That seems more like an argument for buffing Vig over buffing focus. As you say, a 10% boost to ST damage can only make it even more OP in PVP, and in general would serve to even further deter watchman use. I'll also note that with a few exceptions the AoE Sniper/Gunslinger tree also falls pretty far behind their single target damage specs.

 

In PvE, Vig is pretty competitive. It really shouldn't be buffed. Guardian Focus is also competitive in single-target DPS, which is a concern primarily because Sentinel Focus is not.

 

Giving up single target damage is the price you pay for getting awesome AoE damage.

 

Really? I can get awesome AoE as a hybrid sniper without falling even a single step behind pure Marksman for single-target damage. Balance shadow has a lot more AoE damage than infiltration, and also slightly *higher* single-target DPS. Tactics vanguard has far better AoE than Assault, but generally slightly lower single-target damage (especially pre-2.0).

 

It'd be another matter entirely if Focus was the only good DPS spec, but sentinels have 3 of them, and there ARE the odd fights where Focus shines even in PVE while it's pretty much the goto spec in PVP.

 

Imagine if Gunnery had some glaring weakness that prevented you from using it on all bosses and you were forced to use Assault. The three sentinel specs are very, very different from each other, almost to the point of being different classes. Everyone should be allowed to play the spec they want to play in any environment to a level of viability close to the mean (say, 5%) such that their viability penalties on some bosses are balanced against the viability penalties of other specs on other bosses (so that all specs are penalized and advantaged equally when averaged across all content). This is the definition of balance. As things currently stand, competitive PvPers cannot play Watchman without being unduly penalized, and competitive PvEers cannot play Focus without being unduly penalized. The bosses for which Focus has an advantage are far fewer than the bosses for which Watchman or Combat has an advantage, and the advantages are very pronounced. This is why I say that things are not balanced in their current form.

 

It may not be in the top 3 questions but I would like to know if Bioware plans on making combat rotation more fluid again and/or make the burst phases more controlable/predictable. It feels like focus spec before the first buff which made the rotation much more fluid.

 

Combat actually has a fairly fluid rotation, and the burst windows are rigidly predictable. The only real problem is the fact that Opportune Attack may not proc in time for this window, and Hand of Justice may not proc exactly on schedule (giving some variance to the tail half of the window). These are issues, I think, but they aren't that severe. The rotation itself feels extremely solid to me, though certainly less rhythmic and uniform than the pre-2.0 rotation.

Edited August 5, 2013 by KeyboardNinja

That seems more like an argument for buffing Vig over buffing focus. As you say, a 10% boost to ST damage can only make it even more OP in PVP, and in general would serve to even further deter watchman use. I'll also note that with a few exceptions the AoE Sniper/Gunslinger tree also falls pretty far behind their single target damage specs.

 

Giving up single target damage is the price you pay for getting awesome AoE damage. It'd be another matter entirely if Focus was the only good DPS spec, but sentinels have 3 of them, and there ARE the odd fights where Focus shines even in PVE while it's pretty much the goto spec in PVP.

 

More burst will make it OP. not ST damage. As a bad example in the skill tree maybe ADD a new talent in T7 that puts a dot on smash. Switch focused resonance and force health. Pretty much you gotta have 38/39 points in focus in order to get the skill. Pve can prob do this, pvp allittle harder.

 

That's my bad stab at it, I'm sure others can get a better solution

Rage isn't overpowered, just that many non sniper dps specs are underpowered.

Rage isn't overpowered, just that many non sniper dps specs are underpowered.

 

The conversation is rage is underpowered in pve I think...

10% on either of our tanks would be another 120 DPS. That's 52800 damage over the course of the entire DG fight, which is 4% of Kel'sara's pre-nerf HP. When your raid group is literally to the point of leveling agents to get Ambrosia Orbs, killing Nightmare Pilgrim with the lockout debuff and dropping Cybertech grenades at scripted points, 120 DPS sounds like gold.

 

Didn't realize your tanks were getting that much damage out on Heriad on phase 1 and Cephass phase 2, (real dps, minus their wasted damage being done to maintain threat on their real tank targets). So I guess I could see this being a decent boost.

