Does this 35% put it in range of it's near-mirror specs Focus / Rage?

 

Anyway, I suspect the devs are tweaking all specs to get them in their target range based on the next tier of gear:

GC 400 & 252. Anyone?

 

Yeah probably in regard to the gear. But still arsenal for instance got nuked more than 100dps bellow marskman and tk/lightning, pyro did not get buffed up to annihilation level, and madness did not get buffed up to Saboteur/Eng level. I am citing these as they are not like 100-150dps difference but more like anywhere from 200 to 400dps difference.

Edited August 8, 2017 by ottffsse

Does this 35% put it in range of it's near-mirror specs Focus / Rage?

 

Anyway, I suspect the devs are tweaking all specs to get them in their target range based on the next tier of gear:

GC 400 & 252. Anyone?

 

Will still be a bit lower than Focus/Rage (although use of legendary utility freezing force/chilling scream is why guardian/jugg dps is where it is atm).

 

Also, that's been my theory ever since the initial nerfs as well and I'm sticking to it.

I don't know why everyone is surprised by this, I literally called this out that it was only going to get a slight buff like madness did 2 weeks ago on my stream. The spec performs very well in PvP right now, and this buff helps sustained dps while largely leaving PvP unaffected. Depending on Carnage changes, which I have been asking for for 2 years now, fury could still end up being the go to burst spec, but I have my doubts about that as well.

Uhm dps adjustments don't matter in PvP unless we are talking +/-10+% as you are not attacking non stop a dummy or stationary and taunted PvE boss. Main advantages come from cc/interrupt immunity and mobility which fury has in spades. Oh yeah and a few overtuned defensive abilities on several other classes. Any Dcd which allows a player to mitigate/cancel+even heal through damage while still being able to attack the opposing side will make a class strong in PvP.

 

Thank you for explaining basics of game play. Please keep the useful insights coming.

 

All held equal, clearly nefing dps without adjusting DCDs in a stale meta is good. Maybe after a few patches of this bulls**t we stop fighting in PvP, and do a dance party. Fury was not nerfed, but does this mean its damage output is in line, BW cannot measure damage output or other burst melee dps will be nerfed as well? Not sure, but I do not think BW is either.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Ottoattack

Yeah probably in regard to the gear. But still arsenal for instance got nuked more than 100dps bellow marskman and tk/lightning, pyro did not get buffed up to annihilation level, and madness did not get buffed up to Saboteur/Eng level. I am citing these as they are not like 100-150dps difference but more like anywhere from 200 to 400dps difference.

 

Fair enough. But I would think that Sniper / Mara should deal more dps based on the old paradigm of "pure dps class." By that rationale though, Focus/ Rage may get nerfed...?

 

 

Will still be a bit lower than Focus/Rage (although use of legendary utility freezing force/chilling scream is why guardian/jugg dps is where it is atm).

 

Also, that's been my theory ever since the initial nerfs as well and I'm sticking to it.

 

Good to know... I prefer the feel of Focus / Rage over Conc / Fury. If I play Sent/ Mara, I'd rather play Combat / Carnage.

 

Anyway, just wanted to know if I should bother with these changes. Seems like that's a "NO"

Edited August 8, 2017 by Rion_Starkiller

Thank you for explaining basics of game play. Please keep the useful insights coming.

 

All held equal, clearly nefing dps without adjusting DCDs in a stale meta is good. Maybe after a few patches of this bulls**t we stop fighting in PvP, and do a dance party. Fury was not nerfed, but does this mean its damage output is in line, BW cannot measure damage output or other burst melee dps will be nerfed as well? Not sure, but I do not think BW is either.

 

1.) Your guess is as good as mine on target dps output since bioware did not say an exact number, and we do not know the stats and rotation (theoretical or realistic) it is measured by. It is safe to assume it is done on 1 maybe 3 static targets though in computer models probably.

2.) anyways we all agree that several Dcds on a few classes have no place in their current state and configuration in PvP. They (devs) choose to adjust dps before touching those as I guess they want to correct what was obviously messed up since 5.0 step-by-step, this is frustrating (Season 8 is lost anyways, if by season 9 nothing changes I would say that is a serious problem). When they publish their first update addressing utility adjustments on several classes and merc isn't on there then we have a problem and need a justification why they would think some of those Dcds are fine the way they are.

I think this would actually help out a lot. Actually knowing the numbers that the Devs want the classes to be at and what kind of data they're looking at to make the changes. Having something to go off of would be great. Because as of right now, the class changes just don't make a whole lot of sense.

 

And as stated, some of the operations bosses need to be adjusted in addition to these class changes as well. HM Styrak and HM Calphayus are the most prominent in my mind in regards to this.

• Exactly how much damage is absorbed by an absorb shield? "A moderate amount" doesn't cut it.
  
• Same goes for "high-threat" abilities
  
• Oh, and threat dumps
  

Then again, it's not like the devs don't have a history of arbitrarily withholding important information...

Hey folks,

 

Here are the changes for Fury and Concentration coming in 5.4.

