why did he say sustained damage should be more than burst?

[Macetheace]

I was looking at the sage/sorc twitch 3.0 stream and noticed he mentioned sustained should be higher than burst.

 

i'm confused? why should this be? Was he referring to a particular situation? single target over a certain period? and by how much does he mean?

 

 

Observations

PErsonally I don't think one should do more than the other, they are a different type of damage that will do better than the other based on the type of fight. Sustained may have a slower build up, but now it can spread dots and it can do a lot more dps mobile, this helps for pvp and boss fights, burst may turret, but it has downtimes when it's cooldowns are blown, during that time it does less damage and needs the period of time when it can blow cooldowns again to catch up for the loss whereas sustained just keeps on going. this means on average over a certain time they do the same, but if you catch it at some points burst willb e higher if it's made up for it's down period and is on a high, but at other times it would be lower.

 

secondly AoE wise too, it's great that they are different, balance now has a means of spreading dots to multiple targets, TK/Lightning is a bit more mobile. Who should do more damage on AoE? depends on who the devs want, aoe damage is only part of a fight, if you give TK the edge on multiple targets, then balance should have another edge and if that is in both mobility and simplicity, then it shouldn't do more on just one target, but if it does the difference should be slight, about 50dps, because 100 dps difference is too much

 

. Saying that, the DoT spec is considerably simpler too, and the higher mobilitiy makes peak damage on the burst spec harder to come by, leading me to conclude, their single target damage should be the same but it's good they spread it in different ways. TK should have the advantage in AoE if balance is going to be more mobile and simpler to use which will mean it will generally do more damage for most players.

 

Those are my thoughts anyway:

PvE - TK harder to play, harder to keep the damage up, reward is higher AoE damage, if done properly (which is hard it's single target should be exactly the same as balance. It has cast times, which forces it to stay in place

Balance: easier to play, more mobile, can do more of it's damage most of the time with less difficulty, down side is it's build up, but that doesn't matter in boss fights, so it has slightly lower aoe damage, otherwise damage is the same as TK but easier to keep going . Balance switching targets is made a lot less punishing by 3.0 changes like sever force having no cooldown and being able to spread the DoTs on one target to up to 8 nearby targets

 

PvP - TK has burst which is an advantage, but it's mobility is lower which is costly, this is alleviated a bit in 3.0 but it's still less than balance, it makes up with higher AoE.

Balance - mobile, which is very very useful, and now can do stronger damage on the road, still has to channel but cutting the channel short which you have to often to move won't lose you all the force cost of the ability, and having a channel instead of timed casts means you don't have to stand still till all the cast is finished to deal damage, making you better at managing interrupts and needing to move about.

 

 

Conclusion, see no reason sustained should be more. Thoughts?

[JMagee]

The simplest reason.

 

If burst DPS potential and sustained DPS potential were identical, there would be no fundamental reason not to play the burst spec.

 

The only reason you would choose to play a spec would be personal, which taken in a vacuum, is fine. But in either competitive environment (PvE and PvP), being able to burst (ideally on demand) and not losing out on long term DPS is getting the best of both worlds.

 

Why would anyone choose a sustained DPS class/spec when almost all Ops Bosses, and all PvP matches, would not be negatively affected by burst windows and recovery phases (as long as the DPS #s are identical).

 

There has to be a trade off for being able to burst to 6-7k at will. The only logical trade is sustained DPS. So I would look at it is as Burst DPS overall needs to be less than Sustained DPS overall.

Edited November 18, 2014 by JMagee

[Macetheace]

The simplest reason.

 

If burst DPS potential and sustained DPS potential were identical, there would be no fundamental reason not to play the burst spec.

 

The only reason you would choose to play a spec would be personal, which taken in a vacuum, is fine. But in either competitive environment (PvE and PvP), being able to burst (ideally on demand) and not losing out on long term DPS is getting the best of both worlds.

 

Why would anyone choose a sustained DPS class/spec when almost all Ops Bosses, and all PvP matches, would not be negatively affected by burst windows and recovery phases (as long as the DPS #s are identical).

