It is a good fix, the only problem is that it would create a barrier against playing the Trooper.

 

New players coming to the Trooper would be given false information (simplified tooltips). As a result, they wouldn't play the Trooper as well as they could with all the information. This is easily solved by the player doing some research, but there are already a lot of complaints concerning SW: tOR not giving the player enough information to base their decisions off of (e.g. choosing an advanced class).

If you didn't simplify the tooltips, well, then you get an overly complicated system for new players. This probably wouldn't be an issue for more experienced players, or players who have a Bounty Hunter, but it could needlessly complicate the class. Every single thing about the class would go into decimal places.

 

Not to mention never actually using complete ammo blocks seems a little illogical, it would feel as if we were keeping the system out of a sense of nostalgic fondness.

It would probably just be simpler to convert ammo into heat.

 

Then again, without actually testing your system, I don't know if these are even valid concerns.

It is certainly a better suggestion to bring balance to the resource disparity than mine, but it feels as if ammo would be overly complex as a result.

I suppose that would make sense, as to a new player activating a "2 Ammo ability" may only see 1 consumed on the UI. The UI in that case would have to incorporate rounding, or be redone. Honestly I would see my solution more as a band-aid fix until a proper solution can be made. The 100 Ammo solution is the only one that makes sense. Other values wouldn't make as much sense, if you have 20 Ammo for example, Ion Pulse would cost 3.2 Ammo. Decimals should be left out as much as possible.

Using the 100 Ammo solution though, would probably require more work. The UI would have to be redone into an energy bar, in addition to changing the costs of every ability. Not to mention, old guides that new players would look at would make no sense. "Guide says Explosive Round costs 3 Ammo, in-game why does it cost 25?"

I personally can care less about how it's fixed, I would just like to see this balance issue resolved.

I suppose that would make sense, as to a new player activating a "2 Ammo ability" may only see 1 consumed on the UI. The UI in that case would have to incorporate rounding, or be redone. Honestly I would see my solution more as a band-aid fix until a proper solution can be made. The 100 Ammo solution is the only one that makes sense. Other values wouldn't make as much sense, if you have 20 Ammo for example, Ion Pulse would cost 3.2 Ammo. Decimals should be left out as much as possible.

 

Using the 100 Ammo solution though, would probably require more work. The UI would have to be redone into an energy bar, in addition to changing the costs of every ability. Not to mention, old guides that new players would look at would make no sense. "Guide says Explosive Round costs 3 Ammo, in-game why does it cost 25?"

 

I personally can care less about how it's fixed, I would just like to see this balance issue resolved.

We can always convert heat into ammo, instead of the other way round.

Your concern to guides, I wouldn't put too much thought into it. Guides are updated and changed with every balance patch. The rotations would also still be relevant, as well as priorities. Most guides also make some sort of reference to the Bounty Hunter counterparts and their resource system (see the guide linked earlier as an example).

The UI concern also shouldn't be as relevant. The Bounty Hunter has a fully functioning system, use that one. Sages and Sorcerers use the same resource system (as in, bar), why can't Bounty Hunters and Troopers? Changing individual values also is fairly easy, 1 -> 8, 2 -> 16, 3 -> 25, 4 ->33. I would argue that that requires less work than balancing the ammo system as it currently is, due to the fact that you need to make it easily understandable and are also forced to use decimals at every turn. Compare that to implementing a system that is proven to work and is easy to understand.

I was able to get twice as many Flamebursts on my Powertech than compared to my Vanguard, this isn't a minor balance issue. This bug needs to be acknowledged by the devs, and fixed.

Well I have a lev 50 Vanguard and a lev 50 PT as well. And I can tell you right up front that your testing methodology is not a good one. If you log your combat to a file, what you will find is that the more often you spam abilities, the more often your GCD timer is apt to have a hiccup and give you a longer timespan than 1.5 seconds per ability. There are a range of reasons for this - keyboard timing, user timing, user bias, server lag, etc. The point is that the longer you run a timing test, the more white noise you introduce into your test and the less accurate it becomes.

A better testing methodology is simply to spam the single heat(ammo) utilizing ability and see how many uses you can get before your resource stack blows up. Since this is a shorter test, there is less white noise introduced into the test. And you can test it with different abilities.