 

There are very, very few fights where AoE seriously matters in the current endgame. Dash'roode is basically the only one. For the other fights, a couple of XS Flyby drops is enough to nuke the adds without any real attention. I wouldn't mind Focus being behind in the single-target DPS department if the content design emphasized AoE burst moments as much as it emphasizes single-target sustained DPS. This isn't the case though, which is why I feel that Focus isn't in a particularly good place w.r.t. PvE.

 

Ok, but if you say a "couple XS Flyby drops" would indicate that you have 2 snipers in your group. In 16, the adds just won't die with two... so I assume you mean 8 man... which either highlights how overpowered snipers really are in current content or that you are assuming everyone runs with 2 snipers (most likely because they are really overpowered...)

 

If your group does not have these snipers then SOMEONE needs to pick up the AOE. Your class has an answer to that dilemma. I speak from the flip side of this coin, since they felt obligated to give Pyro PT/Assault Trooper more AOE... in the process they had to nerf our primary dot (which was getting spread out to the adds thanks to the mechanics change) because it would be too "OP". This dot used to be our highest dps contribution to a fight sitting around 30% or more of our damage... they cut this damage in half.

 

My tale of caution and fear, if you get what you are requesting, Focus gets a buff to single target. You will most likely see your AOE drop dramatically... which will completely REMOVE any hope of you having a spec at all that can AOE.

 

Right now, any fight that has AOE, if you are not spec'd Focus you might as well just leave the adds alone because it is a waste of time and effort. Dash'rode, Titan 6, Writhing Horror, Phase 2 Operator, Thrasher, Phase 1 Operations Chief (technically they could change spec's between phase 1 and the start of the real fight if you are quick enough and drop combat... I'll give you that is a stretch though claiming importance for this fight). At least 5/12 fights where AOE adds are rather important... Trust me, my Flamethrower loves these add fights and is the only reason I am able to sustain higher dps numbers on most fights given how badly the PT/Trooper were gimped. So don't fool yourself into thinking that the adds are unimportant.

 

You just seem to be in a group that can afford to let you stay on the boss and single target, letting others pick up the AOE slack that you are leaving behind. If that is the case, that is fine, your group is adapting to your current composition. But suppose you didn't have two snipers for your 8 man... then what?

1 Gunslinger/Sniper DPS and/or 1 Scoundrel/Operative DPS and/or 1 Scoundrel/Operative Healer is not unimaginable nor should would this composition be seen as overstacking a particular AC. And, you would have several Flybys/Orbital Strikes.

 

I believe KBN's general request/observation is that Focus/Rage falls significantly behind the other available specs for single-target damage. It may even be so far behind to warrant a boost. This is irrespective of group composition.

Didn't realize your tanks were getting that much damage out on Heriad on phase 1 and Cephass phase 2, (real dps, minus their wasted damage being done to maintain threat on their real tank targets). So I guess I could see this being a decent boost.

 

After the opening 3 GCDs, we don't touch our "real" target at all. We just hold agro with splash damage. Phase 2 is actually really good for our DPS, since we have essentially 100% uptime on Ciphas (aside from a 1-2 second gap when he jumps and I sprint after him). Phase 3 is where things suck, since I can't DPS during Force Leech due to my self-heals.

 

Ok, but if you say a "couple XS Flyby drops" would indicate that you have 2 snipers in your group. In 16, the adds just won't die with two... so I assume you mean 8 man... which either highlights how overpowered snipers really are in current content or that you are assuming everyone runs with 2 snipers (most likely because they are really overpowered...)

 

It is 8 man, and we generally run two gunslingers, a focus sentinel and a gunnery commando in our main group. Our second group has three gunslingers and a combat sentinel. So yeah, we do generally run very AoE heavy groups. The combat sentinel still usually respecs Focus during Thrasher just to deal with the adds on the wall, but we could almost as easily send a gunslinger up (and we have in the past).

 

I do agree that the AoE has to come from somewhere on AoE heavy fights. The issue is that there are very, very few AoE heavy fights. Even on Operator IX, there are only two adds and they melt even under single-target DPS during Black Obtuse. AoE DPS is simply unnecessary in that fight unless you're on 16 man (where roles are more specialized).

 

My tale of caution and fear, if you get what you are requesting, Focus gets a buff to single target. You will most likely see your AOE drop dramatically... which will completely REMOVE any hope of you having a spec at all that can AOE.

