Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Vanguard/Powertech Rebalancing?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > PvP
Vanguard/Powertech Rebalancing?
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

ceelaniri's Avatar


ceelaniri
07.08.2013 , 05:12 AM | #51
Quote: Originally Posted by yoomazir View Post
Your comment about the game abandoning lore/cosmetic in order to balance classes is somehow wrong, those comsetics are the defining of each class, I'm not sure a maraudeur would be okay if he saw a one saber class like the juggernaut outdpsing him. Cosmetics, and when I say cosmetics I say the "reason why these classes exist" in this game are still pretty important, unless, of course, you want to turn SWTOR into a korean mmorpg, then I would agree with you, the hell with the lore.
your argument does not hold at all:

merc do as much dps as commando.

merc use 2 pistols, commando use an assault canon yet they do the same amount of damage.

oh and a VG uses a rifle while a PT uses a single pistol, Operative uses a knife/rifle while scoundrel a pistol/shotgun and so on..I am sure some expert in weaponry will be able to explain the difference between these set up yet in term of gameplay they are identical.

moreover, lose the aggressiveness, it doesn't make you right.

have a good day.
Masamoto Pentesilhea

Kitru's Avatar


Kitru
07.08.2013 , 09:07 AM | #52
Quote: Originally Posted by yoomazir View Post
When you go and pick your Merc AC, the npcs hints you that the merc class is supposed to be the biggest dps between the 2 classes.
Where does it "hint" that Commandos do more damage? I'm pretty sure that the only "hint" is "gots a big gun". Beyond that, you're just reading into it, which isn't the fault of the devs. I also wouldn't hold it to be even *remotely* binding because, even if it *is* hinting, it's not being explicitly stated, which would *actually* be evidence in your corner (and I *know* it's not explicitly stated).

Quote:
Your comment about the game abandoning lore/cosmetic in order to balance classes is somehow wrong, those comsetics are the defining of each class, I'm not sure a maraudeur would be okay if he saw a one saber class like the juggernaut outdpsing him.
Except you're not realizing the entire reason *why* the "real life logic" is being abandoned. They're not being abandoned for no reason whatsoever. They're being abandoned for the purposes of creating a balanced game construct. If Commandos were *intended* to always be better DPS, why would anyone roll a VG unless they wanted to tank? If you *do* think that's the only reason someone should roll VG, then why do they only have a single tank tree?

The *entire* point of the game is that spec matters more than anything else. If you choose a DPS role, you are a fully functional DPS, intended to be balanced within a reasonable approximation of the other DPS.

And, at release, Guardian DPS *was* higher than Sentinel DPS. There were *some* Sentinels ************ like mad because they weren't doing as much as the guys with a single lightsaber, but most just sat there and recognized that it was done as such because of the current balance construct of the game. Then, the Guardian debuff got nerfed, Sentinels got buffed, and the position swapped.

Of course, it's not really the same argument you're making with Commandos and VGs though. Commandos are using a *big* gun compared to a normal gun whereas Sentinels are using *two* weapons rather than *one* (of course, it's *one* weapon wielded in two hands, so it's entirely sensible for it to explicitly hit harder than one in one hand). A closer comparison would be Guardians to Shadows, since Guardians are using the standard weapon and Shadows are using the superior version. Shadows don't completely demolish Guardians for DPS and, iirc, Shadows have actually been routinely middling for total DPS. Infiltration manages some decent spike damage, but average DPS has *never* been something to write home about (Balance had the best *theoretical* top end pre-2.0, but it required such perfect play that it was really only ever "good" at best). They've really been pretty much tied.

