Can someone explain to me: what's wrong with lowering (or keeping the similar) dps?

[Lotharofxev]

No, I don't believe it's about straight numbers. It's about TTK and DPS as the latter relates before and after patch. I don't care if I'm doing 500DPS or 2500 DPS, but I do care if the TTK at 60 on a 60 MOB is slower than right now when I am killing a 55.

 

I do care if I have to BE 60 to do equivalent damage in current OPs.

[KTap]

No, I don't believe it's about straight numbers. It's about TTK and DPS as the latter relates before and after patch. I don't care if I'm doing 500DPS or 2500 DPS, but I do care if the TTK at 60 on a 60 MOB is slower than right now when I am killing a 55.

 

I do care if I have to BE 60 to do equivalent damage in current OPs.

 

You forgot about the part where you need the new bis gear to do your current damage.

[lpope]

If your opponent in PVP is subject to the same stat squish, then TTK and TTD will be affected proportionally. Which means the playing field remains unchanged.

 

Edit: That is to say, it doesn't matter if your TTK goes up, if your opponent's TTK goes up by just as much.

 

In dueling and TDM, that is mostly correct. But in objective play it gets a little more complicated. The longer the TTK, the longer teams have to respond to "incoming". If TTK is too long, then stalemates occur.

 

Even in TDM, high TTK can cause stalemates if you can't down someone within a relatively short amount of time.

 

I think that is a valid concern and one that really needs to be tested vigorously on the PTS.

Edited November 3, 2014 by lpope

[azudelphi]

In dueling and TDM, that is correct. But in objective play it gets a little more complicated. The longer the TTK, the longer teams have to respond to "incoming". If TTK is too long, then stalemates occur.

 

I think that is a valid concern and one that really needs to be tested vigorously on the PTS.

 

I couldn't agree more on vigorously testing these new TTK / TTD ratios.

[Jimvinny]

In dueling and TDM, that is mostly correct. But in objective play it gets a little more complicated. The longer the TTK, the longer teams have to respond to "incoming". If TTK is too long, then stalemates occur.

 

Even in TDM, high TTK can cause stalemates if you can't down someone within a relatively short amount of time.

 

I think that is a valid concern and one that really needs to be tested vigorously on the PTS.

 

Exactly. Even in tdm, if focus fire loses its potency because of larger health pools, arenas going to acid will become a lot more prevalent.

 

Edit. Nvm. You acknowledged that.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Jimvinny

[Malastare]

We don't have any hard evidence either way, and both situations I mentioned are absolutely possible under the statements that Bioware has made so far.

 

Actually, we sort of do have evidence. They said that DPS numbers would be reducing to put them back in line with the curve they had designed. They said that leveling planets would have mobs rebalanced to lower TTK. They said that Nightmare DF/DP would be harder. Nothing else was mentioned as changing.

 

The hangup seems to be that you assume "no change" means that DPS drops and absolutely no other changes are made to the daily areas (as they aren't "leveling" planets). I assume that since Bioware addressed both leveling planets and Ops in terms of TTK, that "no change" to Dailies means that the TTK isn't changed. Where as my assumption is internally consistent, yours requires that the statement was intentionally incomplete. Furthermore, my assumption matches the experience of a dozen other games. I can't really think of a game that has done an across-the-board difficulty increase through a mechanism as simple as a DPS drop.

 

When the hell did it become "stupid" to be concerned about things that could possibly go wrong?

 

There's nothing wrong with being concerned. You expressed your concern. You've admitted there is no evidence behind it. Why keep shouting it to the skies and trying to convince everyone else to be concerned?

 

Why aren't you concerned about the possibility that companions might not be able to wear the new 186 armor? Why aren't you concerned about the possibility that normal story quests will require groups of at least three players? Why aren't you concerned about the possibility that the story quests will require PvP? Those all have as much evidence supporting them as your complaint in this thread, but you haven't posted repeated comments about them.

 

Until you have some actual information (ie: until its released and you actually play it), just voice your unsubstantiated concern and move on. You keep bringing it up again and again, defending it as if its valid, but for now, its just hollow fear, serving no purpose.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Malastare

[Alec_Fortescue]

So, basically you want what WoW used to be, am I right?