And what do you get when you use this better testing methodology? No difference between Vanguard and PT. 8 uses of Flame Burst (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. 5 uses of Flame Sweep (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. They are the same for both Vanguard and PT.

Well I have a lev 50 Vanguard and a lev 50 PT as well. And I can tell you right up front that your testing methodology is not a good one. If you log your combat to a file, what you will find is that the more often you spam abilities, the more often your GCD timer is apt to have a hiccup and give you a longer timespan than 1.5 seconds per ability. There are a range of reasons for this - keyboard timing, user timing, user bias, server lag, etc. The point is that the longer you run a timing test, the more white noise you introduce into your test and the less accurate it becomes.

 

A better testing methodology is simply to spam the single heat(ammo) utilizing ability and see how many uses you can get before your resource stack blows up. Since this is a shorter test, there is less white noise introduced into the test. And you can test it with different abilities.

 

And what do you get when you use this better testing methodology? No difference between Vanguard and PT. 8 uses of Flame Burst (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. 5 uses of Flame Sweep (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. They are the same for both Vanguard and PT.

Check the videos in the first post. /gg

Well I have a lev 50 Vanguard and a lev 50 PT as well. And I can tell you right up front that your testing methodology is not a good one. If you log your combat to a file, what you will find is that the more often you spam abilities, the more often your GCD timer is apt to have a hiccup and give you a longer timespan than 1.5 seconds per ability. There are a range of reasons for this - keyboard timing, user timing, user bias, server lag, etc. The point is that the longer you run a timing test, the more white noise you introduce into your test and the less accurate it becomes.

 

A better testing methodology is simply to spam the single heat(ammo) utilizing ability and see how many uses you can get before your resource stack blows up. Since this is a shorter test, there is less white noise introduced into the test. And you can test it with different abilities.

 

And what do you get when you use this better testing methodology? No difference between Vanguard and PT. 8 uses of Flame Burst (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. 5 uses of Flame Sweep (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. They are the same for both Vanguard and PT.

Let me start off saying that heat and ammo are not the same.

Yes, a burn test would show short-term impacts. Please go watch the videos that have been linked in this thread. They should partially convince you of our point.

This doesn't even count the fact that blowing through the entire resource pool as quickly as possible is a very bad way to disprove the discrepancy. This issue is more about the impact over longer periods of time due to:

1) The small ability cost differences.

2) The larger pool of high resource regeneration.

These two factors will only start to come into effect over a longer time span. The videos linked show how burning through the resources as quickly as possible does actually result in a difference (albeit we have to include the resource regeneration ability imbalance too). If this issue (which is exacerbated in longer fights) has an effect in a burn trial, how is it fine?

No offense, but i think this is what you meant. Mercs do an excellant job. So do commandos. Leave them where they are.

Thank you for existing, thats preety much how i feel with all classes, all depends on person and gear *exceptsmashmonkeysimdownforatonedown*

Well I have a lev 50 Vanguard and a lev 50 PT as well. And I can tell you right up front that your testing methodology is not a good one. If you log your combat to a file, what you will find is that the more often you spam abilities, the more often your GCD timer is apt to have a hiccup and give you a longer timespan than 1.5 seconds per ability. There are a range of reasons for this - keyboard timing, user timing, user bias, server lag, etc. The point is that the longer you run a timing test, the more white noise you introduce into your test and the less accurate it becomes.

 

A better testing methodology is simply to spam the single heat(ammo) utilizing ability and see how many uses you can get before your resource stack blows up. Since this is a shorter test, there is less white noise introduced into the test. And you can test it with different abilities.

 

And what do you get when you use this better testing methodology? No difference between Vanguard and PT. 8 uses of Flame Burst (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. 5 uses of Flame Sweep (and its Rep mirror ability) blows up the resource stack. They are the same for both Vanguard and PT.

Sorry, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with my test. Pretty much every point you brought up is invalid. keyboard timing, If you look in your preferences you will notice that you can queue up abilities 1 second in advance, same with user timing. All your abilities will activate right right after the GCD finishes.

