How Class Balance Happens

[Hyper_Rescue]

How are you saying they balance solely on the PvP component?

Because some disciplines were nerfed only because devs supposed they are way too powerful in PVP environment, while their performance in PVE was slightly above average. Like Balance/Madness for example (hilarious, isn't it?).

[Equeliber]

Wall of text

 

You really understood nothing from their target dps section, heh? it doesn't mean that it currently works like that. They WANT it to be like that and they will be making dps buffs and nerfs according to that table (more or less). Also, Arsenal won't be nerfed by 5%. They want it to be 5% lower than target dps. The amount of nerfs needed may or may not exceed 5%. It's a completely different number with different meaning.

 

Also, half of the things you say is totally wrong and/or lies. I wanted to answer every single wrong point you made but it would take way too long.

[TUXs]

Theoretical or even demonstrated outputs on a dummy have nothing to do with PVP or casual daily fighting with mobs.

 

There's a large gap between why you're adjusting damage and what players are actually playing.

Agreed Gyro...how many PvP matches have you ever been in that lasted 5minutes without dying? This "balance pass" will hurt PvP even more by pretending that every fight is 5+ minutes...no freaking wonder PvP has been so imbalanced for so damn long.

[stoopicus]

Agreed Gyro...how many PvP matches have you ever been in that lasted 5minutes without dying? This "balance pass" will hurt PvP even more by pretending that every fight is 5+ minutes...no freaking wonder PvP has been so imbalanced for so damn long.

 

Yeah, ironically, players don't stand around like target dummies or raid bosses and just let themselves get wailed on. Sustained damage output is nearly meaningless in PvP compared to burst.

Edited June 16, 2017 by stoopicus

[EzioMessi]

Because some disciplines were nerfed only because devs supposed they are way too powerful in PVP environment, while their performance in PVE was slightly above average. Like Balance/Madness for example (hilarious, isn't it?).

 

Thing is, from a PvP standpoint, Balance/Madness doesn't appear overpowered, at least not in my experience (I have heard some players complain, but nowhere near as many complaints as Arsenal Merc, skank tanks or Corruption Sorcs). Raw DPS doesn't really matter so much in PvP, as DoTs are fairly easy to heal through most of the time, it's burst that kills people. That's the reason the classes that we complain about in PvP are almost always burst damage classes (look at a history of all complaints since launch: Lightning Sorcs, Concentration Sents, Concealment Ops, and now the latest, Arsenal Mercs).

 

So if they're basing it off of DPS, HPS and DTPS like they said in the OP, that means they're not balancing around PvP.

 

They're also not balancing around PvE mind you.

 

They're balancing around combat dummies.

 

@Eric/Keith: Hopefully you are seeing the complaints of players here and plan to take it up with the combat team. It'd be really nice if the balancing is based around the combat team PLAYING THE GAME instead of parsing the DPS, HPS and DTPS. A very quick addition to your metrics would be to queue up for warzones/arenas and add TTK (time-to-kill) as a metric for PvP balancing, to be able to actually balance survivability. For PvE, I'll leave it to more experienced PvErs to tell you what they think your balance is lacking.

[Uzamakiuchi]

for reals u guys gonna nerf sorc another 5 % lol they allready useless as it is cant even pull dps for nim atm

[ViktorAres]

Eric Musco says that Lightning Sorcerer is somehow in the same DPS group as an Arsenal Mercenary?? LOL what?

Something went terribly wrong during implementation. Lightning sorc currently has the worst single target dps, while Merc is considered one of top dps classes.

Edited June 16, 2017 by ViktorAres

[EzioMessi]

Eric Musco says that Lightning Sorcerer is somehow in the same DPS group as an Arsenal Mercenary?? LOL what?

Something went terribly wrong during implementation. Lightning sorc currently has the worst single target dps, while Merc is considered one of top dps classes.

 

Well he did say its SUPPOSED to be in the same group, and that it may very well not be.

 

But then he also didn't acknowledge that Lightning underperforms.

 

Even though parses show a roughly 15% DPS drop from the max DPS in the game.

 

...

[DarthDymond]

Yeah, ironically, players don't stand around like target dummies or raid bosses and just let themselves get wailed on. Sustained damage output is nearly meaningless in PvP compared to burst.

Again, they explicitly said that they evaluate how well classes are hitting the target performance markers based on data of their actual performance in the game, not against dummies: "We used several factors including player feedback, player parsing data, and our own internal PvE and PvP statistical data."