Quote:
Cosmetics, and when I say cosmetics I say the "reason why these classes exist" in this game are still pretty important, unless, of course, you want to turn SWTOR into a korean mmorpg, then I would agree with you, the hell with the lore.
The cosmetics do not define the play of that class. They define the intended aesthetic. Hell, they don't even *really* define anything except for some animations. The only reason that the developers *don't* allow a massive number of weapon options amongst players is because it would require *way* too much in the way of animations (every different weapon category would require different animations for attacks, which multiplies the development effort and, since there would be different mechanical advantages to each, you'd end up with the "choice" not really mattering since there is a mathematically defined "best") and restricting specific weapons to specific classes allows each class to maintain a unique weapon aesthetic. It has *nothing* to do with any numbers or even the gameplay of the class. It's purely an aesthetic point. Whether you somehow attach mechanical importance or think that aesthetics should *supersede* mechanical importance, neither of those opinions matters because the mechanics are explicitly separated from each other.

Why not bring up WoW, where monks in leather, bear druids, and death knights with two-handed weapons are just as effective at tanking as paladins and warriors in plate armor using shields. In reality, a monk in leather, a bear, and a guy with a two-handed sword would all be *less* durable than a guy in plate armor with a shield. The only reason that the 5 classes are *balanced* is because of the game construct *requiring* the classes be balanced. To bring the comparison even *more* in line, a Rogue can use *daggers* and deal just as much, if not *more*, damage than a Warrior wielding a giant two-handed sword (or, in some cases, *two* giant two-handed swords).

I'm *still* trying to figure out how my VG's *bowcaster* is capable of generating a mortar volley, pulse cannon, or ion pulse. It's a *bowcaster* and, unless you recognize that we're dealing with a game and not some attempted approximation of reality, should only ever be firing out charged crossbow bolts, not blaster bolts or any of the more exotic ammunitions that VGs use on a regular basis. The only possible reason for my Stockstrike to consume cells and put an electrical DoT on the target is if it, for some reason, has a taser located in the butt (you only actually strike with the stock as a Commando; if you use it with a rifle, you hit em with the butt). I don't let it bother me because I recognize that all of the wonkiness is just intended to create parity with the Bounty Hunter which accomplishes all of those same mechanisms not by using their weapon but by using their armor (which doesn't even require *heavy armor* to use, but that's a different argument).

Hell, something that you *should* bring up because of how it's an aesthetic choice that *would* impact performance in real life, body type 1 deals the same melee damage as body type 3. Body type 4 has the same movement speed as all of the other body types. Female characters hit *just* as hard as male characters. All of these things are *just* as important, if not more so, than your insistence that Commandos should do more damage than VGs based entirely upon the reasoning of "big guns should do more damage than small guns".

You cite "korean MMOs" when, honestly, it's something that *every* MMO does. All of the classes *have* to be balanced in a game. The hybrid tax no longer exists because fulfilling multiple roles partway isn't useful, so all DPS are equally able to DPS, all tanks are equally able to tank, and all healers are equally able to heal.

If you *really* want to be shown how wrong you are, just look at adaptive armor. It's the *exact* same shell no matter who is wearing it. Looks *exactly* the same. On a Shadow, it's light armor and, on a Commando, it's heavy armor. It looks *exactly* the same. It's *already* possible in TOR to get a character wearing a bikini to tank fully effectively (female VG or Guardian in Republic Dancer's Outfit). You can do the same while *shirtless* (the cartel armor shell that's invisible). You can also dress up a Sage in trooper grade heavy armor *and it does nothing more than their robes would*.

The cosmetics of the game (which includes weapons, armor, race, *and* gender, all of which would have real world impacts) have no influence over gameplay and mechanical balance. They are *purely* cosmetic decisions that, at most, impact the preferred *aesthetic* and intended equipment for a class but do nothing for performance (as long as you actually follow the desired weapon aesthetic).

And, hell, if you're looking for a reason why a VG should be able to do just as much as a Commando even though the VG is using a smaller gun, just think of it as the VG *specializing* in Blaster Rifles (and being able to use them to greater effect) whereas the Commando just uses a bigger gun. The VG has more explicit *skill* since they're using a weapon that they've been using for *years* and just getting *better* with it whereas the Commando is using a *new* weapon that they've only been using for a comparatively short time and are keeping up because the weapon *itself* is strong enough to overcome their comparative lack of skill with it.