 

There has to be a trade off for being able to burst to 6-7k at will. The only logical trade is sustained DPS. So I would look at it is as Burst DPS overall needs to be less than Sustained DPS overall.

 

then melee classes should largely do less damage than ranged classes who have cast times, and sustained damage specs.

 

and in this game, especially that class, the sustained spec, has more mobility, easier to do high damage on the move, esp after new changes in 3.0, is much better at switching targets, has buffed AoE.

 

why would i choose sustained balance over TK if they had the same damage apart from personal style flavour? how about because it's easier for me to do my max damage especially on fights i have to move a lot? and on some fights it better suits the dotting than it does turreting.

 

and there is a trade off for the TK sage being able to burst 6-7k, he can't keep it up for long, he has to stand still continuously to do it, if he doesn't complete his cast, it doesn't go through. That's why they have cooldowns on boosts and amplifications, and it makes sense for TK to work like that, you have high burst moments, and then low damage, so that overall it evens out. whereas sustained it's just straight.

 

some would prefer the more reliable constant damage, some would prefer the hot and cold moment, but if you put the damage lower, what adv do you get this stand still spec to have? none.

 

I'm sorry, i don't get it, i've played a lot of ranged classes, but maybe i'm not seeing something here. There is no real reason for balance sustained spec to have more damage than TK when it is easier, more mobile and outputting it's dps.

[Silverspar]

then melee classes should largely do less damage than ranged classes who have cast times, and sustained damage specs.

 

I am going to cut you off right there, because your logic is already dead in the water. Ranged classes do not risk as much as a melee class when it comes to their sustained damage. Range might have a cast time, but melee risks higher damage numbers by being in melee plus AEs, while ranged has more privilege to avoid such things. So your argument is dead in the water.

 

As far as the whole burst versus sustained argument, one of the biggest fails of most modern MMOs these days is making burst damage equal to or even greater than the sustained damage, basically pigeonholing people into requiring exacting stat set ups and nothing else. This is terrible game design, burst should provide burst at points but in no way should a burst hit be doing equal or greater DPS over time than someone who is built to sustain it. It's like looking at a sprint runner versus a marathon runner. They should be doing less DPS because that's in the name. Plain and simple. You get huge hits with big yellow numbers, to satisfy the epeen crowd but in the long run those who pace themselves and such will outlast the big bursters.

[Aussircaex]

I think perhaps you have a confused idea of what "sustained" and "burst" mean. You seem to believe that Sustained DPS is anything involving cast times, while burst is anything instant-cast.

 

That's not what it is. a Burst spec can put out a lot of damage in the first few GCDs (how many depends on the game you're talking about). For example, my Lightning Sorcerer can put out a lot of AOE burst damage by using Chain Lightning, beginning to channel Force Storm, then instantly cancelling the channel and using the free instant Chain Lightning.

 

That trick only works once, though, at the start of a fight. I couldn't use that to keep up large damage over a long period of time. That's what Sustained refers to - the ability to, well, sustain high damage over a long period of time; that is, through a whole boss fight.

 

So naturally, the trade-off should be that Sustained is higher damage in the end. The trade-off with Burst is that you can kill packs, or weak things in general, or other players perhaps, very quickly, but if they survive the alpha strike you won't end up doing more damage in the long run.

[BuriDogshin]

Re: a statement that melee and ranged should do the same DPS ...

I am going to cut you off right there, because your logic is already dead in the water. Ranged classes do not risk as much as a melee class when it comes to their sustained damage. Range might have a cast time, but melee risks higher damage numbers by being in melee plus AEs, while ranged has more privilege to avoid such things. So your argument is dead in the water.

Also, melee has to close with and then follow the mobs, which often means they will not get as high a DPS in a real fight as do on a dummy (with some exceptions, like Nephra). Therefore it makes sense that on an immobile target (like a dummy) melee should parse higher than ranged, so that they are competitive with ranged in real fights.

 

Similarly, in pre-3.0 at least, a "turret spec" like Marksman Sniper should parse higher on the dummy than a mobile spec like Lethality Sniper, because the need to move that happens in many fights will hurt the turret spec's output more.