 

I'm not sure that would be fair though from a game perspective. Note how Focus Guardians have single-target DPS that rivals Vig, but the same AoE DPS as a Focus Sentinel. People still play Vig though, so it's not like this evenness has completely destroyed Guardian balance.

 

I do think that a spec which is specialized on AoE should have lower single-target DPS in theory. The problem is that this game does not have content which justifies an AoE-specialized DPS class. Everything is slanted dramatically in favor of single-target DPS.

 

You just seem to be in a group that can afford to let you stay on the boss and single target, letting others pick up the AOE slack that you are leaving behind. If that is the case, that is fine, your group is adapting to your current composition. But suppose you didn't have two snipers for your 8 man... then what?

 

I agree that the AoE DPS needs to exist, but specializing so heavily on AoE at the expense of single-target is really problematic. Snipers are a great example. They have excellent on-demand AoE, but they're also the second-highest single-target DPS class in the game. Shouldn't sniper single-target DPS be nerfed to account for this fact? Basically, by your metric, the highest single-target DPS in the game (by far) should be infiltration shadow, watchman sentinel and combat sentinel (in that order). That's simply not how things are balanced.

Update 2: Final questions have been posted! I made a last-minute decision to swap the Combat/Carnage question with a question on Centering/Fury. This decision was based on my own concerns, as well as the advice of top sentinels/marauders.

 

This made me sad :-(

 

Surely, the centering/fury issue is a problem. But why drop the combat/carnage RNG out of the vision of our class problems? I think, this RNG was more important than focus/rage single target dps. Isn't it kind of obvious... focus/rage is built entirely around smash / force sweep. Make a guess why the single target dps is lower :-p

 

I do think that a spec which is specialized on AoE should have lower single-target DPS in theory. The problem is that this game does not have content which justifies an AoE-specialized DPS class. Everything is slanted dramatically in favor of single-target DPS.

Ehm... PVP? Roflstomping smashers in pick-up groups? I think, this is a rather sufficient reason.

 

However, I have the impression this complete thread and discussion goes in totally wrong directions. Every spec has its major headlines that justify for their application in certain scenarios: PVP/PVE, burst, sustain, AOE

 

Watchmen

Why does a discussion come up about ramp-up times for watchmen in PVP? This is complete the wrong discussion topic here. Watchmen was the #1 PVP spec for one single reason: Sustain by self-heals

The nerf on the crit rating curve was the death blow for watchmen in PVP. This is the point... not ramp-up times.

 

Combat

Dropped out of the discussion by simply ommiting it in the 3 BioWare questions. Grats!

 

Focus

The entire skill tree is built around one AOE dmg jump. Why does there come up a discussion about complains for single-target dps. Whether the fraction of AOE and single target dps is on a proper level compared to other classes is a balance issue and not a skill tree issue.

 

Well, I had the impression, KeaboardNinja would be able to put the major issues on the table. He did it but the follow-up discussions are just weirdly going in wrong directions.

 

My 2 cents...

Edited August 7, 2013 by keeroo

I must say I am rather disappointed with the fact that combat hasn't been mentioned whatsoever

Update 2: Final questions have been posted! I made a last-minute decision to swap the Combat/Carnage question with a question on Centering/Fury. This decision was based on my own concerns, as well as the advice of top sentinels/marauders.

 

This made me sad :-(

 

Surely, the centering/fury issue is a problem. But why drop the combat/carnage RNG out of the vision of our class problems? I think, this RNG was more important than focus/rage single target dps. Isn't it kind of obvious... focus/rage is built entirely around smash / force sweep. Make a guess why the single target dps is lower :-p

 

I must agree with Keeroo. The centering issue has been around a long time. The RNG problem is more pressing, methinks, since it absolutely has the largest impact on Combat's sustained dps capability. Leaving us at the mercy of the RNG gods is a mistake that punishes elite and average skilled players alike. No other class has a built in 10-20% penalty (assuming the RNG and Crit gods hate the player) for doing nothing wrong.

This made me sad :-(

 

Surely, the centering/fury issue is a problem. But why drop the combat/carnage RNG out of the vision of our class problems? I think, this RNG was more important than focus/rage single target dps. Isn't it kind of obvious... focus/rage is built entirely around smash / force sweep. Make a guess why the single target dps is lower :-p

 

And that would be why Guardian Focus single-target DPS is lower than Vig, right? Except that it isn't.