-eric

 

This probably didn't need to be done because Maras were pretty much the most balanced in the game. But I'm glad that you didn't go over board.

well... ...at least its not a nerf

Hey folks,

 

Here are the changes for Fury and Concentration coming in 5.4.

 

 

 

 

-eric

 

Eric,

 

I'm a fan of these changes, I think they are a step in the right direction (assuming you and your team are hesitant to changing anything to a great degree).

 

However, I think there are a couple redundancies in the spec itself which need to be sorted out.

 

Chiefly among those is the +10% aoe damage debuff, which is basically useless in a single target situation (since no ability used rotationally benefits at all).

 

Are there any plans to address this/make it useful rotationally? E.g. making obliterate do a small aoe cleave, and thus causing it to do more damage?

Who wants to bet that they are toning down DPS so they can release Tier 5 in the fall?

Who wants to bet that they are toning down DPS so they can release Tier 5 in the fall?

 

VERY stupid way to do that. How many accounts are they ready to lose to do that? There are much better ways of doing that than this.

VERY stupid way to do that. How many accounts are they ready to lose to do that? There are much better ways of doing that than this.

 

Arbitrarily deciding that Carnage should be the weakest spec when it's the most popular by a large margin and has run neck and neck with annihilation for most of SWTOR's history is also stupid but hey, dev prerogative. Sure it has the lowest defenses of the three specs but what the hell, nuke it into obsolescence anyway. You know it's coming.

 

And yes, carnage AoE damage should probably be nerfed. That was Fury's niche.

Edited August 9, 2017 by SalsaChupacabra

Arbitrarily deciding that Carnage should be the weakest spec when it's the most popular by a large margin and has run neck and neck with annihilation for most of SWTOR's history is also stupid

 

The fact that Carnage as a burst spec has nonsensically been competitive with Anni in sustained DPS and at times even outperformed it has been a conceptual flaw for most of SWTOR's history. For a period of time this was a result of the double gore windows that, as devs admitted later, had not been what they meant the spec to be doing in the first place.

 

The specs are supposed to be, and vanilla pretty much had them there, is:

 

 

 

• Anni for best sustained DPS by a significant margin, long setup, very little burst on demand
  
• Carnage for strong burst DPS on demand with short setup
  
• Fury for supreme burst DPS with no steup, but not so easy to time without losing a lot of overall DPS
  

 

 

For those who are not aware: Strongest sustained AoE is actually Anni, if you know how to make your dots jump between mobs, for if you do, you never have to reapply them. Strongest burst AoE should go to Fury, though. Atm it's with Carnage.

 

The route the Fury change is going, is basically a clever one, since it affects Fury's sustained DPS, that had been a bit too low even by what I said above, but doesn't affect PVP as much. The problem is, it should haven been more sustained, but if you just increase the number, Blade Barrage will become more important than it's meant to be rotationally. Buffing Force Crush a bit as well might do the trick.

 

Either way, class balancing will remain unnecessarily difficult, if SWTOR refuses to introduce PVP only traits to its class design.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Ardarell_Solo

The fact that Carnage as a burst spec has nonsensically been competitive with Anni in sustained DPS and at times even outperformed it has been a conceptual flaw for most of SWTOR's history. For a period of time this was a result of the double gore windows that, as devs admitted later, had not been what they meant the spec to be doing in the first place.

 

The specs are supposed to be, and vanilla pretty much had them there, is:

 

 

 

• Anni for best sustained DPS by a significant margin, long setup, very little burst on demand
  
• Carnage for strong burst DPS on demand with short setup
  
• Fury for supreme burst DPS with no steup, but not so easy to time without losing a lot of overall DPS
  

 

You are mixing 2 concepts:

- sustained dps is a quantity over a LONG period of time,

- burst is quantity over a SHORT period of time.

 

Total damage over a very long period of time should be similar. (under ideal circumstances)

 

Overall DPS should be almost equal in every spec ( a +- difference of 3% should be acceptable depending on gear, stats,...). How you get that DPS is what should vary from each spec ( APM, rotation,....). This is what should be taken into consideration for different scenarios (PVP, PVE, different group builds).

 

Other considerations for spec are the dcd they provide (or utilities), right now anni has a very minor heal, carnage a higher def and fury a cc immunity on it, they affect gameplay very differently be it pve or pvp.

You are mixing 2 concepts:

- sustained dps is a quantity over a LONG period of time,

- burst is quantity over a SHORT period of time.

 

Total damage over a very long period of time should be similar. (under ideal circumstances)

 

Overall DPS should be almost equal in every spec ( a +- difference of 3% should be acceptable depending on gear, stats,...).

 

Absolutely not: The cases in which a spec with a slow ramp up time would make sense in this weird mixup, is a fight with middle duration that does not require burst periods. In any other scenario imaginable you would always chose the burst spec, if "very long period of time damage" was equal.