Quote:
You just did, and now you got owned, *****.
Except that you didn't. You just restated your position without actually countering any of my arguments. Quoting me isn't the same as actually *countering my arguments*. You could've just as easily cut out that entire quote of me and it wouldn't have changed *anything* you said.

Try actually tackling my *arguments* rather than continuing to say the same thing over and over again without actually bringing up any specific arguments or evidence other than ones that have *already* been contradicted, and we'll see about who is the *****/got owned. My vote is that it's *you* because, honestly, I doubt you're capable of actually putting together a cogent debate on the subject.
Walls of Text? I *love* Walls of Text!
My New Class Idea
Shadow Class Rep - Suggest/Review Questions Here
Quote: Originally Posted by Fende View Post
Listen to Kitru. Kitru knows all.

yoomazir's Avatar


yoomazir
07.08.2013 , 10:50 AM | #53
Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Where does it "hint" that Commandos do more damage? I'm pretty sure that the only "hint" is "gots a big gun". Beyond that, you're just reading into it, which isn't the fault of the devs. I also wouldn't hold it to be even *remotely* binding because, even if it *is* hinting, it's not being explicitly stated, which would *actually* be evidence in your corner (and I *know* it's not explicitly stated).
Guess I 'll have to recheck those 2 NPCs that tells you what each AC is supposed to do.



Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Except you're not realizing the entire reason *why* the "real life logic" is being abandoned. They're not being abandoned for no reason whatsoever. They're being abandoned for the purposes of creating a balanced game construct. If Commandos were *intended* to always be better DPS, why would anyone roll a VG unless they wanted to tank? If you *do* think that's the only reason someone should roll VG, then why do they only have a single tank tree?

The *entire* point of the game is that spec matters more than anything else. If you choose a DPS role, you are a fully functional DPS, intended to be balanced within a reasonable approximation of the other DPS.


And, at release, Guardian DPS *was* higher than Sentinel DPS. There were *some* Sentinels ************ like mad because they weren't doing as much as the guys with a single lightsaber, but most just sat there and recognized that it was done as such because of the current balance construct of the game. Then, the Guardian debuff got nerfed, Sentinels got buffed, and the position swapped.

Of course, it's not really the same argument you're making with Commandos and VGs though. Commandos are using a *big* gun compared to a normal gun whereas Sentinels are using *two* weapons rather than *one* (of course, it's *one* weapon wielded in two hands, so it's entirely sensible for it to explicitly hit harder than one in one hand). A closer comparison would be Guardians to Shadows, since Guardians are using the standard weapon and Shadows are using the superior version. Shadows don't completely demolish Guardians for DPS and, iirc, Shadows have actually been routinely middling for total DPS. Infiltration manages some decent spike damage, but average DPS has *never* been something to write home about (Balance had the best *theoretical* top end pre-2.0, but it required such perfect play that it was really only ever "good" at best). They've really been pretty much tied.
It is less "real life logic" like you call it and more common sense, and I do not believe, even for a second that Bioware is abandonning what they conceived when they were creating these classes in this game.

Yes, I do believe Commandos/Maraudeurs were intended to be superior in terms of dps compared to their other AC, your point with the whole Guardian/Mara drama at launch proves me right, even why all the users complaining, if Bioware was thinking like you (class lore/cosmetics, what for?), then they would have probably never bothered to balance the classes then, they would have probably said that guardians would be working as intended and so were the maraudeurs.

Your point with the sins vs guadian dps is something I think BW is still trying to fix it. Yes, I think they know there's a problem there but they can't find the proper solution, they' will eventually change it, sooner or later, just like they did with the Vanguard/PT.



Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
The cosmetics do not define the play of that class. They define the intended aesthetic. Hell, they don't even *really* define anything except for some animations. The only reason that the developers *don't* allow a massive number of weapon options amongst players is because it would require *way* too much in the way of animations (every different weapon category would require different animations for attacks, which multiplies the development effort and, since there would be different mechanical advantages to each, you'd end up with the "choice" not really mattering since there is a mathematically defined "best") and restricting specific weapons to specific classes allows each class to maintain a unique weapon aesthetic. It has *nothing* to do with any numbers or even the gameplay of the class. It's purely an aesthetic point. Whether you somehow attach mechanical importance or think that aesthetics should *supersede* mechanical importance, neither of those opinions matters because the mechanics are explicitly separated from each other.
Maybe my Engrish was/is misplaced, but why are you entering it the debate of animations? When I talked about the weapons I mean why BW made those classes with those specific weapons, maybe because each weapon kinda defines what classes is supposed to deal in terms of gameplay?