 

Agreed Gyro...how many PvP matches have you ever been in that lasted 5minutes without dying? This "balance pass" will hurt PvP even more by pretending that every fight is 5+ minutes...no freaking wonder PvP has been so imbalanced for so damn long.

The whole reason that the target output for sustained classes is 5-10% higher than burst at the 5 minute mark is that they know fights don't last that long - if they did pretend that fights are all 5 minutes, then this whole model would deliberately unbalance classes in favor of sustained and melee. The 10% swing is all about accounting for the fact that fights are shorter than that, so sustained need a buff to balance out the fact that they don't get to actually ramp up to full effectiveness in most fights.

 

I agree with the fundamental criticism that they really need to be evaluating the effectiveness (or over-effectiveness) of utilities as equally important as the raw DPS/HPS/DTPS outputs, rather than as a second-tier consideration, but they aren't whaling on dummies to get the numbers they're using nor are they basing their model on the theory that most fights actually last 5 minutes.

Edited June 16, 2017 by DarthDymond

[Exocor]

When discussing damage output, the devs have to consider components of AoE-Damage. E.g. Infilitration-shadow has no competetive aoe-damage compared to combat sentinel. A similar discussion can be made with lightning sorcerer and arsenal merc. One has plenty of fluff damage in it's rotation, the other has to actively do aoe damage.

 

Considering this points, I can understand, why it is so difficult to balance the sorcs disciplines and the plasmatech vanguard for pve and pvp. Doing aoe-dps while single target focusing a target is very powerful in pvp: Imagine, if a lightning sorc does the same single target dps as the arsenal merc and in addition plenty of aoe damage - welcome back to the old times, when sorc was the fotm class in pvp. On the other hand, in pve, especially in ops, most challenges are about melting a boss down with single target dps - except of some few exceptions like torque. Bringing all classes of each category on the same level of dps wouldn't eleminate classes from usage in pve. In pvp it would.

 

In my opinion, as nice as it would be, that I don't have to tell my raid members "Please... no sage dps at Brontes", classes should not be balanced for pve on cost of pvp. While balancing, each class should balanced for pvp considering their defensive cooldowns, movement abilitys and damage profile. Every component has it's relevance in both, pve and pvp, but in pve, the balance has to consider the hardest challenges - not the storymodes, hardmodes, but the last nightmare bosses. And there, without any exception, it goes about single target burst dps. When you want balance for pve, you have to make every class on an equal level viable for those challenges. DIfferences can be made considering the utilitys: Classes with more dcd's and mobility (mercs) can do less dps than plasmatech vanguards. Also, compared to Watchman-Sentinel, Plasmatech Vanguard has to become the top dps class, to compensate the lack of mobility and dcd's. But if you do that, the vanguard would burn everything down in pvp.

 

So, all in all, in my opinion it is impossible, to bring every class on an adequate level, for both, pvp and pve. And at least, if it works somehow, a very unconstant point jumps into the discussion: The skill of the players combined with the skill needed to master those classes.

 

So, the Devs decided to tell us their goal: Bring he classes on equal dps levels. My suggestion would have been, to ask, which group for you decide to balance the classes: For the top tier of players, running nim-ops and doing ranked pvp on a regular basis, or for the casual content consumers, who are running hardmodes and storymodes and doing warzones from time to time.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Exocor

[AscendingSky]

Oh and one more thing.

 

Sell me the original Tracer Missile animation.

 

Tracer Missile Guy confirmed! Troll in the dungeon! Don't feed! \o/

Edited June 16, 2017 by AscendingSky

[TUXs]

The whole reason that the target output for sustained classes is 5-10% higher than burst at the 5 minute mark is that they know fights don't last that long - if they did pretend that fights are all 5 minutes, then this whole model would deliberately unbalance classes in favor of sustained and melee. The 10% swing is all about accounting for the fact that fights are shorter than that, so sustained need a buff to balance out the fact that they don't get to actually ramp up to full effectiveness in most fights.

 

I agree with the fundamental criticism that they really need to be evaluating the effectiveness (or over-effectiveness) of utilities as equally important as the raw DPS/HPS/DTPS outputs, rather than as a second-tier consideration, but they aren't whaling on dummies to get the numbers they're using nor are they basing their model on the theory that most fights actually last 5 minutes.

The changes they're indicating do not reflect what you're saying though. When they talk about nerfing Assault Commando, they're out of touch. Target swapping in Assault is TERRIBLE because energy management is God awful in the spec...nerfing the damage is NOT what the class needs...not without major changes to how energy is managed.