 

The concept of burst vs. sustained is simply this: https://boosteria.org/wp-content/uploads/dps-and-burst.jpg

Hmm ok, well at least its not a nerf

 

Anyway I was expecting much more of a dps increase. I mean the discipline is exceling in PVP, but for PVE its useless unless you do SM or HM (some HM do have dps checks). Also I wanted some kind of advantage over the Combat spec in terms of AoE, this was an AoE spec after all.

Absolutely not: The cases in which a spec with a slow ramp up time would make sense in this weird mixup, is a fight with middle duration that does not require burst periods. In any other scenario imaginable you would always chose the burst spec, if "very long period of time damage" was equal.

 

The concept of burst vs. sustained is simply this: https://boosteria.org/wp-content/uploads/dps-and-burst.jpg

 

I refuse the concept of burst being minor in total damage,

 

Graphic should be like this Burst vs Sustained

 

PS: Graphic is tweaked to have a similar DPS to be able to watch both lines of DPS, also not to have too much data, but the concept is understable. Burst have "windows" when damage is top and valleys when damage is almost anecdotal while sustained has a growing curve and then stabilizes.

In long periods of time DPS should be similar (in ideal conditions) (we can discuss what "long" should be, but it is another topic) .

 

Sure, in pvp most people would choose burst over sustained (but they already do), in pve you can choose over your favorite way, knowing the final result is the same , just the way to achieve it, is different.

Hmm ok, well at least its not a nerf

 

Anyway I was expecting much more of a dps increase. I mean the discipline is exceling in PVP, but for PVE its useless unless you do SM or HM (some HM do have dps checks). Also I wanted some kind of advantage over the Combat spec in terms of AoE, this was an AoE spec after all.

 

The problem is the concept difference between concentration and combat (or rage and carnage) was erased when 3.0 launched, initially Conc(focus) was a burst aoe spec, with lacking single. Now we have 2 burst specs (combat and conc) and one sustained.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Aldael

I refuse the concept of burst being minor in total damage,

 

Graphic should be like this Burst vs Sustained

 

PS: Graphic is tweaked to have a similar DPS to be able to watch both lines of DPS, also not to have too much data, but the concept is understable. Burst have "windows" when damage is top and valleys when damage is almost anecdotal while sustained has a growing curve and then stabilizes.

In long periods of time DPS should be similar (in ideal conditions) (we can discuss what "long" should be, but it is another topic) .

 

Sure, in pvp most people would choose burst over sustained (but they already do), in pve you can choose over your favorite way, knowing the final result is the same , just the way to achieve it, is different.

 

If your interpretation was correct, why would someone ever pick a sustained spec (for reasons other than personal preference I guess)?

Edited August 9, 2017 by LordTurin

Carnage has been the go to spec for everything in Ops since 3.0. Longer than the Arsenal schenagians. Carnage shouldn't be close to at all to Anni in sustained as of right now.

If your interpretation was correct, why would someone ever pick a sustained spec (for reasons other than personal preference I guess)?

 

And what is wrong with picking a spec as a personal preference?

Just think it the other way around, if spec A is far superior in damage, why would anyone choose B other than personal preference? (i assume A is sustained and B is burst for you)

 

The main focus of a dps class is to do damage, but how you do it, or the utilities/buffs you get in every spec should be different enough to let you pick between them (but that is a different topic of discussion), if not you have wasted time and resources in something very few will take.

 

Carnage has been the go to spec for everything in Ops since 3.0. Longer than the Arsenal schenagians. Carnage shouldn't be close to at all to Anni in sustained as of right now.

 

Actually Anni had always higher potential output than the others specs, not saying that it performed better always, some fights were designed not to be sustained and worked better with burst.

I refuse the concept of burst being minor in total damage, [sNIP]

 

https://i0.wp.com/mindpluckd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Denial.gif

Well, noone can stop you from making up your own reality :-)

Just think it the other way around, if spec A is far superior in damage, why would anyone choose B other than personal preference? (i assume A is sustained and B is burst for you)

 

Because fights are designed differently.

 

Operator IX NiM Datacores require burst damage and the coordination demand of killing two of them within 5 seconds makes dot classes (which tend to be sustained) unsuitable for said coordination. Same with burst requirements for Styrak NiM Adds, droids on Revan HM or generally, fights with difficult add based mechanics.

 

Single target fights with difficult enrage requirements and maybe soft enrage mechanics will ask you to chose sustained DPS classes (meaning classes with superior overall output): Writhing Horror NiM, Kephess (TFB) NiM, Dash'roode & Titan 6 NiM, Tyrans NiM, Grob'thok NiM, Bulo HM, Coratanni HM etc.

 

If the latter bosses are equally well played on a burst class with same long time DPS level, it really makes no sense whatsoever to play sustained classes in the first place.

Carnage has been the go to spec for everything in Ops since 3.0. Longer than the Arsenal schenagians. Carnage shouldn't be close to at all to Anni in sustained as of right now.

 

Sadly, the rotation is garbage in anni. It has got to be one of the worst rotations since pyrotech. I actually miss the ravage clips, because at least it made the spec somewhat interesting.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Rion_Starkiller