Server Lag is inevitable, but unless your connection is really spotty it's not going to make much difference, also because you can queue abilities up in advance. I ran both tests with 4 bars and 80-90 ms, very little lag.

Even if server lag affected the test, it would affect both characters equally. Finally, I ran the test twice and got very similar results. Powertechs have superior regen mechanics and ability costs. Getting almost double the flamebursts in two identical tests cannot be solely attributed to lag

Your last point, user bias? Run the test correctly (not spamming ion pulse/flame burst) and you'll notice a significant difference. Why? because the Vanguard will be consuming 66.66% more energy on each Ion Pulse than compared to each Flameburst.

Edit- The 66.66% Figure is also including the Ammo Regen for every 3 seconds Ion Pulse is used. Powertechs lose a net 1 heat every 3 seconds (16 heat- 15)= 1, Vanguards lose a net 1.66% Ammo every 3 seconds (16.666% - 15%) = net loss of 1.666 =% Ammo.

In terms of actual energy cost, Ion Pulse uses 4.1% more Ammo than Flameburst.

Sorry, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with my test. Pretty much every point you brought up is invalid. keyboard timing, If you look in your preferences you will notice that you can queue up abilities 1 second in advance, same with user timing. All your abilities will activate right right after the GCD finishes.....Run the test correctly (not spamming ion pulse/flame burst) and you'll notice a significant difference. Why? because the Vanguard will be consuming 66.66% more energy on each Ion Pulse than compared to each Flameburst.

Again, just as was the case with your claims about how there was a negligible difference between how often Commandos/Mercs trigger Riposte/Retaliation, I can see why you'd think this. But you are simply WRONG. Again. As I said, send your combat log to a file. Use your 1 second ability buffer (that's what I had mine set at FYI). Then look at your combat log. What you will see is that even with a 1 second queue buffer, your abilities are NOT triggering 1.5 seconds apart. There is a variance of between .01 and .1 seconds for EACH ability queued. Thus the total variance for a long string of abilities becomes quite large. In order to maintain test accuracy you need shorter sequences.

And please, stop with the claims that Ion Pulse uses up 66.6% more energy than Flame Burst. If this was true you wouldn't see both abilities max out at 8 uses before the resource stack blows up. Anyone can go to a training dummy and test for themselves. You'll get 8 uses for those abilities on either class.

I play one on both sides and perform way better on my commando...how is that possible?

Maybe it is the same with other classes like Sorcs/Sages. Maybe they just nerf the final damage output ex. madness for Assassins compared to Sorcs.

Again, just as was the case with your claims about how there was a negligible difference between how often Commandos/Mercs trigger Riposte/Retaliation, I can see why you'd think this. But you are simply WRONG. Again. As I said, send your combat log to a file. Use your 1 second ability buffer (that's what I had mine set at FYI). Then look at your combat log. What you will see is that even with a 1 second queue buffer, your abilities are NOT triggering 1.5 seconds apart. There is a variance of between .01 and .1 seconds for EACH ability queued. Thus the total variance for a long string of abilities becomes quite large. In order to maintain test accuracy you need shorter sequences.

 

And please, stop with the claims that Ion Pulse uses up 66.6% more energy than Flame Burst. If this was true you wouldn't see both abilities max out at 8 uses before the resource stack blows up. Anyone can go to a training dummy and test for themselves. You'll get 8 uses for those abilities on either class.

And in a long term fight, say, a ranked warzone or an operation boss? Those "8 even shots" do no good there. The longer the test runs, the further apart the two classes drift. THAT is what we are debating.

Again, just as was the case with your claims about how there was a negligible difference between how often Commandos/Mercs trigger Riposte/Retaliation, I can see why you'd think this. But you are simply WRONG. Again. As I said, send your combat log to a file. Use your 1 second ability buffer (that's what I had mine set at FYI). Then look at your combat log. What you will see is that even with a 1 second queue buffer, your abilities are NOT triggering 1.5 seconds apart. There is a variance of between .01 and .1 seconds for EACH ability queued. Thus the total variance for a long string of abilities becomes quite large. In order to maintain test accuracy you need shorter sequences.

