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

[Master-Nala]

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

 

Sustained damage specs have no inherent advantage in mobility. As for simplicity, that's in the eye of the beholder. TK isn't any harder than Balance and it's only going to get easier. I used to think it was, then I played both. TK can be shut down easier, but that's just an artifact of having cast times. Has nothing to do with the difficulty of the rotation since its procs have a 100% chance of occurring, it's mostly about practice at that point.

 

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

 

Yes it should most certainly do less average damage per second over a window of time. And especially in PvP. TK's burst is frightening. TK needs more mobility, not more damage. DPS reflect staying power. That if Balance can survive long enough it's damage will ramp up to the point where it's dangerous. That's the tradeoff.

 

choosing balance or TK , sustained or burst really should be a matter of playstyle, each has different perks,

 

I'm not sure you realize what you're asking for. If Balance and TK did the same damage over time, then there would need to be drawbacks that would cripple TK. Which is exactly the situation we have now. TK has no mobility and so it is hampered in PvP. Give it the mobility it needs, skip the extra damage.

 

And what do you find harder about TK, if you don't mind my asking?

[Kufuffelupagus]

I read the first page in detail and skim-read the rest, so I may be sounding stupid but here's my opinion anyway.

 

I agree with everyone who is saying that sustained needs to be higher DPS overall because if it wasn't, people would just play burst spec for burst + high dps.

 

From the OP I'm hearing things like "easier (spec to play)", "skill wall to climb", "more DPS for harder specs". I don't agree that how "easy" a spec is to play should come into how much DPS it does. Some specs will be "easier" for some than others, always. It's a personal thing. It should still be, objectively, burst doing more damage initially but eventually being lower overall DPS than sustained DPS specs. Because that is more balanced.

 

People can always play whatever spec they feel suits their "playstyle"; you can always do Story Mode PvE and reg Warzones in whatever spec you like. If you want to optimise your performance in either and/ or do harder content, you choose the necessary specs and master them.

[Macetheace]

I read the first page in detail and skim-read the rest, so I may be sounding stupid but here's my opinion anyway.

 

I agree with everyone who is saying that sustained needs to be higher DPS overall because if it wasn't, people would just play burst spec for burst + high dps.

 

From the OP I'm hearing things like "easier (spec to play)", "skill wall to climb", "more DPS for harder specs". I don't agree that how "easy" a spec is to play should come into how much DPS it does. Some specs will be "easier" for some than others, always. It's a personal thing. It should still be, objectively, burst doing more damage initially but eventually being lower overall DPS than sustained DPS specs. Because that is more balanced.

 

People can always play whatever spec they feel suits their "playstyle"; you can always do Story Mode PvE and reg Warzones in whatever spec you like. If you want to optimise your performance in either and/ or do harder content, you choose the necessary specs and master them.

 

ordinarily yes, when the difference was very slight, but, if it takes a lot more effort on one to fine tune your max dps and use it in fights than the other, this means that actual dps m fight data will favour the easy spec with the numbers, except perhaps in the very highly skilled percentile

 

e.g. Balance vs TK.

 

early 2.0 , TK did more damage on the single target dummy, yet, in nearly all parses for single boss fights done by most groups, balance ended up scoring higher, why? because it was much easier to keep a higher level of damage going for that spec than it was for TK, the skill set was higher.

 

and to the other guy, it isn't higher just because of rotation difficulty, I play both specs quite alot, TK is not that complicated, but it is more invovled to master than Balance, has a higher dps differential if you miss a queue or sequence than balance, and that's just rotation, it gets worse in actual fights, you have to be a lot more positionially aware to be able to churn out your stand still and cast as you need to do that to keep your dps up, you have an easier time at this for balance, so you don't only have an easier roration but an easier time applying it.. it adds up.

 

so while fine tuned TK on dummies did higher damage on those dummies, the results could not be maintained at all in the actual fights, that usually saw balance coming a head .

 

That's just one example. Factors like mobility and simplicity do count, and you should be rewarded for being more skillful, and that depends on what the skill cap is. Waht you don't do is simplify a spec just to justify giving it less damage, no, you give it more damage because it's more complex and you know that the easier spec will generally be out dpsing the harder spec for most except the very best players.