other class in the game) to the group healers (inclduing themselves if they are seer speced) due to their self-healing abilities which both devs and community I hope agree that they consist dcds. Remember that this was also the design philosophy of the self-healing shadow tanks before their changes. Anyway, the problem is that their self-healing abilities are a drawback to their main role (heal/dps) since they are on the gcd, and taking them off the main gcd IMO is the solution. Both of them despite my pvp concerns which might not be valid after all in practice. Maybe some thigs from this forementioned paragraph could be added as you see fit.

 

Utility is another topic.... particularly when discussing it in the context of new abilities such as auras and things like that. Nothing wrong to talk about them (I was the first to mention them in this thread) but I don't think they will be realised anytime soon (3.0 maybe?). What could be included in the first question though is some mention that although we see that sages have great utility, their utility is hindered by the same reasons as their self-healing above.

[Ycoga]

ncluded in the first question though is some mention that although we see that sages have great utility, their utility is hindered by the same reasons as their self-healing above.

 

Define how utility is hindered. To do so, identify the utility skills, and show how they're hindered by GCD heals and casts.