Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

[1.2] A Death Knell for many Healers

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Classes
[1.2] A Death Knell for many Healers

ShadowAxx's Avatar


ShadowAxx
05.04.2012 , 07:33 PM | #121
Quote: Originally Posted by oredith View Post
AAAANNNDDD..

another week of Q&A, another week without any response to the healer outcry.
Bt the time they finally get around to addressing the healers debacle, only one left will be Brave Sir Robin, having eaten all of his minstrels. (nothing like a Python reference to help relieve some of the gloom)

lovefool's Avatar


lovefool
05.05.2012 , 04:21 PM | #122
Seeing that a worse geared dps sage has stronger heals than me with a higher resource pool and no restrictions such as cd on the quick heal (stupid idea to have a quick heal restricted by cd ) i decided to stop healing on my trooper as it is no longer fun for me, and I love healing and was a healer in all mmos.
http://naurunappula.com/759013/yoda-tilaa-pizzaa.jpg

For anyone who wants to laugh till they cry!

Slipt's Avatar


Slipt
05.05.2012 , 11:50 PM | #123
Slightly before 1.2 hit the live game, there was a dev post regarding the sweeping 'changes' to merc healers, and quite possibly referencing any other healer nerfs in the process. I couldn't be bothered looking it up and linking it, but I'm sure some of you recall it.

Though I paraphrase... it basically stated that the changes were completely intentional, and that the feeling was that some classes were healing "above the curve" to such an extreme that they needed to be brought back down.

Speaking for mercs, that involved a nerf across-the-board, and an extra target on kolto missile.

I know people like a constant dialogue with the devs, but it's entirely possible that they believe they have already addressed our concerns in this blanket response by informing us to harden up.

Ashyra's Avatar


Ashyra
05.06.2012 , 04:12 AM | #124
Quote: Originally Posted by Slipt View Post
Slightly before 1.2 hit the live game, there was a dev post regarding the sweeping 'changes' to merc healers, and quite possibly referencing any other healer nerfs in the process. I couldn't be bothered looking it up and linking it, but I'm sure some of you recall it.

Though I paraphrase... it basically stated that the changes were completely intentional, and that the feeling was that some classes were healing "above the curve" to such an extreme that they needed to be brought back down.

Speaking for mercs, that involved a nerf across-the-board, and an extra target on kolto missile.

I know people like a constant dialogue with the devs, but it's entirely possible that they believe they have already addressed our concerns in this blanket response by informing us to harden up.
Here it is! Community Q&A: March 23rd 2012

Quote:
The hard but simple truth is that Sorcerers and Sages had better Force management than we intended (e.g. a well-played Sage was almost incapable of running out of Force) and Mercenaries and Commandos were significantly over target in their healing performance.

After considerable testing, we're more confident than ever that all healing roles are both closer to target performance and closer to one another than ever before, leading to a much tighter balance on end game content. The community will be able to confirm this using the new combat logging feature in Game Update 1.2.
So far, the combat logs collected by various community members have not confirmed this. Instead, they disprove the claim, as has also been pointed out by numerous community members, such as RuQu.
"If you are to truly understand, then you will need the contrast, not adherence to a single idea." ―Kreia

Easpeak's Avatar


Easpeak
05.06.2012 , 05:34 AM | #125
I really do want to see BW's testing team.
Easpeak
Easpeax
Maedex
Heffalo

oredith's Avatar


oredith
05.06.2012 , 07:07 AM | #126
Quote: Originally Posted by Ashyra View Post
So far, the combat logs collected by various community members have not confirmed this. Instead, they disprove the claim, as has also been pointed out by numerous community members, such as RuQu.
I keep saying it as a joke, but I'm starting to think that they actually DID balance the healers by looking at their DPS numbers.
(╯□)╯┻━┻
flipp'n yo desk, like a bauss
Tankie

RuQu's Avatar


RuQu
05.06.2012 , 08:27 AM | #127
Quote: Originally Posted by Ashyra View Post
Here it is! Community Q&A: March 23rd 2012

So far, the combat logs collected by various community members have not confirmed this. Instead, they disprove the claim, as has also been pointed out by numerous community members, such as RuQu.
Thanks for looking that up, it hadn't seemed worth the effort to me since I'm not to involved around here anymore.