[DarthDymond]

If Sustained and Burst both did the same overall damage, then Burst DPS builds would just be objectively better.

 

They'd have the same overall DPS, plus the advantage of being better against enemy teams with Healers (in PVP) and Bosses with Burn Phases (in PVE).

 

Giving Sustained builds higher DPS overall - to offset the fact that enemy Healers can handle their rate of damage better and that they aren't as clutch in a PVE Burn Phase - leaves the two types roughly equal in terms of overall utility, so that it becomes a matter of play-style preference for the individual and gives groups a reason to want both types represented - so we have options instead of one 'correct' build.

Edited November 19, 2014 by DarthDymond

[Macetheace]

I am going to cut you off right there, because your logic is already dead in the water. Ranged classes do not risk as much as a melee class when it comes to their sustained damage. Range might have a cast time, but melee risks higher damage numbers by being in melee plus AEs, while ranged has more privilege to avoid such things. So your argument is dead in the water.

 

As far as the whole burst versus sustained argument, one of the biggest fails of most modern MMOs these days is making burst damage equal to or even greater than the sustained damage, basically pigeonholing people into requiring exacting stat set ups and nothing else. This is terrible game design, burst should provide burst at points but in no way should a burst hit be doing equal or greater DPS over time than someone who is built to sustain it. It's like looking at a sprint runner versus a marathon runner. They should be doing less DPS because that's in the name. Plain and simple. You get huge hits with big yellow numbers, to satisfy the epeen crowd but in the long run those who pace themselves and such will outlast the big bursters.

ofc it doesn't make sense, i was going by the logic proposed by the person i was responding, who was saying sustained should be higher than the burstier spec b/c of reasons that didn't make sense if you looked closer

[Macetheace]

If Sustained and Burst both did the same overall damage, then Burst DPS builds would just be objectively better.

 

They'd have the same overall DPS, plus the advantage of being better against enemy teams with Healers (in PVP) and Bosses with Burn Phases (in PVE).

 

Giving Sustained builds higher DPS overall - to offset the fact that enemy Healers can handle their rate of damage better and that they aren't as clutch in a PVE Burn Phase - leaves the two types roughly equal in terms of overall utility, so that it becomes a matter of play-style preference for the individual and gives groups a reason to want both types represented - so we have options instead of one 'correct' build.

 

you're not getting it, there are other advantages built into both types of plays. take the sage example, that goes out the water becuase the sustained spec has the huge advantage of both mobility and simplicty, easy to do you max possible damage or easier rather, and a high amount of damage on the move. add that to the ability toswitch well in 3.0 spreading dots, channels now deducting theircost per tickinstead of insstantly... advs are thrown into sustained too that are quite useful

 

we all know TK is seldom used for pvp, despite it's "burst" capability, it is easily shot down, it's not very mobile et etc, so it should also do less dps? that doesn't make sense

 

choosing balance or TK , sustained or burst really should be a matter of playstyle, each has different perks, but are you sure it's wise to give the easier and more mobile spec also the higher dps intentionally? what incentive are you giving the harder to master, harder to use more stationary spec?

[DarthDymond]

you're not getting it, there are other advantages built into both types of plays. take the sage example, that goes out the water becuase the sustained spec has the huge advantage of both mobility and simplicty, easy to do you max possible damage or easier rather, and a high amount of damage on the move. add that to the ability toswitch well in 3.0 spreading dots, channels now deducting theircost per tickinstead of insstantly... advs are thrown into sustained too that are quite useful

 

we all know TK is seldom used for pvp, despite it's "burst" capability, it is easily shot down, it's not very mobile et etc, so it should also do less dps? that doesn't make sense

 

choosing balance or TK , sustained or burst really should be a matter of playstyle, each has different perks, but are you sure it's wise to give the easier and more mobile spec also the higher dps intentionally? what incentive are you giving the harder to master, harder to use more stationary spec?

I think you may have a point about the 'mobility' side of things, and that should probably be a relevant part of the equation, but I don't agree with treating how 'simple' or 'easy' a style is as a balancing factor between different builds. It's too subjective when compared to the overall utility of a build.