 

100000000000 long numbers? No thx.

[Alec_Fortescue]

CAn I see some more rationale instead of "i don't want my numbers down, it feels like a nerf."

 

So far I could find only (from more reasonable things):

Dread Ops (and more) might get harder for level 55

Increased character HP and same dps = more time to kill ppl.

[Lotharofxev]

You forgot about the part where you need the new bis gear to do your current damage.

 

Silly me.

[DawnAskham]

It's all relative...

 

If on a percentage power basis, a level 55 post 3.0 wearing the same gear as today does the same damage to level 55 mobs, be they mobs on Oricon, Czerka Core Meltdown, or DP NiM, then nothing has changed - even if the raw numbers are lower.

 

If on a percentage power basis, a level 55 post 3.0 wearing the same gear as today does less damage to level 55 mobs, be they mobs on Oricon, Czerka Core Meltdown, or DP NiM, then it effectively tosses out the past year or so of player power progression against current content, just to force players to grind it back through leveling to 60 and obtaining new gear.

 

Assuming no expansion was dropping at the beginning of December and the developers came out today and said...

 

"'We think players do too much damage, with game update 2.X on Dec 2, we will be lowering player damage across the board, such that players in 186 gear will be doing damage similar to damage previously in 162 gear, we'll also be adding several new sets of gear to grind that once obtained and fully optimized, may put your damage close to where it is today, oh and by the way we aren't adjusting the content''

 

Would you say 'YAY, this is what I've always wanted' or 'Are you kidding me?'

Edited November 3, 2014 by DawnAskham

[DanNV]

But here is the real kicker. Did it really solve anything? After all, you're back where you started and at the place BW claims is a DPS problem, assuming their metrics on DPS is right. (to which I doubt it because if they were right, DPS would have never gotten out of hand to start with)

 

Did it stop the power creep all leveling and progression MMO's have? No it does not unless BW makes sure you never actually go above level 55 power even though they make you go through the steps of leveling up. The leveling just turns into an illusion. You never actually progressed beyond 55.

 

(snip)

 

So, How does this really help? It doesn't except to allow BW to keep in place 2 year old, tired and worn out OPS as alternate ways to get comms for high end gear. Ops that should truly be placed into the nostalgic area of the game.

 

I don't think it's so much about DPS as it is DPS being decreased just to keep 2 level 55 OPS out there as if it was relevant content at level 60.

 

Somehow many seem to miss the basics here. So, lets go back and look at the last year and a half or so. A expansion is released with a design for x amount of damage over y amount of time. Gear is released with it along with a level cap increase. Then the OPs get a NiM mode with new expected damage of time and another tier of gear. (Somewhere in here a bunch of people pointed out that gear/stat increases without a level increase was a bad idea.) Now, all of this probably would have worked out ok except people began griping that class A does too much damage compared to class B. Instead of nerfing class A, the buffed class B. Then people complained that class C didn't do enough damage compared to class B, so instead of nerfing A and B, they buffed C, etc. Eventually someone figured out that damage has now exceeded healing and tanking abilities and there is a problem. The choices are to start nerfing the DPS classes they buffed, one by one or since they are doing an expansion make all the adjustments at once. To me, making all the adjustments at once is a much smarter choice. It lets them actually plan and balance at once.

 

Hopefully they've learned that lesson about adding more and more gear without level cap increases and about buffing this class making a new FOTM then buffing another, etc. Time will tell.

 

The short of it is, the adjustments are necessary to balance player output with game design. The two choices are do it one bit at a time and listen to each class' players whine or do it all at once so everyone starts on a relatively even footing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually, we sort of do have evidence. They said that DPS numbers would be reducing to put them back in line with the curve they had designed. They said that leveling planets would have mobs rebalanced to lower TTK. They said that Nightmare DF/DP would be harder. Nothing else was mentioned as changing.

