The Anti-Destro Patch and its Discontents

[Orontes]

The recent Anti-Destro Patch and its profound flaws allows for a few questions.

Warhammer Online was presented as a game where class diversity was a hallmark. No class would be pigeon holed into a single role, but performing competently a multitude of ways: DPS dealing healers being a prime example. I believe Return of Reckoning also holds to the ideal that each mastery line should be viable. If that is correct, then class balance patches should be looking to increase the viability of class mastery lines.

-How are the Powers measuring to determine if class X with a mastery focus Y is performing at a desirable level?
-What testing is being done to measure if change to a given ability in question will achieve the desired goal?
-Do the Powers have a testing server?
-How long are changes tested before presented?
- Are changes measured against other changes prior to implementation?
-Are changes informed by input from high renown players of the class in question?

From reports of those who submit data to the Powers, (and perhaps as the core metric) class viability is based off of City Instance total DPS scores. The perception is changes are made based of the ‘squeaky wheel model’: comments from streamers, hyper active forum users, those with personal ties to the Powers. The go-to corrective is to simply nerf. If this is incorrect, what is the determinative process?

[wargrimnir]

This guy again.

[Orontes]

I now right. It would be so much easier with a passive mindless player base indifferent to the errors of the Powers.

[wargrimnir]

Feel free to explore the rest of the forum and keep up with ongoing developments that may already solve your burning questions. If you don't find the answer, you're probably not going to get one. You're openly biased, and the thinly veiled veneer of curiosity is hardly covering the obvious contempt for any balancing done here.

[Duukar]

Feel free to explore the rest of the forum and keep up with ongoing developments that may already solve your burning questions. If you don't find the answer, you're probably not going to get one. You're openly biased, and the thinly veiled veneer of curiosity is hardly covering the obvious contempt for any balancing done here.

Balance... I nearly spit my coffee on the screen.. Lets have another 1 star IC to test things out!

[ravezaar]

so 2020 when it was 1 star Altdorf after Altdorf and record of 27 Des City wins in a row, then it was never balance, all we Order heard then was: Git Gud

[agemennon675]

1 star IC or Altdorf is just about numbers so whenever a patch like this happen people switch to test things out some guilds even switch just to protest but that proved to be useless in the past

[sharpblader]

Balance... I nearly spit my coffee on the screen.. Lets have another 1 star IC to test things out!

Fun fact: Frequent 1 star IC is a recent phenomenon brought upon by factors unrelated to any balance changes made.

A better way to check for balance is the result of the individual city instances. Even there for a proper comparable study, both sides should have organized groups at relatively the same gear level which of course is not always the case.

[oaliaen]

Dont worry , destro will keep winning citys nomatter you golden boys aka order try .. Lets see the next nerf.

[Orontes]

Feel free to explore the rest of the forum and keep up with ongoing developments that may already solve your burning questions. If you don't find the answer, you're probably not going to get one. You're openly biased, and the thinly veiled veneer of curiosity is hardly covering the obvious contempt for any balancing done here.

Would that life could be reduced to simply claiming a view one is opposed as 'biased' so no real engagement is needed.

I am opposed to the nerf to engi and magi pet bonus damage being halved. Explain the bias.

I am open to the Powers explaining their process. I think transparency is a good thing. Explain the bias.

I've found that often those who hide their processes do so, because they cannot justify them or, don't have a real process, and are simply making things up as they go. I can give an example. In the March 18th engi/magi Patch of Infamy the Dev. explained the pet damage nerf to half the bonus damage as a bug fix. This was demonstrably false. The previous pet bonus damage was directly tied to a duo class rework from 2016 in order to make engi and magi competitive. The patch citation was and can be given again at any time. There was no bug. This means the Dev was lying, or simply ignorant. My guess is he was ignorant and invented a reason to gut both classes damage across all abilities as a lazy way to deal with what was perceived by him as two over performing abilities. Instead of addressing the two abilities in question, he opted to drop a bomb affecting all damage across all masteries. We also have claims from those who submit class data (both from the engi/magi Patch of Infamy and this new anti-destro patch) that their recommendations seem to have no sway. Now, I might be wrong on those conclusions, so the Powers are free to explain their process. I submitted some simple questions. Where is the bias?

My general view is I want all classes to be competitive in each of their mastery lines. I want people to enjoy the classes they are drawn to. I think sweeping nerfs are generally the wrong path. They alienate the player base and often lead to unintended consequences. The gutting of squigs in this patch is a simple example. The decisions made seem based on mob appeasement rather than any real deliberative process. If I'm wrong, explain the deliberation and calculation that informed the gutting. If the Powers are confident in their decision, and there was an actual informed process, it should be able to sway those otherwise opposed. Present the decision making. We could start with the Sharpened Arrers. The Dev admitted this was a "fairly significant damage nerf", but did it anyway. Explain the process. We could look to Bounce. The knockdown was removed. Explain the thinking behind this. This decision directly flies in the face of melee squigs playing as single target (and thereby using their pet squigs). On it's face it is a mind numbingly dumb decision. I doubt any mSH consulted before this was done supported this idea. It's likely no high rr mSH was even asked. If that's right, the Devs are making decisions from a position of relative ignorance. My guess is that is the standard. If I am wrong, how does removing mSH's ability to keep a target in place for 3 seconds and replacing it with a redundant ability enhance mSH game play? If the Powers are confident in the decision, explain the deliberation. Explain the bias in anything just typed.