[JMagee]

you're not getting it, there are other advantages built into both types of plays. take the sage example, that goes out the water becuase the sustained spec has the huge advantage of both mobility and simplicty, easy to do you max possible damage or easier rather, and a high amount of damage on the move. add that to the ability toswitch well in 3.0 spreading dots, channels now deducting theircost per tickinstead of insstantly... advs are thrown into sustained too that are quite useful

 

we all know TK is seldom used for pvp, despite it's "burst" capability, it is easily shot down, it's not very mobile et etc, so it should also do less dps? that doesn't make sense

 

choosing balance or TK , sustained or burst really should be a matter of playstyle, each has different perks, but are you sure it's wise to give the easier and more mobile spec also the higher dps intentionally? what incentive are you giving the harder to master, harder to use more stationary spec?

 

Mace, I responded initially with my thoughts on the general idea of a burst DPS specs vs. sustained DPS specs.

 

Most of the people who have responded agree, that when you do not consider the class/skill/mobility/fun in the long run, having sustained DPS > burst DPS is balanced. If Sustained = Burst, there would be no reason to take sustained DPS. Being able to put up big numbers in short times while not losing anything long term is getting the best of both worlds.

 

You bring up TK vs. Balance as a response. And you have a good point, Balance is "easier", more mobile and the sustained (greater) DPS class. While TK is a turret that can burst but does not have a lot going for it, which is a fair point. In this instance, Balance basically wins a majority of the important things to consider: mobility/survivability/damage. I think this has a lot of to do with it being the shared tree with shadows. Assault Mandos are mobile than Gunnery and DF GS's are more mobile than SS.

 

But to provide a counterpoint to Sages, I would mention Watchman vs. Combat Sents. Combat has obscene burst when done right, is as mobile as Watchman, comparable survivability (Zen aside) and nowadays isn't much more difficult than Watchman. Do you still think that Combat should do equal DPS to Watchman if contributing factors such as mobility/survivability are equal?

 

I think you could find a lot of examples where different specs offer different degrees of difficulty/utility/reward etc. but the general tenet that Sustained DPS should be greater than Burst DPS is a fundamental truth. If Carnage wasn't weak outside of Gore windows, there would be no reason to play Annihilation.

 

The thought process is balanced, how it translates into different classes/specs may not be.

Edited November 19, 2014 by JMagee

[Macetheace]

Mace, I responded initially with my thoughts on the general idea of a burst DPS specs vs. sustained DPS specs.

 

Most of the people who have responded agree, that when you do not consider the class/skill/mobility/fun in the long run, having sustained DPS > burst DPS is balanced. If Sustained = Burst, there would be no reason to take sustained DPS. Being able to put up big numbers in short times while not losing anything long term is getting the best of both worlds.

 

You bring up TK vs. Balance as a response. And you have a good point, Balance is "easier", more mobile and the sustained (greater) DPS class. While TK is a turret that can burst but does not have a lot going for it, which is a fair point. In this instance, Balance basically wins a majority of the important things to consider: mobility/survivability/damage. I think this has a lot of to do with it being the shared tree with shadows. Assault Mandos are mobile than Gunnery and DF GS's are more mobile than SS.

 

But to provide a counterpoint to Sages, I would mention Watchman vs. Combat Sents. Combat has obscene burst when done right, is as mobile as Watchman, comparable survivability (Zen aside) and nowadays isn't much more difficult than Watchman. Do you still think that Combat should do equal DPS to Watchman if contributing factors such as mobility/survivability are equal?

 

I think you could find a lot of examples where different specs offer different degrees of difficulty/utility/reward etc. but the general tenet that Sustained DPS should be greater than Burst DPS is a fundamental truth. If Carnage wasn't weak outside of Gore windows, there would be no reason to play Annihilation.

 

The thought process is balanced, how it translates into different classes/specs may not be.