 

And please, stop with the claims that Ion Pulse uses up 66.6% more energy than Flame Burst. If this was true you wouldn't see both abilities max out at 8 uses before the resource stack blows up. Anyone can go to a training dummy and test for themselves. You'll get 8 uses for those abilities on either class.

As I (and others) have already said, the ability to burn through the resource pool is not the issue. This issue has more to do with longer fights.

This is why the test with a filler was devised, to see a longer-term effect of the heat advantage.

If you are so adamant that he is doing the test wrong, why do you not do the test yourself? Do not try to sweep this issue under the proverbial rug by doing a burn test, but put a filler in and see what happens. The test with a filler move will more accurately reflect the discrepancy between the two resources. Yes, the issues you have mentioned may be an issue (unlikely), but should not the same person have the same timing disadvantages in both tests?

If you cannot be swayed in your assertion that the test is unfair, what test would you accept as viable (that is not a burn test)? You cannot say any that test that is designed to examine the long-term effects of the heat advantage is invalid because of timing issues.

As I (and others) have already said, the ability to burn through the resource pool is not the issue. This issue has more to do with longer fights.

If the Vanguard's ability truly cost 66.6% more energy than Flame Burst, then you wouldn't need a longer fight to see that. It would be patently obvious almost immediately.

With 8 Flame Bursts/Ion Pulse giving the same resource stack impact, we are already down to a feasible resource consumption difference between the two abilities of around 10-15% at worst - and it's not even clear which uses more, if any. Sure, you can test with even longer ability usage sequences. But as I said, the longer the sequence, the more prone your test is to random error from the abilities not firing with optimal timing. You want me to create a test that is immune from that effect? Sorry, I can't do that. I simply don't have the uber ability to alter micro-second game timing on the fly....

If the Vanguard's ability truly cost 66.6% more energy than Flame Burst, then you wouldn't need a longer fight to see that. It would be patently obvious almost immediately.

 

With 8 Flame Bursts/Ion Pulse giving the same resource stack impact, we are already down to a feasible resource consumption difference between the two abilities of around 10-15% at worst - and it's not even clear which uses more, if any. Sure, you can test with even longer ability usage sequences. But as I said, the longer the sequence, the more prone your test is to random error from the abilities not firing with optimal timing. You want me to create a test that is immune from that effect? Sorry, I can't do that. I simply don't have the uber ability to alter micro-second game timing on the fly....

I do not want a test that is immune to error, I just want a test with an error margin that you would find acceptable. Then we can go and do that test. The test would give results that show heat is a better resource than ammo (because it is, as previously shown). Since you would have agreed that the test would be a good and conclusive way of determining the difference, you would then not be able to argue that heat and ammo are the same. This would hopefully have a knock-on effect and convince other members of the community (and possible Bioware) that there is an issue that needs resolving.

The person who you are quoting about the 66.6% difference is mistaken. They are comparing Ion Pulse ammo cost (2 / 12 = 0.1666) to Flame Burst heat cost (16 / 100 = 0.16).

0.1666 - 0.16 = 0.0066, or 0.66% difference (a decimal error on their part).

EDIT: Dr_Kid replied with his calculations, so feel free to ignore mine on the matter. I'll keep them in for posterity.

There's plenty of ways to do it.

The main thing is you don't just use one example to prove conclusively your data is right.

You have a larger sample size. Don't bother about when you start, just start randomly and spam that flame burst.

As long as you do the same thing each time for each character, it should average out to be the same results. Now if a powertech consistently gets 9 shots while a vanguard gets 8 every single time. (Out of say 100 trials) then you have a point. To measure the difference between the two abilities, (which from what everyone has said is miniscule) the more and more trials you'll need to do to actually get a statistically significant result.

With a sample size of 1, or 2, or 3 it truely means nothing. Imagine you're flipping a coin. YOu flip a coin once. It's heads! You now believe the odds are 100% heads? What happens you flip it again and it's heads again? 100% chance for heads? That's now how statistics works.

If the Vanguard's ability truly cost 66.6% more energy than Flame Burst, then you wouldn't need a longer fight to see that. It would be patently obvious almost immediately.