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Why not bring up WoW, where monks in leather, bear druids, and death knights with two-handed weapons are just as effective at tanking as paladins and warriors in plate armor using shields. In reality, a monk in leather, a bear, and a guy with a two-handed sword would all be *less* durable than a guy in plate armor with a shield. The only reason that the 5 classes are *balanced* is because of the game construct *requiring* the classes be balanced. To bring the comparison even *more* in line, a Rogue can use *daggers* and deal just as much, if not *more*, damage than a Warrior wielding a giant two-handed sword (or, in some cases, *two* giant two-handed swords).
Never played that game.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
I'm *still* trying to figure out how my VG's *bowcaster* is capable of generating a mortar volley, pulse cannon, or ion pulse. It's a *bowcaster* and, unless you recognize that we're dealing with a game and not some attempted approximation of reality, should only ever be firing out charged crossbow bolts, not blaster bolts or any of the more exotic ammunitions that VGs use on a regular basis. The only possible reason for my Stockstrike to consume cells and put an electrical DoT on the target is if it, for some reason, has a taser located in the butt (you only actually strike with the stock as a Commando; if you use it with a rifle, you hit em with the butt). I don't let it bother me because I recognize that all of the wonkiness is just intended to create parity with the Bounty Hunter which accomplishes all of those same mechanisms not by using their weapon but by using their armor (which doesn't even require *heavy armor* to use, but that's a different argument).
Again, why are you entering this into this debate? Why did you not include why our characters never eat nor take a poop pause? I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to do here.



Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Hell, something that you *should* bring up because of how it's an aesthetic choice that *would* impact performance in real life, body type 1 deals the same melee damage as body type 3. Body type 4 has the same movement speed as all of the other body types. Female characters hit *just* as hard as male characters. All of these things are *just* as important, if not more so, than your insistence that Commandos should do more damage than VGs based entirely upon the reasoning of "big guns should do more damage than small guns".
Bodytypes now, I'm sorry, I'm gona skip this one, can't find any reason to talk or argue about that, call me incapable.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
You cite "korean MMOs" when, honestly, it's something that *every* MMO does. All of the classes *have* to be balanced in a game. The hybrid tax no longer exists because fulfilling multiple roles partway isn't useful, so all DPS are equally able to DPS, all tanks are equally able to tank, and all healers are equally able to heal.
Nice to know, never played any korean game tbh,now should that also apply in SWTOR? Time to call BW on that then.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
If you *really* want to be shown how wrong you are, just look at adaptive armor. It's the *exact* same shell no matter who is wearing it. Looks *exactly* the same. On a Shadow, it's light armor and, on a Commando, it's heavy armor. It looks *exactly* the same. It's *already* possible in TOR to get a character wearing a bikini to tank fully effectively (female VG or Guardian in Republic Dancer's Outfit). You can do the same while *shirtless* (the cartel armor shell that's invisible). You can also dress up a Sage in trooper grade heavy armor *and it does nothing more than their robes would*.
Adaptive armor is meta-gaming, if you want to enter it into this debate for the sake of proving I'm wrong with my "real life simulator" and how weapons doesn't define the classes fine by me.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
The cosmetics of the game (which includes weapons, armor, race, *and* gender, all of which would have real world impacts) have no influence over gameplay and mechanical balance. They are *purely* cosmetic decisions that, at most, impact the preferred *aesthetic* and intended equipment for a class but do nothing for performance (as long as you actually follow the desired weapon aesthetic).
Like I said, the weapons that each class carry somehow defines them, at least in my eyes, and I think that's what BW is trying to do. Now said that, thx to you, I won't be suprised next time I see a class using a toothpick outdpsing another one using a huge warhammer.