 

The hangup seems to be that you assume "no change" means that DPS drops and absolutely no other changes are made to the daily areas (as they aren't "leveling" planets). I assume that since Bioware addressed both leveling planets and Ops in terms of TTK, that "no change" to Dailies means that the TTK isn't changed. Where as my assumption is internally consistent, yours requires that the statement was intentionally incomplete. Furthermore, my assumption matches the experience of a dozen other games. I can't really think of a game that has done an across-the-board difficulty increase through a mechanism as simple as a DPS drop.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with being concerned. You expressed your concern. You've admitted there is no evidence behind it. Why keep shouting it to the skies and trying to convince everyone else to be concerned?

 

Why aren't you concerned about the possibility that companions might not be able to wear the new 186 armor? Why aren't you concerned about the possibility that normal story quests will require groups of at least three players? Why aren't you concerned about the possibility that the story quests will require PvP? Those all have as much evidence supporting them as your complaint in this thread, but you haven't posted repeated comments about them.

 

Until you have some actual information (ie: until its released and you actually play it), just voice your unsubstantiated concern and move on. You keep bringing it up again and again, defending it as if its valid, but for now, its just hollow fear, serving no purpose.

 

Bioware has been entirely vague and even contradictory, and much of how you take their statements depends on unspoken definitions of various terms.

 

There is exactly the same amount of evidence behind either possibility mentioned, and it's no more "unfounded" to worry than it is to not worry at this point.

[Lotharofxev]

So, lets go back and look at the last year and a half or so.i...since they are doing an expansion make all the adjustments at once

.

 

I don't mind "re-balancing", it's the whole, "What you are at 55, you will now be at 60". Furthermore you act like no game ever has had these problems.

 

EDIT: It's the same minds that caused all the problems that are now going to "fix" the problems on the backs of the players.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Lotharofxev
Forgot something

[Quraswren]

SNIP... To me, making all the adjustments at once is a much smarter choice. It lets them actually plan and balance at once.

 

Really? Where was the balance and planning when they released DF/DP gear and then recently claimed, "OH DPS is to high!"

 

Where was the metrics on that? Are they any better than the metrics their using to claim DPS is to high now? Is that the same metrics BW is going to plan and balance the game going forward? The same metrics that seems to have failed them for DF/DP balancing and planning but they suddenly work so well?

 

You see how comments of poor design on BW's end creeps into the conversation at this point right?

 

Hopefully they've learned that lesson about adding more and more gear without level cap increases and about buffing this class making a new FOTM then buffing another, etc. Time will tell.

 

Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Which is why I think it's all be done to keep DF/DP out there and relevant VS any gamers DPS being to high. Thats a blanket response to push 60 content staying similar to 55 content now.

 

The short of it is, the adjustments are necessary to balance player output with game design. The two choices are do it one bit at a time and listen to each class' players whine or do it all at once so everyone starts on a relatively even footing.

 

The short of it is. Current DPS will get lower to make 55 content harder. Level 60 content is being made to be equivalent to level 55 content even in 198 gear so DF/DP can still be made relevant.

 

I highly doubt balance had anything to do with it because so few are really in NM DF/DP clearing it much less farming it. As far as balance, disciplines were done to to kill hybrids and help balance and that makes sense but because DPS was to high.

 

Hell no. They needed a reason to nerf everyone to some extent to keep DF/DP around at level 60 and make sure level 60s didn't go back through 55 content and roll through it.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Quraswren

[VulgarMercurius]

We don't have any hard evidence either way, and both situations I mentioned are absolutely possible under the statements that Bioware has made so far.

 

When the hell did it become "stupid" to be concerned about things that could possibly go wrong? How many different ways do I have to say "If it's X, my reaction will be A, if it's Y, my reaction will be B", leaving open both possibilities.

 

Watch the recent stream again. There is more evidence to lay against your concerns than there are to support them. Enough people (myself included) have relayed those facts to you already. You're a bore *yawn*

Edited November 3, 2014 by VulgarMercurius

[Max_Killjoy]

Watch the recent stream again. There is more evidence to lay against your concerns than there are to support them. Enough people (myself included) have relayed those facts to you already. You're a bore *yawn*

 

As noted upthread:

 

Bioware has been entirely vague and even contradictory, and much of how you take their statements depends entirely on unspoken definitions of various terms.

 

There is exactly the same amount of evidence behind either possibility mentioned, and it's no more "unfounded" to worry than it is to not worry at this point.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Max_Killjoy