 

With 8 Flame Bursts/Ion Pulse giving the same resource stack impact, we are already down to a feasible resource consumption difference between the two abilities of around 10-15% at worst - and it's not even clear which uses more, if any. Sure, you can test with even longer ability usage sequences. But as I said, the longer the sequence, the more prone your test is to random error from the abilities not firing with optimal timing. You want me to create a test that is immune from that effect? Sorry, I can't do that. I simply don't have the uber ability to alter micro-second game timing on the fly....

It costs 4.1% more energy. A short fight isn't going to show that. The difference is Flameburst costs 16% heat, and Ion Pulse costs 16.6666% Ammo. Spamming Flameburst or Ion Pulse themselves won't give the most definitive results.

Here's where the 66.66% figure comes from.

Flameburst + Rapid shots is 3 seconds (5 Heat Regen a second)

Flameburst uses 16 Heat, and gains 15 heat (5 heat regen for 3 seconds). Net Loss: 1 Heat.

Ion Pulse uses 16.666% Ammo, and gains 15% Ammo. Net Loss 1.6666 Ammo

Vanguards lose 66.66% more Ammo for every Ion Pulse (assuming the filler is included)

Go Test it yourself for once and you'll see the results. Any random lag is going to affect both characters equally. Want to reduce randomness? Run multiple tests, average the results. I got very similar results both times. Powertech was able to use about double the Flamebursts than compared to my Vangaurd.

According to you, my Powertech must somehow be permanently stuck with extra lag than my vanguard adding delay to only his attacks, despite using the exact same internet connection for both. Apparently this bug only affects Bounty Hunters, with absolutely no effect on Troopers, which you're basically now implying Troopers > Bounty Hunters.

Stop denying the facts and go test it yourself, If the lag is as bad as you'll make it, then you'll get significantly different results (something like 30 Flamebursts run 1, 50 Flamebursts run 2). Run it multiple times on your Powertech and then your Vanguard and compare the results. If the costs are working as intended, then you shouldn't see any pattern.

There's plenty of ways to do it.

 

The main thing is you don't just use one example to prove conclusively your data is right.

 

You have a larger sample size. Don't bother about when you start, just start randomly and spam that flame burst.

 

As long as you do the same thing each time for each character, it should average out to be the same results. Now if a powertech consistently gets 9 shots while a vanguard gets 8 every single time. (Out of say 100 trials) then you have a point. To measure the difference between the two abilities, (which from what everyone has said is miniscule) the more and more trials you'll need to do to actually get a statistically significant result.

 

With a sample size of 1, or 2, or 3 it truely means nothing. Imagine you're flipping a coin. YOu flip a coin once. It's heads! You now believe the odds are 100% heads? What happens you flip it again and it's heads again? 100% chance for heads? That's now how statistics works.

I know what you are saying. My point is that it is very hard to do a test 100 times and put it on video to prove that it has been done. It is then even harder to get enough people to watch the video of the test being done 100 times.

It is unreasonable to expect 100 videos (Holmes' shortest was 113 seconds, so 11300 seconds in total). You would not watch the 100 videos, and you refuse to take our word on results we have without videos. The solution?

I want a test:

That can be easily reproduced.

That is easy to perform.

Is long enough to show the resource discrepancy.

Since a burn test is not long enough to show the difference, what Holmes did is probably the next best thing.

Spam Flame Burst or Ion Pulse until you run out of resources, hit your resource regain ability, spam some more (Holmes, please correct me if I am wrong). He did his test twice (that we have proof of) to convince people that there is an issue. Both times came up in favour of heat.

My point is that you can easily do this test to your heart's content. If you think the test is wrong, repeat the test until you get a result that is inconsistent with ours. We will have to supply many videos to prove our point, you have to supply very few to disprove it.

If you do not think what Holmes did is a valid test, suggest one so that we can prove we are correct.

Apply the scientific method!

The null hypothesis!

Ecetera.

The longer the test, the greater the disparity will be. That's why my test is ideal. Two button rotation.

Ion Pulse, Hammershot, Ion Pulse, Hammershot, Ion Pulse, Hammershot, and repeat.

Count the number of Ion Pulses until you're unable to use another Ion Pulse. Repeat two more times to account for lag.

