Recent Topics

Ads

[Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

These proposals have passed an internal review and are implemented in some way on the server. Review for specific implementation details.

Moderators: Balance Forum Mod, Developer, Management, Communications, Moderator, Game Master, Web Developer

User avatar
Grunbag
Project Team
Posts: 1743

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#221 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:11 am

Spoiler:
faiden wrote:

1) Yes the rifleman is a useful build because of the keg stacking that we now are trying to change. It is suppose to be a selfish long range single target DPS. What else does this sniper bring to the party? Can you link the build for greater clarification. I understand that the gun turret does not increase the radius. This was my proposed change to the keg to increase the radius for it as the turret increases the range for the engineer himself. Gun turret should get longer range single target heal or a boost to the healing numbers I agree.

2) You do not need to redeploy the keg if its radius is increased with the stacking buff. The thought is that the AoE engineer needs to be in the between backline and frontline. We might even make it a targetable ability like mines to help this issue. So either longer range heal or make the keg targetable with longer range with increased stacks. ( And ofc Party only heal. How about making it deployable on the move just like the other abilitys with pet out?

You mention that magus has a 50% castspeed debuff tactic? Please do share this information as I was not aware of it. I believe only Engineer has this ability and I find that not balanced with only a 5 sec downtime. As I understand you think magus has it to I believe you thought it was suppose to be a magus base skill and I AGREE. The keg have between 1-2 sec cast time depending on the close quarter tactic is equipped.

3) Yes tinkerer does not have radius decrease BUT as I mentioned with the sniper turret, It does get a range decrease.
so building from this If the main keg skill would have a larger Radius, deploying flame turret would reduce this radius as it decreases the range of the engineer. See how these radius and range go together now? However because it also increases the maximum numbers that engineer can hit with AoE it fits perfectly for the keg to be able to heal more than just the party and be stackable in a shorter range.

The keg SHOULD be targetable BUT also receive the defensive stats of what turret currently is active.

We kind of have to think about magus and their skill. As the engineer gets a slight buff/mechanic here and the magus would be left out. But yes that Is better left to another thread when we nail the Engineer issue down.
1) sniper are usefull to kill caster/healer .
2) apologize thought the casttime debuff came from magus but that would probably be another class ability .(doesn't change the finality some destro class can debuff Castime).
3) let aoe radius to tinkerer and reduce tick interval to grenadier

my proposal already solve lordroom issue ,
(Btw we are still waiting for someone who can prove this is really an issue)
To be clear I'm nit here to deal with destro or to nerf keg . I just try to understand destro PoV , and fixing their issue (keg heal out of party in lordroom)
If my proposal limit keg heal stacking out of party , then I try to think about new keg mechanics to making keg usefull and attractive in a new way , I don't want keg being less usefull.
You can't ask for keg to be targetable since anyone can interrupt keg cast , force order to fight out of keg range (really small 30feet) , and if keg got buff from turret simply destroy the turret would already affect keg either .
If you remove some mechanic from keg you have to give something to keg in return . Keg is not broken , it work as intended imo.
Grunbag - 40 - 33 Squig Herder
Skorri - 40 - 65 Engineer

Image

Ads
User avatar
Kragg
Posts: 1650

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#222 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:35 am

Spoiler:
Maybe it is time to close this topic? 23 pages and there hasn't even been proof delivered that the keg is actually broken or overpowered. This sounds more and more as a wishlist, as so many other topics anbout engineers the last months, to cast the class back into oblivion once more.
The discussion ends after 2 weeks, thats the rules. And to be fair I dont see any proof from either side thats its an issue or nor an issue, only opinions and theory -Natherul
Image
Sergeant-Major Drengk Burloksson, RR 84 Sniper
Rordin Brightrune, RP.
Proud Founder of the 3rd Bitterstone Thunderers

User avatar
faiden
Posts: 96

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#223 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:55 am

Spoiler:
Grunbag wrote:
faiden wrote:

1) Yes the rifleman is a useful build because of the keg stacking that we now are trying to change. It is suppose to be a selfish long range single target DPS. What else does this sniper bring to the party? Can you link the build for greater clarification. I understand that the gun turret does not increase the radius. This was my proposed change to the keg to increase the radius for it as the turret increases the range for the engineer himself. Gun turret should get longer range single target heal or a boost to the healing numbers I agree.

2) You do not need to redeploy the keg if its radius is increased with the stacking buff. The thought is that the AoE engineer needs to be in the between backline and frontline. We might even make it a targetable ability like mines to help this issue. So either longer range heal or make the keg targetable with longer range with increased stacks. ( And ofc Party only heal. How about making it deployable on the move just like the other abilitys with pet out?

You mention that magus has a 50% castspeed debuff tactic? Please do share this information as I was not aware of it. I believe only Engineer has this ability and I find that not balanced with only a 5 sec downtime. As I understand you think magus has it to I believe you thought it was suppose to be a magus base skill and I AGREE. The keg have between 1-2 sec cast time depending on the close quarter tactic is equipped.

3) Yes tinkerer does not have radius decrease BUT as I mentioned with the sniper turret, It does get a range decrease.
so building from this If the main keg skill would have a larger Radius, deploying flame turret would reduce this radius as it decreases the range of the engineer. See how these radius and range go together now? However because it also increases the maximum numbers that engineer can hit with AoE it fits perfectly for the keg to be able to heal more than just the party and be stackable in a shorter range.