 

yes, i noticed that, for carnage vs annhialtion, but again in that case, i have found carnage harder to optimize than annhialtion, but then being melee, buth specs are quite mobile anyway, and annhialation is the rare melee exception that does have long set up, it's case I think it is justifiied if carnage did as much damage as annhialtion based on the sheer skill wall to climb to get it to that level currently. Usually without a doubt the harder to master spec should do the higher dps if mastered, because it's simply harder to maintain that level or test dummy max, a problem is when you balance in the other factors, then you give the easier spec more damage, you kinda ruin it.

 

carnage marauders and deception assassins have a power and mobility equipped with burst that the turret TK sage can't match or even come close to in pvp, range can be penalized by that, so you find them closed down faster than they are able to gun down without exceptional defenses like the Gunslingers are given with cover a closer example would be when you compare the very easy to play and master Focus Guardian vs the easy to play but very hard to master vigilance Guardian, here the harder spec is genuinely rewarded for being harder ot churn out max dps in a way I really expected TK to be rewarded vs balance given it's both harder to play rotation and harder to uutilize more fully.

 

So in conclusion, though sustained, the spec has been given a string of other advantages that make it pull out better anyway, it sucks to penalize the harder more limiting spec with lower dps, and the solution is not to dumb it down, give those who want a skill cap to aim for the opportunity to best themselves on the harder one and aim to squeeze out what shouldn't be more than a 50-100 dps advantage for mastering the tougher...but don't do the opposite, give all the benefit of mobility, easy of play, and then the higher damage to the one spec

[Halinalle]

If harder spec had higher overall dps then why would anyone use anything else?

 

Only burst specs in PvP.

Only burst specs in raids.

[TACeMossie]

Lets put it this way.

The argument is Mobility in TK Sage vs Balance Sage

 

For mobility, TK Has:

 

Force Mobility:

No need to channel Turbulence (every 7th attack)

Turbulence will then proc an instant Telekinetic Wave (followup, so thats 2/7'ths instant)

 

On top of that, you have 2 instant Telekinetic Burst's every 15-20 seconds due to force speed, instant Telekinetic Gust every 12 seconds, and taking damage gives you another instant telekinetic burst every 8 seconds. And Project can be used as a last resort to get up to 15 seconds of instants in a row - cut short by the only casted attack you have to do that will root you - mind crush.

 

In other words, on average you will be mobile for 67.3% of your rotation, and thats before taking damage to remove casts on Telekinetic Burst, and not using Project as part of the rotation either.

 

Now for Balance:

 

15 seconds cooldown on Force In Balance

18 seconds 'cooldown' on Weaken Mind, Mind Crush

12 seconds cooldown on Force Serenity

TK Throw + Disturbance/Vanquish combo = 3.5 seconds, 2 of which is channeled

 

Overall, running solely off the TK Throw channel time, Balance is mobile for 65.2% of the rotation, and it does not have any further increases to mobility through taking damage or anything.

 

EDIT - After I made this point, I realized Force Serenity will actually have a 13.5 second cooldown, as its cooldown doesn't start until the cast is finished. This means that Balance is less mobile than stated, at 64.4% mobility allowed

 

TL;DR TK is the more mobile discipline come 3.0, spending about 8.2% less time standing around casting or channeling non-mobile abilities than Balance will.

Edited November 19, 2014 by TACeMossie

[Monterone]

And it shouldn't be.

 

Specs that kill targets faster should not have higher mobility than specs that take 3-4 times as along to do the same task, whatever it may be. Is this not logical to anyone else?

 

You kill fast, you don't move as fast. You kill slow -- you need ample space to do it.

[Rithoma]

The simplest reason.

 

If burst DPS potential and sustained DPS potential were identical, there would be no fundamental reason not to play the burst spec.

 

The only reason you would choose to play a spec would be personal, which taken in a vacuum, is fine. But in either competitive environment (PvE and PvP), being able to burst (ideally on demand) and not losing out on long term DPS is getting the best of both worlds.

 

Why would anyone choose a sustained DPS class/spec when almost all Ops Bosses, and all PvP matches, would not be negatively affected by burst windows and recovery phases (as long as the DPS #s are identical).

 

There has to be a trade off for being able to burst to 6-7k at will. The only logical trade is sustained DPS. So I would look at it is as Burst DPS overall needs to be less than Sustained DPS overall.