Bounty Hunter

Flame burst, Rapid shots, Flame burst, Rapid shots, Flame burst, Rapid shots.

Count number of Flamebursts until you're unable to activate it again. Repeat twice more to account for lag.

Compare the results.

Actually now that I think about it, you guys are basically saying that Mercenaries get 100 heat while powertechs get 96 heat. 12*8. If they don't have any rounding it's true. If they do, then it's not.

In essence, yes. However, that is only relevant in burn phases. The main issues are:

1) Higher maximum regeneration zone.

2) Rounding not occurring.

Both of these issues create the problem. Issue 2) is prevalent in long fights, 1) is prevalent in short fights. If you combine the two? A noticeable advantage to the Bounty Hunter.

Since the tooltips are simplified for player use, we are lead to believe rounding does not occur. However, our tests are indicative that there is no rounding.

The longer the test, the greater the disparity will be. That's why my test is ideal. Two button rotation.

Ion Pulse, Hammershot, Ion Pulse, Hammershot, Ion Pulse, Hammershot, and repeat.

Count the number of Ion Pulses until you're unable to use another Ion Pulse. Repeat two more times to account for lag.

 

Bounty Hunter

Flame burst, Rapid shots, Flame burst, Rapid shots, Flame burst, Rapid shots.

Count number of Flamebursts until you're unable to activate it again. Repeat twice more to account for lag.

 

Compare the results.

Out of curiousity I did that, on a vanguard and powertech. Ion Pulse -> Hammer Shots vs. Flame Burst -> Rapid Shots. Until overheated/out of ammo.

Did 4 runs on the vanguard: 31, 29, 32 and 34 Ion Pulse before out of ammo.

Only did 2 runs on the powertech, because the difference is so overwhelming: 50 and 60 Flame bursts, and I wasn't even out of the maximum heat dissipation tier. Just stopped because it got so very boring.

So, while I don't actively play neither powertech nor vanguard most of the time, this changed my mind. When I first read the thread, my first thought was "People will whine about anything", but I now see this as a real concern, and want to state my support for fixing this. Not that it matters, but anyway.

Here's where the 66.66% figure comes from.

Flameburst + Rapid shots is 3 seconds (5 Heat Regen a second)

Flameburst uses 16 Heat, and gains 15 heat (5 heat regen for 3 seconds). Net Loss: 1 Heat.

 

Ion Pulse uses 16.666% Ammo, and gains 15% Ammo. Net Loss 1.6666 Ammo

Vanguards lose 66.66% more Ammo for every Ion Pulse (assuming the filler is included)

 

Go Test it yourself for once and you'll see the results. Any random lag is going to affect both characters equally. Want to reduce randomness? Run multiple tests, average the results.

First off, by adding rapid shots you are simply subtracting from the numerator of a fraction (heat loss/time) thus making your ratio of those fractions (vanguard/merc) absurdly high. It simply doesn't help your cause when you inject math distortions like that and then trumpet the result, "Vanguards use 66.6% more resources than Mercs" which fails everyone's basic understanding of the matter. It's like claiming that wine has 10x the alcohol content of beer - if you first extract a fixed amount of alcohol from each fluid.

Secondly random lag doesn't affect both characters equally. It affects the mean (average) performance of each character equally. That is a statistics distinction which you may not be aware of. But your testing methodology is specifically vulnerable to random white noise, for reasons which I will try to explain. The basic segment of your test (FlameBurst + Rapid Shots) has almost NO measurable heat usage (1 unit). Over those two GCDs, your timing loss can easily be 0.2 seconds, which causes heat dissipation of - yes, 1 unit! Thus a common level of variance can completely disguise the very metric you are attempting to measure. That is why a test consisting of basic segments with a higher measurable heat usage, such as I used, are inherently more accurate.

Yes, you could get more accuracy by running the tests repeatedly. But using your methodology you might literally need to do it hundreds of times because the variance is so high relative to the mean of the metric you are measuring. Good luck with that.

If you do not think what Holmes did is a valid test, suggest one so that we can prove we are correct.

Sometimes, no matter how hard both people try, it is not possible for the person taking the other side of an issue from you to prove that you are correct.