 

Simply put, I dropped Combat/Carnage RNG out of the class questions this month because the top players, as well as my own experiences, provide evidence that the issue is overstated. Steadfast provided parse evidence that his RNG-related variance is less than 5% (note: this is well within crit-related variance seen by classes like Gunslingers/Snipers). My own parses have been known to vary by about 10%, but that's across multiple days and with a connection that is…less than consistent. Usually when I parse and I hit a value at the top end of my range, I can parse more and stay very close to that number, which suggests that the RNG more controllable than has been suggested. On top of this, you have Gudarzz and Oofalong also asserting that the RNG is largely a non-issue, and several sentinels/marauders that I respect PMing me suggesting that the centering issue is more pressing in their view.

 

The largest issue I see with Combat's proc structure is that it does require nearly 100% uptime to babysit those procs and ensure they're ready when your burst is coming. This is very hard to do in PvP, and arguably impossible. Granted, the uptime requirements are not as severe as they are in Watchman, but they do exist.

 

Ehm... PVP? Roflstomping smashers in pick-up groups? I think, this is a rather sufficient reason.

 

All specs should be viable in all circumstances. By "viable" I mean close enough to the mean that you would take the player rather than the spec. That isn't the case right now with Sentinel Focus, which is why it isn't balanced.

 

However, I have the impression this complete thread and discussion goes in totally wrong directions. Every spec has its major headlines that justify for their application in certain scenarios: PVP/PVE, burst, sustain, AOE

 

AoE isn't a justification in a realm which is severely biased toward single-target sustained damage (raids). That's my point.

 

Why does a discussion come up about ramp-up times for watchmen in PVP? This is complete the wrong discussion topic here. Watchmen was the #1 PVP spec for one single reason: Sustain by self-heals

The nerf on the crit rating curve was the death blow for watchmen in PVP. This is the point... not ramp-up times.

 

The crit "nerf" isn't going away. All stats had to be rebalanced for 2.0. Poking Bioware in this direction isn't really going to achieve anything. Remember that our stat budgets will continue to increase, and as we get to the top end of the DR curves (i.e. relatively where we were back in the Dread Guard tier), ideal stat balance will be largely where it was just pre-2.0. In other words, crit is coming back in a big way, it's just not there yet because the stat budgets are so comparatively low. Even in Kell Dragon gear, we are only sc****** into Tionese and Columi gear in terms of relative stat budgets. Crit was a very, very low priority back then, if you recall.

 

Dropped out of the discussion by simply ommiting it in the 3 BioWare questions. Grats!

 

Rationale stated above.

 

The entire skill tree is built around one AOE dmg jump. Why does there come up a discussion about complains for single-target dps. Whether the fraction of AOE and single target dps is on a proper level compared to other classes is a balance issue and not a skill tree issue.

 

It is a balance issue. Hence the question.

 

Well, I had the impression, KeaboardNinja would be able to put the major issues on the table. He did it but the follow-up discussions are just weirdly going in wrong directions.

 

Well, I'm sorry you were disappointed. In the end, I raised the points which were, in my judgment and the judgment of the community, the most serious issues afflicting the class, both in terms of balance and quality-of-life. Really, the only way in which I went against the "voice of the masses" in the questions was dropping the Combat question, which I did because I had concrete objective evidence which invalidated the concerns as stated.

 

I must agree with Keeroo. The centering issue has been around a long time. The RNG problem is more pressing, methinks, since it absolutely has the largest impact on Combat's sustained dps capability. Leaving us at the mercy of the RNG gods is a mistake that punishes elite and average skilled players alike. No other class has a built in 10-20% penalty (assuming the RNG and Crit gods hate the player) for doing nothing wrong.

 

There are two gunslingers in my guild who have parsed 3.1k DPS. According to them, if they sit down on a dummy and just do a single parse, they would expect it to be in the low 2.9s. That's a 6% penalty. Hybrid Vanguards are even crazier, since they are capable of parsing 3.1-3.2k, but a low-end dummy parse for them might be as low as 2.8k. Other classes do have penalties, and the top-end parses you tend to see are the ones where the stars align on procs and crits. Combat is no different.