 

^^ the truth...nothing to add.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Rithoma

[Ryuku-sama]

Lets put it this way.

The argument is Mobility in TK Sage vs Balance Sage

 

For mobility, TK Has:

 

Force Mobility:

No need to channel Turbulence (every 7th attack)

Turbulence will then proc an instant Telekinetic Wave (followup, so thats 2/7'ths instant)

 

On top of that, you have 2 instant Telekinetic Burst's every 15-20 seconds due to force speed, instant Telekinetic Gust every 12 seconds, and taking damage gives you another instant telekinetic burst every 8 seconds. And Project can be used as a last resort to get up to 15 seconds of instants in a row - cut short by the only casted attack you have to do that will root you - mind crush.

 

In other words, on average you will be mobile for 67.3% of your rotation, and thats before taking damage to remove casts on Telekinetic Burst, and not using Project as part of the rotation either.

 

Now for Balance:

 

15 seconds cooldown on Force In Balance

18 seconds 'cooldown' on Weaken Mind, Mind Crush

12 seconds cooldown on Force Serenity

TK Throw + Disturbance/Vanquish combo = 3.5 seconds, 2 of which is channeled

 

Overall, running solely off the TK Throw channel time, Balance is mobile for 65.2% of the rotation, and it does not have any further increases to mobility through taking damage or anything.

 

EDIT - After I made this point, I realized Force Serenity will actually have a 13.5 second cooldown, as its cooldown doesn't start until the cast is finished. This means that Balance is less mobile than stated, at 64.4% mobility allowed

 

TL;DR TK is the more mobile discipline come 3.0, spending about 8.2% less time standing around casting or channeling non-mobile abilities than Balance will.

 

^This

 

The superior mobility of Balance was why everyone always said TK needed buff for PvP, which ALWAYS mean better defense or better mobility.

[BrintoSFJ]

I think what they meant to say was that players who wants to play a sustain damage build should not feel like they are not doing enough damage and it should not feel like that on average they are doing less damage than burst damage. So what they wanna make sure that on average sustain will do more damage than burst damage but when burst damage actually hits it will do more damage than sustain damage build at that same time period. Or that is what i got..

[Arkerus]

This thread should have ended on the second post.

 

Sustained and burst, over time, need to be extremely similar (or sustained needs to edge up and away from burst) because if they weren't, people would just play burst specs.

[Foambreaker]

Burst is bad for Arena

 

- Messenger (don't shoot me)

[g_land]

Guys! Bioware should change the engine... let me link a random video of an environment I found... see the engine needs to be changed

[KiranK]

Because it should. Next question.

[azudelphi]

The why? It's a math problem.

 

Sustained DPS is modeled as a ramp function into a steady state function.

 

Burst DPS is modeled as a step function (ie, a nearly non-existent ramp up).

 

Total Damage dealt (or average dps) over a fight is calculated as the integral of those functions; the area under their curves. The key is that the longer it takes a sustained dps to get to their steady state damage, the more advantage the burst dps has if they both have the same steady state dps.

 

So, the way you balance the classes is to make the sustained dps have stronger steady state. This makes it so over time, they have enough dps to offset the disadvantage of the ramp up.

[Macetheace]

And it shouldn't be.

 

Specs that kill targets faster should not have higher mobility than specs that take 3-4 times as along to do the same task, whatever it may be. Is this not logical to anyone else?

 

You kill fast, you don't move as fast. You kill slow -- you need ample space to do it.

 

agreed, and that is the compromise . not the dps rating, you don't give sustained dps more damage because it builds up longer, you give it more mobility and make it easier generally speaking.

[Ryuku-sama]

agreed, and that is the compromise . not the dps rating, you don't give sustained dps more damage because it builds up longer, you give it more mobility and make it easier generally speaking.

 

You're wrong. Ideally every spec should have similar amount of mobility.

Madness was never as mobile as people make it to be. If you were to never stop for a full rotation, you would lose well over 40% of your damage.

 

Why do you think Lightning is getting huge mobility buffs for 3.0?? Because it was never intended for it to be THAT turret-like.