One of my key frustrations with the Q&A's, both the lack of healer questions selected and that one answer from March is that the Q&A specifically says this in its opening paragraphs:

Quote:
Instead, the development team would appreciate more questions about features or systems currently in the game, or questions about the philosophy behind why development decisions were made. The development team feels they can really give you some in-depth answers to these sorts of questions, and overall we feel they will be more interesting answers than talking in vague terms about future features. This is not an attempt to shy away from questions about any aspect of the game, but rather a request to delve deeper into design philosophies and to get some more information on how things currently work in-game.
Note the sections I underlined.

Now read GZ's response. It does nothing of the sort. It says 'we nerfed them because we thought they were too strong, and now we think it is better." No details are given on how that opinion was reached, on what metrics they were exceeding, on what metrics were now showing closer balance. Absolutely no answer was given about the philosophy behind the nature of the nerf, namely throughput reduction through resource nerfs instead of coefficient nerfs and a move to more predictable rotations.

As you pointed out, combat logs give us metrics of our own. We can now match their "secret metrics that justify everything but can never be revealed lest the player's puny brains explode in a math-gasm" with our own transparent metrics with our work clearly shown for anyone to check and verify and our assumptions stated. Both during PTS and after 1.2 went Live, every comparison has shown the same thing: balance is worse and healing is extremely static.

Now, despite their silence, we can extrapolate a few answers for ourselves.

1) What was the philosophy behind nerfing healing in this manner?
GZ responded to questions about the 1 Medpac per Fight nerf by saying that they were trying to make healing numbers more predictable to enable tighter tuning of encounters. By knowing a fixed range of medpacs per fight, they can easily constrain that variable (to a range of 0-8 times the healing done of one medpac). Without any further response or clarification about healing, it is reasonable to assume that the healing nerfs were done the way they were for the same reasons. By making healing a more fixed rotation and with less real choices, they can more reliably predict what heals you will use, decrease variability in the healing done, and tighter tune the content through math instead of through large volume testing.

2) Why have they not responded to questions about it?
While this guess of an answer is, perhaps, less strongly supported, I think it is probably at least a factor in the truth, even if it is not all of the truth. Pre-1.2, their answer to everything was "Because Metrics" (insert Aliens Did It Meme Photo Here). Post-1.2, they have suddenly realized that combat logs give us Metrics of our own. If they respond and say "Metrics," we will counter with real numbers and that will prove embarrassing if they are shown to be wrong. Instead of risk that, they simply remain silent.

As the old saying goes, "Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it."
Brushing off the dust on my Assault Cannon. Time to get back in the fight.

Kallti's Avatar


Kallti
05.06.2012 , 08:52 PM | #128
Yes RuQu, it does say that, but I'll bet you my subscription a developer didn't write it

Arzoo's Avatar


Arzoo
05.07.2012 , 01:42 AM | #129
I hate that quote. It claims it is important to not let people realize you are a fool. It says nothing about avoiding actually BEING a fool, silence or not.

RuQu's Avatar


RuQu
05.07.2012 , 08:28 AM | #130
Quote: Originally Posted by Arzoo View Post
I hate that quote. It claims it is important to not let people realize you are a fool. It says nothing about avoiding actually BEING a fool, silence or not.
I think an underlying premise of the quote is that being a fool is not something you can really control, but you can control acting like one.

Another way to look at it is as a reminder to think twice before speaking. If you are certain your reasoning and word choice are solid, then speak. Until you have that certainty, you should remain silent and work on verifying your facts and logic. In fact, depending on how innate you think being a fool is, one could argue that following that advice (remaining silent until you have all the facts and solid reasoning) would make you no longer a fool when you finally speak.
Brushing off the dust on my Assault Cannon. Time to get back in the fight.