 

According to Steadfast, the variance he sees is just under 5%. Now, adjust that for the fact that Steadfast is really, really good, and you'll see an expected variance in the 7% range, which is just a hair over what a sharpshooter gunslinger sees. That's just not a wide enough gap to be compelling. I've certainly seen larger variance in my parses, but I didn't exactly sit on the dummy for 10 hours and parse a bazillion times to test. My numbers were casually computed over about a week, and I freely admit that my internet connection is inconsistent at best (thank you, Comcast).

 

In short, I don't think that the RNG issue is as much of a problem as has been asserted. It's certainly less of a problem than it is for classes like Commandos where you can see a 20% variance with unlucky Demo Round crits and Curtain of Fire procs; and yes, I have parses to prove that. The Centering/Fury issue has been around for a long time, but that doesn't make it any less of an issue.

Edited August 7, 2013 by KeyboardNinja

KBN, Just because in your view it is overstated, Doesn't mean it isnt an issue does it?. You have left one of the specs out of the questions. Some of us don't play those two specs you have questioned. You should of spread your questions largely around the three. Being the "representative" that is, You should know of all people balancing specs for both PVE and PVP is the devils work, one will always suffer, Focus is largely a killer in PVP but in sucks in PVE, Watchman is good in PVE but sucks in PVP. Combat is mediocre in both, it has some nice burst based on RNG, which sucks in PVP gets tiring trying to play and hope the dice roll my way.

KBN, Just because in your view it is overstated, Doesn't mean it isnt an issue does it?. You have left one of the specs out of the questions. Some of us don't play those two specs you have questioned. You should of spread your questions largely around the three.

 

I thought about that. As a fellow Combat sentinel, be assured that it wasn't simply due to my own spec preferences! :-) The Centering/Fury building question affects all three specs, so it's not as if I left Combat completely out in the cold. More importantly, Combat is balanced (or very, very close to it) in both PvP and PvE, which puts it in a much better place overall than the two specs which were specifically called out.

 

I think that the RNG in Combat is definitely annoying, and it can certainly cause some issues that are unavoidable (largely due to procs failing to, er, proc). I think if Centering/Fury wasn't an issue, I probably would have still asked about Combat RNG.

 

Being the "representative" that is, You should know of all people balancing specs for both PVE and PVP is the devils work, one will always suffer, Focus is largely a killer in PVP but in sucks in PVE, Watchman is good in PVE but sucks in PVP. Combat is mediocre in both, it has some nice burst based on RNG, which sucks in PVP gets tiring trying to play and hope the dice roll my way.

 

Combat is really, really good in PvE. When you have people parsing nearly 3.2k in Underworld gear, it's hard to say that a spec is "mediocre". Granted, those people don't hit those numbers every time, but even on the low end, they're still parsing as well as gunslingers/snipers.

 

As for PvP, the uptime requirements to manage procs in Combat are super-annoying, and I was thinking about phrasing a question around that. The burst isn't "on demand" in that we can't delay or accelerate it in any way. It just happens once every 20 seconds. That can still be extremely useful. I mean, if you have Zen up and you leap to a healer, they would need to be incredibly twitchy and accurate on their reactions to avoid getting melted. Combat also plays a very utility-heavy role in PvP, providing fast Transcendence and a boatload of roots and snares. I'd say that makes up for the lower control level on its burst.

 

At the very least, ranked teams (very) often take Combat sentinels. That alone indicates that they're in at least a passably good place in PvP.

KBN, Just because in your view it is overstated, Doesn't mean it isnt an issue does it?. You have left one of the specs out of the questions. Some of us don't play those two specs you have questioned. You should of spread your questions largely around the three. Being the "representative" that is, You should know of all people balancing specs for both PVE and PVP is the devils work, one will always suffer, Focus is largely a killer in PVP but in sucks in PVE, Watchman is good in PVE but sucks in PVP. Combat is mediocre in both, it has some nice burst based on RNG, which sucks in PVP gets tiring trying to play and hope the dice roll my way.

 

I would characterize Combat as more than mediocre in in PvE. I can make a case that it is in fact superior to Watchman in PvE. Considering Combat is at least playable in PvP, it makes this spec arguably the least in-need currently.