Quote: Originally Posted by Kitru View Post
Except that you didn't. You just restated your position without actually countering any of my arguments. Quoting me isn't the same as actually *countering my arguments*. You could've just as easily cut out that entire quote of me and it wouldn't have changed *anything* you said.

Try actually tackling my *arguments* rather than continuing to say the same thing over and over again without actually bringing up any specific arguments or evidence other than ones that have *already* been contradicted, and we'll see about who is the *****/got owned. My vote is that it's *you* because, honestly, I doubt you're capable of actually putting together a cogent debate on the subject.
Indeed I am incapable to be on par with your level, for the sake of arguing you've made a wall of text, with at least half the stuff you wrote useless (WoW, animations, class skills, Bodytypes? gg mate), you basically accused me of trying to run this game like a "real life simulator" when I was saying that the Vanguard AC wasn't supposed to be a better dps compared to the Commando because a big canon class is supposed to deal a "bit" more damage than a simple rifle, even in a sci-fi setting, just for the sake of common sense.

I don't have your vocabulary, nor your grammar, nor your "knowledge", but you know what? I stand with what I 've said, none of your arguments proved anything to me, but like I said, I don't possess that smooth vocabulary of yours, so yeah, if you think I got owned, then maybe so, but even like that I say to you "go ***** yourself, you arrogant *****"

stephenalandavie's Avatar


stephenalandavie
07.08.2013 , 06:33 PM | #54
Quote: Originally Posted by Atramar View Post
Think most of FOTM(year) PT/Vanguards moved to assassins/shadows... amount of bads running around out of stealth, guarding out of stealth, running no accuracy gear in L55 pvp (oh thanks double exp) is just not funny anymore...
rest moved to smash spec, but probably didn't notice that force statis/force choke doesnt build shockwave any more...
Dude way way off with this one

Meleemilan's Avatar


Meleemilan
07.09.2013 , 01:27 AM | #55
Quote: Originally Posted by yoomazir View Post
Indeed I am incapable to be on par with your level, for the sake of arguing you've made a wall of text, with at least half the stuff you wrote useless (WoW, animations, class skills, Bodytypes? gg mate), you basically accused me of trying to run this game like a "real life simulator" when I was saying that the Vanguard AC wasn't supposed to be a better dps compared to the Commando because a big canon class is supposed to deal a "bit" more damage than a simple rifle, even in a sci-fi setting, just for the sake of common sense.

I don't have your vocabulary, nor your grammar, nor your "knowledge", but you know what? I stand with what I 've said, none of your arguments proved anything to me, but like I said, I don't possess that smooth vocabulary of yours, so yeah, if you think I got owned, then maybe so, but even like that I say to you "go ***** yourself, you arrogant *****"
First, you should have a little more respect over others then "go ***** yourself, you arrogant *****", and for the rest I'll say Kitru was right to add these things to the subject.

You're telling that the game should follow real life common sense. This tells a big gun deals obviously more damage than a small pistol. That common sense does not apply to a game. To make every characters as valuable as others in everything, they most be balanced. This means the big gun DPS MUST deal about the exact same amount or really close to it as the single pistol DPS if they were equipped the same way for their respecting classes.

Now, Kitru talked about aesthetics, which is the actual reason why weapons are limited to one class, and that makes you want to play the class that you like the style and the weapon. Aesthethics. Look. Nothing that affects the game. But it would affect something in the real life common sense you try to bring. If it would, the Jedis and the Siths would obviously overpower everything from like a huge step ahead, yet to make gun classes viable to be played, they are balanced to a same level, so that you dont see everywhere people swinging around lightsticks.

Kitru said that if it was to be adding every weapon possibility it would not work because they'd have to make an animation for every skills for every weapons, and if you count that theres around 60 skills per class(around 30 for the sorcerer sith for exemple, and 30 for the assassin,) and around 10 types of weapons, you end with like 600 animations for every species and every classes. That is too much work. You don't even know how long it is to make an animation...