[Bristol]

Consider this:

 

Thanks to Galactic Command, I have focused all of my time working on my (a) Seer Sage healer and (b) Gunnery Commando DPS. My Sage is at 300 and is in a mix of 242/248 gear while my Commando is at 155 and in a mix of 236/242 gear.

 

Given the changes that they plan, my primary Healer and DPS characters appear to be the targets for the biggest nerfs in their respective disciplines, leaving me to grind out more Galactic Command on alts that, thanks to how completely nasty Galactic Command is for alts, are miserably under-leveled and under-geared even though all 37 of my alts are level 70.

 

I am now dreading the balance update that will drop me back to near zero again, even before I got 2 toons to 300.

[OneHit]

I don't understand how they can claim Arsenal is 5% below IO when they're are doing relatively the same damage. Yet IO is seriously handicapped by heat and Arsenal can fire missles all day without A worry. Do they ever consider there is a reason that 95% of the FOTM seems to be arsenal. So you're going to nerf IO?

 

How do you put arsenal any where near lightning? I understand they are both idiot proof burst rotations, but Arsenal blows lightning out of the water right now.

[Thaladan]

JUST STOP WITH ARSENAL MERC !!!

 

we don't care of your poor damage balance just nerf this sh** it's killing pvp because of your incompetence you can't play this game you're liars !

 

and stop your stupid joke about merc "and maybe nerf maybe not" we pay for this game and you're paid to work on, so do your fu**** job !!!!

 

this is outragously OP and you're obviously the more incompetent firm i ever seen in video games !!!

Edited June 16, 2017 by Thaladan

[TUXs]

I don't understand how they can claim Arsenal is 5% below IO when they're are doing relatively the same damage. Yet IO is seriously handicapped by heat and Arsenal can fire missles all day without A worry. Do they ever consider there is a reason that 95% of the FOTM seems to be arsenal. So you're going to nerf IO?

 

How do you put arsenal any where near lightning? I understand they are both idiot proof burst rotations, but Arsenal blows lightning out of the water right now.

No kidding...

[Eloi_BG]

for reals u guys gonna nerf sorc another 5 % lol they allready useless as it is cant even pull dps for nim atm

 

Please read the full post and try understanding the content before making wrong assumptions.

 

Now that you have done so, you can understand they are not nerfing sorcs, in fact they are buffing one of their specs (madness), with possible changes to lightning once they nerf arsenal and find where they want range burst specs to be at.

 

 

Anyway, hope devs manage to take out the intelligent comments in all the retarded stuff there is. That is why they don't communicate, half you guys are too retarded to read what is said and understand what they are saying. The post is VERY clear, but so many people are like "ArE yOu SaYiNg ArSeNaL aNd LiGhTnInG aRe DoInG tHe SaMe DaMaGe LMAO" and "nErF lIgHtNiNg An ExTrA 5% ***???:eek:". Smh

Edited June 16, 2017 by Eloi_BG

[Lionflash]

A lot of reading comprehension issues in here.

 

People think musco's class spreadsheet indicates what nerf/buffs are coming; the spreadsheet is indicating their targets, not their incoming nerf/buff plans.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Lionflash

[OneHit]

A lot of reading comprehension issues in here.

 

People think musco's class spreadsheet indicates what nerf/buffs are coming; the spreadsheet is indicating their targets, not their incoming nerf/buff plans.

 

Reading is hard. Arsenal not so much

[EzioMessi]

A lot of reading comprehension issues in here.

 

People think musco's class spreadsheet indicates what nerf/buffs are coming; the spreadsheet is indicating their targets, not their incoming nerf/buff plans.

 

The post :

 

1. Lists which specs are underperforming or overperforming with regards to DPS, HPS and DTPS.

2. Literally says that they're ignoring utility balance because it's too hard

3. Literally says their major targets are based on pure target dummy numbers, not considering AoE, TTK, target switching, DoTspread, etc.

 

People are pretty right about being pissed that some objectively overperforming classes won't be receiving utility/DCD nerfs and some underperforming ones won't receive buffs, based on the exact info Eric has give here.

[JargoFett]

JUST STOP WITH ARSENAL MERC !!!

 

we don't care of your poor damage balance just nerf this sh** it's killing pvp because of your incompetence you can't play this game you're liars !

 

and stop your stupid joke about merc "and maybe nerf maybe not" we pay for this game and you're paid to work on, so do your fu**** job !!!!