 

I would also suggest the burst does not appear as good as one might think because the frame of reference is skewed. In a worst case scenario, you get a proc right after you used Precision Slash/Gore. In your first window, you can still use whatever abilities you had planned on using without the proc; this is pretty good burst damage. Then, you get an additional window with a free Dispatch/Vicious Throw even if the other attacks are Strike and Blade Rush you still have more burst then you otherwise would have had. In essence, the RNG is frustrating because it forces a comparison between an inopportune Precision Slash/Gore window to an ideal Precision Slash/Gore window.

 

Furthermore, I think the issue is not as simple as RNG. There is discussion on this over here on alternative underlying issues. And, even if RNG is the underlying issue with the spec, it is still very competitive in PvE, which means any solution needs to address PvP-specific factors, which is not expressly RNG. I am confident the Marauder questions will include one specifically about Combat/Carnage.

 

Finally, I like that KBN asked a simple and easy-to-understand question relating to Centering/Fury. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the only question that the Devs definitively answer.

Finally, I like that KBN asked a simple and easy-to-understand question relating to Centering/Fury. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the only question that the Devs definitively answer.

 

Honestly yes, this is the broader problem. My other two questions, particularly the Watchman/Annihilation one, are easy to either misinterpret or skew in an unfortunate direction. I think they're both important issues, and they needed to be asked, but perhaps the questions could have used some more editing before posting.

KBN, Just because in your view it is overstated, Doesn't mean it isnt an issue does it?. You have left one of the specs out of the questions. Some of us don't play those two specs you have questioned. You should of spread your questions largely around the three. Being the "representative" that is, You should know of all people balancing specs for both PVE and PVP is the devils work, one will always suffer, Focus is largely a killer in PVP but in sucks in PVE, Watchman is good in PVE but sucks in PVP. Combat is mediocre in both, it has some nice burst based on RNG, which sucks in PVP gets tiring trying to play and hope the dice roll my way.

 

If you think Combat is mediocre, then you aren't playing it right.

If you think Combat is mediocre, then you aren't playing it right.

 

It is below mediocre in reg warzone without a premade. You take a ridiculous amount of damage and your total dmg is pathetic. That has been my experience. No I am not a bad player it is the spec -__-, I faceroll with faceroll specs just fine. Good players are overrating the spec because they play with pocket heals and with good teams, try solo queing you will be disappointed with how it performs.(probably)

Edited August 8, 2013 by MarkXXIV

First of all, thanks for your detailed replies

The crit "nerf" isn't going away. All stats had to be rebalanced for 2.0. Poking Bioware in this direction isn't really going to achieve anything. Remember that our stat budgets will continue to increase, and as we get to the top end of the DR curves (i.e. relatively where we were back in the Dread Guard tier), ideal stat balance will be largely where it was just pre-2.0. In other words, crit is coming back in a big way, it's just not there yet because the stat budgets are so comparatively low. Even in Kell Dragon gear, we are only sc****** into Tionese and Columi gear in terms of relative stat budgets. Crit was a very, very low priority back then, if you recall.

 

I had a big question mark above my head how you could state "crit is coming back in a big way". You wrote on your own this thread refering to mmo-mechanics. According to the graphs, crit is the worst paying off stat amongst any other damage stats. The curve looks also rather static.

 

Do you already have calculations or insights on DR curves beyond the currently achievable level? Do you think, there will be gear in the future where you can decide between stuff like:

• New PVP gear item: +200 strength, +500 crit, +100 surge
  
• Other PVP gear item from same set: +200 strength, +100 accuracy, +100 surge
  

 

How extremely large do upcomming crit stats have to be on new gear sets compared to other secondary stats to justify such a statement?

Edited August 8, 2013 by keeroo

I had a big question mark above my head how you could state "crit is coming back in a big way". You wrote on your own this thread refering to mmo-mechanics. According to the graphs, crit is the worst paying off stat amongst any other damage stats. The curve looks also rather static.

 

The graph at mmo-mechanics was charting the rate of return of each stat individually. That can be somewhat deceptive in determining the value of a particular stat at an arbitrary stat budget because the value of crit increases (dramatically) as a) your weapons are upgraded, and b) your power is upgraded. Also, incidental statting in surge dramatically increases the value of crit, as you would expect.