When Kitru talked about bodytypes, it meant that, you see a female with bodytype 1 (which is the smallest one), dealing as much damage on hand-to-hand combat as the male using the bodytype 3(which is the huge guy one i believe). Your common sense would force the female to logically lose, yet for the sake of game balance, they deal the same amount of damage.

About WoW, I didn't play that game either, but in all logic, a guy wearing clothes is not supposed to be able to tank as well as a guy with a heavy plate armor and a huge shield, however, still for game balance, it is possible in WoW if I did read well. This means, that your common sense is obviously not respected. And that's normal, it it was respected who in hell would tank with a clothes-wearing guy? He would tank just as well as a paper would. And a paper would obviously not tank anything.

What Kitru's trying to make you understand is that your common sense will never be something that will be respected in a game, because if it is, the balance would fail and there would be only 3 viable classes, the one that would be tanking the best, the one that would heal the best, and the one that would DPS the most. That would make the other classes worthless which isn't what we want. Or else everyone would be looking the same, playing the same classes, etc.

Ottoattack's Avatar


Ottoattack
07.09.2013 , 01:30 PM | #56
As a starter cosmetics play zero role in class balance. So if your angle is cosmetics logic is non-existent. Its like saying imperial dancer should not be heavy armor. In addition, I played 6 out of 8 advanced classes and they all are 4-5 buttons rotation based. So please spare us the illogical argument of pyro was "3 button win." Needless to say as well is that class complexity (and none them are) and damage output ARE NOT CORRELATED.

As for balance, in terms of dps for PvE the formula is: damage potential + utility = class performance. Now PT falls really short compared to other classes (and they are supposed to be equal). Damage output is not there and zero utility as dps.

PvP balance is a bit more complicated, as you have survivability, burst damage and mobility as additional factors in the equation. Never the less PT falls really short again except in mobility, which is a secondary factor to damage output (burst and sustained) and survivability.

OldTEX's Avatar


OldTEX
07.10.2013 , 02:10 PM | #57
I love how popular this thread has been, and similar threads since 2.0 yet the devs seem to think nothing of it. Its really sad that more community members have come up dozens of decent ideas to re balance this class and yet we aren't even getting a nod in our general direction.

JediMasterNippin's Avatar


JediMasterNippin
07.10.2013 , 02:18 PM | #58
Quote: Originally Posted by OldTEX View Post
I love how popular this thread has been, and similar threads since 2.0 yet the devs seem to think nothing of it. Its really sad that more community members have come up dozens of decent ideas to re balance this class and yet we aren't even getting a nod in our general direction.
It is because they do not play this class, so that is why they could care less about fixing it. The sole person who does class balancing has admitted that he plays sniper and pvp's on an assassin. Coincidence that snipers are the best dps class out there? I think not.

OldTEX's Avatar


OldTEX
07.11.2013 , 02:34 PM | #59
Quote: Originally Posted by JediMasterNippin View Post
It is because they do not play this class, so that is why they could care less about fixing it. The sole person who does class balancing has admitted that he plays sniper and pvp's on an assassin. Coincidence that snipers are the best dps class out there? I think not.
That is one of the lamest excuses I have ever heard from a game company, there should be a team of people to balance classes not one person. I understand staffing limits ect. but this seems to be a much more important part of the game than some other things. On a Related Note Bioware, if you want more people to work on class balance than someone that plays 2 classes and is more than likely overworked, I'll do it for free.

AmberGreen's Avatar


AmberGreen
07.12.2013 , 02:10 PM | #60 This is the last staff post in this thread.  
This thread has been moved out of the Public Test Server Forum to allow for feedback and reports directly related to testing the Game Update 2.3 content listed in Patch Notes.

Threads created to request future updates or discuss the state of the live servers do not belong in the PTS Forum and should be created in other subforums. Thanks for your understanding!
Amber Green | Live Services Specialist
Follow us on Twitter @SWTOR | Like us on Facebook
[Contact Us] [Rules of Conduct] [F.A.Q.] [Dev Tracker]