 

this is outragously OP and you're obviously the more incompetent firm i ever seen in video games !!!

 

Before you accuse someone of incompetence, how about you make sure you aren't the incompetent one?

 

They are doing balancing dependent on where they fall off on their current scale and obviously, mercenaries playing Arsenal specifically are far out performing the category they are meant to be in and as such will be receiving a nerf.

 

However, as yellow_ mentioned earlier in the thread, if you actually bothered reading at all before making your poorly written and worded post, is that even if merc's burst is nerfed they'd still be kings just due to the fact they'd still have 3 H2Fs. For comparison, it'd be much like how Marksman is much stronger in Solo Ranked and Regs PvP due to the spec's high amount of DCDs even though it is outperformed by Virulence/engi in PvE due to its low dmg output in comparison.

 

For Sorcerors and PTs, obviously both of those classes are far under performing their marked categories and obviously need some love but overall, I think messing with utilities at this point will only further skew any attempts at balance and realistically. if there is going to be any utility changes then it should be the removal and not the addition of.

 

The absolutely ridiculous amount of people in this thread who have absolutely zero reading comprehension is really proving why PvP has so many garbage players.

Edited June 16, 2017 by JargoFett

[TUXs]

The post :

 

1. Lists which specs are underperforming or overperforming with regards to DPS, HPS and DTPS.

2. Literally says that they're ignoring utility balance because it's too hard

3. Literally says their major targets are based on pure target dummy numbers, not considering AoE, TTK, target switching, DoTspread, etc.

 

People are pretty right about being pissed that some objectively overperforming classes won't be receiving utility/DCD nerfs and some underperforming ones won't receive buffs, based on the exact info Eric has give here.

Clearly he wasn't talking about you, because I see the exact same thing being said by the "combat team". I think the people failing to read this correctly are the ones who don't understand any of the issues you listed in points 1-3.

[Lionflash]

People are pretty right about being pissed that some objectively overperforming classes won't be receiving utility/DCD nerfs and some underperforming ones won't receive buffs, based on the exact info Eric has give here.

 

"Lastly, you might also wonder why there are not more changes to utilities and survivability for damage dealers in 5.3, and that is a fair question. We are first focusing on the damage and healing output for all Classes before getting too carried away with utility changes. This is because opinions about where a given Discipline stands among the pack can be clouded by high or low damage or healing output without anyone even realizing it. That is not to say we won’t tweak a utility here or there, but before we go making massive changes to a class’s utility toolkit, we want to make sure the damage or healing they can put out is on target and relatively similar to other Disciplines in their grouping. Once we are happy with the damage output, we can start adjusting utilities to give those that need it a boost and others that are too powerful a reduction."

[yellow_]

"Lastly, you might also wonder why there are not more changes to utilities and survivability for damage dealers in 5.3, and that is a fair question. We are first focusing on the damage and healing output for all Classes before getting too carried away with utility changes. This is because opinions about where a given Discipline stands among the pack can be clouded by high or low damage or healing output without anyone even realizing it. That is not to say we won’t tweak a utility here or there, but before we go making massive changes to a class’s utility toolkit, we want to make sure the damage or healing they can put out is on target and relatively similar to other Disciplines in their grouping. Once we are happy with the damage output, we can start adjusting utilities to give those that need it a boost and others that are too powerful a reduction."

Read between the lines my friend.

 

If you were not going to be changing utilities much because you mistakenly believe that DPS output is so much more important that you have to address that first (at least in PVP, where a lot of these complaints are coming from) and you wanted to preemptively drop some damage control in this post because you had plans to not change much in the way of utilities...how would you write that up?

 

It seems to me that you would write something more or less just like what they wrote. I'm not going to assume anything yet, but at the same time that paragraph has resulted in me being prepared to be completely unsurprised by minimal changes to utilities and another 6+ months of dominance in PVP by the classes that have dominated since 5.0 dropped.

 

Maybe trauma regulators and the ballistic shield heal will get gutted or removed - let's hope so. But if they don't plan to do so, that paragraph is the first step in feeding us that pill.

Edited June 16, 2017 by yellow_

[Lionflash]

I'm going to be optimistic. How long can we agree that class balance has been needed? To me, it seems like we are right at the beginning of a first wave of balance changes, as apposed to having no balance changes in sight.

 

Maybe they'll screw everything up, but I'm gonna try to stay positive. In the midst of all this transparency.