 

Here's an example. Let's imagine we have an ability which does 2k standard damage (before crit). Imagine a base crit chance of 20% and surge of 70%:

 

2000 * (1 + 0.2 * 0.7) = 2280

 

If we increase the crit chance by 1%, we get the following:

 

2000 * (1 + 0.21 * 0.7) = 2294

 

That's a damage increase of just 14, which isn't all that much. Now, let's imagine that we have an ability which does 4k damage:

 

4000 * (1 + 0.2 * 0.7) = 4560

 

If we make the same increase:

 

4000 * (1 + 0.21 * 0.7) = 4588

 

Now the increase is 28, as you would expect from doubling the initial value. Here's the key point though. Using a trivialized stat model, we can imagine that 1% crit requires 15 points of crit rating (it doesn't; not even close), but those 15 points could be spent in power to increase the base damage by 15 points. This would be a better investment, since we would end up with 2297 points of damage post-crit. However, if we're starting with a base damage level of 4000 (caused by, for example, a larger amount of power at a base level), 15 points of power still yields just 15 points of damage, bringing the post crit value up to 4577. However, putting those 15 points into crit gives us 1% crit chance, which yields 4588. Thus, crit has *become* a better stat simply because our power, tech/force power and main/off-hand damage has increased.

 

Obviously, these numbers are completely made up, but you see what I mean. Even without touching surge, increasing your power, tech/force power and upgrading your weapons increases the value of crit relative to the value of power. This is why I say that crit is coming back in a big way in a few more tiers of gear.

 

Do you think, there will be gear in the future where you can decide between stuff like:

• New PVP gear item: +200 strength, +500 crit, +100 surge
  
• Other PVP gear item from same set: +200 strength, +100 accuracy, +100 surge
  

 

How extremely large do upcomming crit stats have to be on new gear sets compared to other secondary stats to justify such a statement?

 

The exact value at which crit overtakes power depends a lot on your class. For example, if you're a commando healer and you haven't statted *at all* into Alacrity, crit is already better than power. The same thing holds for scoundrel healers. However, even if we look at DPS classes that have extremely high surge bonuses (e.g. Focus sentinels), crit still isn't worth taking. It's hard to calculate exactly where the line is going to be drawn, but some classes are already hitting it, depending on their itemization. Keep an eye on the spreadsheets.

 

Regarding your question on gear which allows trading accuracy for crit at a beneficial ratio, no, I don't think that's going to happen. Bioware seems pretty happy with how the stats trade off against each other (I am too), so they seem unlikely to change something that fundamental.

How extremely large do upcomming crit stats have to be on new gear sets compared to other secondary stats to justify such a statement?

 

The more damage your non-crits do, the (even) more damage a crit will do because it works with percentages, as opposed to power. As base damage rises (due to mainstat, mainhand/offhand damage, force power, power), the value of a critical hit will start to become more significant than adding more base damage through power. Coupled with a higher surge rating, crit will give you more bang for your buck than power because it's a percentage based stat. Eventually, gear-wise.

 

Let's say an ability does 10000 damage, non-crit (extreme example, but shows the theory). Adding 100 power will make that 10023.

Adding 100 to a starting 0 crit will give you roughly 2% critical chance. If we take 80% surge (not all that crazy high if we consider higher gear levels), a crit is 18000 damage. Which translates in 0.02 * 18000 = 360 average damage, meaning that the average damage for the ability is 10360, a full 337 more than if you used power.

 

This is of course a very oversimplified example, but I hope it gets my point across.

 

edit: What ^ he said, but less well explained.

Edited August 8, 2013 by paulyWALNUTS

Obviously, these numbers are completely made up, but you see what I mean. Even without touching surge, increasing your power, tech/force power and upgrading your weapons increases the value of crit relative to the value of power. This is why I say that crit is coming back in a big way in a few more tiers of gear.

 

Yeah, understood now what you mean. I think, the saturation of the surge curve is also showing that this stat has reached already its limit while other like crit, accuracy and alacrity show still a more or less constant slope on values above 1000.

Edited August 8, 2013 by keeroo

Yeah, understood now what you mean. I think, the saturation of the surge curve is also showing that this stat has reached already its limit while other like crit, accuracy and alacrity show still a more or less constant slope.

 

Yeah those charts on MMO Mechanics suck, and I created them. I truthfully see no value in them especially when all plotted together. I updated them because the first admins on that site created so I assumed someone somewhere saw value in them. I am re-writing that whole section of MMO Mechanics; I hope to have updates in the next 2-3 weeks. The current information is accurate, I just feel there can be a better way to present it.

It is below mediocre in reg warzone without a premade. You take a ridiculous amount of damage and your total dmg is pathetic. That has been my experience. No I am not a bad player it is the spec -__-, I faceroll with faceroll specs just fine. Good players are overrating the spec because they play with pocket heals and with good teams, try solo queing you will be disappointed with how it performs.(probably)

 

Spoilered cause Im wordy today.

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by Maelael

Yeah those charts on MMO Mechanics suck, and I created them. I truthfully see no value in them especially when all plotted together. I updated them because the first admins on that site created so I assumed someone somewhere saw value in them. I am re-writing that whole section of MMO Mechanics; I hope to have updates in the next 2-3 weeks. The current information is accurate, I just feel there can be a better way to present it.

Fully agree. I unpacked my gnuplot skills and also replotted these things according to the numbers from KeyboardNinja. It would be really interesting to figure out all the soft caps properly according to default dmg reduction (25k armor?) and defense chance (5%?)...

 

Edit:

I tried to plot the damage ratios for accuracy, alacrity, and critical ratings.

 

Prerequisite are the calculations from KeyboardNinja for the percentages as real number values:

critr(x) = 30 * (1-(1-(0.01/0.3))**((x/55)/0.9 ))

critm(x) = 20 * (1-(1-(0.01/0.2))**((x/55)/5.5 ))

alac(x) = 30 * (1-(1-(0.01/0.3))**((x/55)/1.25))

acc(x) = 30 * (1-(1-(0.01/0.3))**((x/55)/1.2 ))

 

critr is critrating

critm is critbonus according to main stat (aim, strength, cunning, willpower)

alac is alacrity rating

acc is accuracy rating

 

In my plot, I took an average damage hit of 1500. The default defence chance is 5% and the default accuracy is 90%. I put the surge rating on a constant of 72% because this seems to be already the soft cap.

 

The hitAverage is calculated as dmg times default accuracy against defense chance (dmg=1500):

hitAverage = dmg * accuracy * (1-def)

 

The bonus damage achieved from the different ratings of accuracy, alacrity, and critical ratings were calculated like this (with surge=0.72):

Crit = hitAverage+hitAverage*(critr(t)/100)*surge

Alac = hitAverage*(1+alac(t)/100)

Acc = hitAverage*(1+acc(t)/100)

 

My plot looks like this from ratings t=[1:1000]

Damage curves

 

Especially, larger rating values indicate a clear impression: Alacrity and Accuracy outperform critical rating. And I think, accuracy above 15% is already a cap itself... However, Critical rating is the worst amongst all stats. And this is contradicting KeyboardNinjas statements about a big comeback of critical ratings :-p

 

Is this a big future impact of alacrity against all previous statements of alacrity being the most useless dps stat?

 

Please comment any impressions and errors -.-

Edited August 9, 2013 by keeroo

Especially, larger rating values indicate a clear impression: Alacrity and Accuracy outperform critical rating. And I think, accuracy above 15% is already a cap itself... However, Critical rating is the worst amongst all stats. And this is contradicting KeyboardNinjas statements about a big comeback of critical ratings :-p

 

Oh this would absolutely be true, except that alacrity and accuracy do not compete against crit. Crit is weighed strictly against power and secondarily against main stat at very high disparities (no class is going to get to the point where main stat out-weighs power/crit by enough to matter). Augment slots are of course a special case, since all the stats are competing. However, they are not the primary source of itemization. Since you cannot trade alacrity for crit, the comparison is somewhat misleading.

 

The real question is: at what damage levels will 1 point of crit provide a more significant contribution than 1 point of power? Those levels aren't far off. On the subject of alacrity, the real question is: at what levels of surge, assuming you already have 100% accuracy, will 1 point of alacrity exceed the value of 1 point of surge. I think that's probably going to happen when our surge budgets get to around 550-600, but I haven't done hard math to prove this. It's tricky because this line interacts with the threshold for crit vs power, since surge and crit magnify the other's value at a higher rate than power does (and much higher than alacrity).