The keg SHOULD be targetable BUT also receive the defensive stats of what turret currently is active.

We kind of have to think about magus and their skill. As the engineer gets a slight buff/mechanic here and the magus would be left out. But yes that Is better left to another thread when we nail the Engineer issue down.
1) sniper are usefull to kill caster/healer .
2) apologize thought the casttime debuff came from magus but that would probably be another class ability .(doesn't change the finality some destro class can debuff Castime).
3) let aoe radius to tinkerer and reduce tick interval to grenadier

my proposal already solve lordroom issue ,
(Btw we are still waiting for someone who can prove this is really an issue)
To be clear I'm nit here to deal with destro or to nerf keg . I just try to understand destro PoV , and fixing their issue (keg heal out of party in lordroom)
If my proposal limit keg heal stacking out of party , then I try to think about new keg mechanics to making keg usefull and attractive in a new way , I don't want keg being less usefull.
You can't ask for keg to be targetable since anyone can interrupt keg cast , force order to fight out of keg range (really small 30feet) , and if keg got buff from turret simply destroy the turret would already affect keg either .
If you remove some mechanic from keg you have to give something to keg in return . Keg is not broken , it work as intended imo.
1) All classes are usefull in such a way you describe it as they can kill casters and healers. The point is that they can also get the stackable healing keg even thou they are not support. And they can heal the backline just as much as a full defensive tinker can do. Hence the solo heal only.

2) So just as some classes can only remove the Magus buff, just some classes can add 50% cast time and interrupt the keg cast. If keg cast is interrupted they can just try again after 10 sec. If magus buff is removed they have to wait 60 sec!

3) We need to find a middle ground between tick intervals and duration etc

To prove that the keg is an issue is not an easy task as I believe you need to setup a keep take or atleast simulate it with around 20 ppl vs 20 ppl. Placing 1 engineer in each party with keg. The backline heal is easy for engineers atm as it give all the casters a free AoE heal. But the frontline is trickier as you need to be more defensive to place the keg.
This will take some time to get players and maby even GMs to try this out. However It could be done with calculations?

The keg works as intended on live but so did a lot of other skills that has been fixed and changed. This is why we have the balance forum.
faiden@Quakenet#martys_square
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_SAu ... tu.be&t=73
https://www.twitch.tv/faidentv
Patch Notes 7/1/17 wrote:- Bugman's Best now heals group members instead of all allies

User avatar
Glorian
Posts: 4628

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#224 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:56 am

Penril wrote:
Then we are talking about a WB + adds vs a WB, where larger numbers will obviously have an advantage. What part don't you get?

SHOW ME that a 24-man which has 10 Keg engies will roflpwnstomp a balanced Destro WB with AoE Sorcs/Choppas/Magus/DPS Zealot + a few maras and real healers.

After 18 pages, I'm starting to confirm what I initially thought: that Keg is a pug-only issue and therefore I shouldn't have moved this to Discussions (per Balance Discussions forum rules).
Answer Penrils Request.
Then there is proof that something needs to be done and the keg is broken.

User avatar
Grunbag
Project Team
Posts: 1743

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#225 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:02 pm

Noergl and kragg are right. To make proposal, an issue has to be clearly indentify , this discussion would happen only if keg is broken /overpowered and actually it's not .
Grunbag - 40 - 33 Squig Herder
Skorri - 40 - 65 Engineer

Image

User avatar
CegeePegee
Former Staff
Posts: 283

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#226 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:02 pm

Grunbag wrote:Noergl and kragg are right. To make proposal, an issue has to be clearly indentify , this discussion would happen only if keg is broken /overpowered and actually it's not .
Help me make sure I understand this - after 23 pages of people clearly explaining what they think is broken about the keg, people who DO NOT wish for the keg to be changed can simply state (incorrectly) that no "proof" (an ever-elusive and fluid term in the case of this thread) exists that the keg is broken and therefore no proposals should be allowed? To boil it down further, am I reading this correctly that all one has to do to ensure that their favorite class does not get a nerf is simply shout over everyone that nothing is broken and there's nothing to see here? Bullshit. Several times different people have clearly laid out SPECIFIC situations in which the keg has little or no counterplay and disrupts the intended gameplay. You do not get to just decide that those arguments are invalid simply because you don't like them.

We should be allowed to discuss this for the entire 2 weeks that was allotted, without constant screams of "close this thread zomg!!".

User avatar
Grunbag
Project Team
Posts: 1743

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#227 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:14 pm

CegeePegee wrote:
Grunbag wrote:Noergl and kragg are right. To make proposal, an issue has to be clearly indentify , this discussion would happen only if keg is broken /overpowered and actually it's not .
Help me make sure I understand this - after 23 pages of people clearly explaining what they think is broken about the keg, people who DO NOT wish for the keg to be changed can simply state (incorrectly) that no "proof" (an ever-elusive and fluid term in the case of this thread) exists that the keg is broken and therefore no proposals should be allowed? To boil it down further, am I reading this correctly that all one has to do to ensure that their favorite class does not get a nerf is simply shout over everyone that nothing is broken and there's nothing to see here? Bullshit. Several times different people have clearly laid out SPECIFIC situations in which the keg has little or no counterplay and disrupts the intended gameplay. You do not get to just decide that those arguments are invalid simply because you don't like them.

We should be allowed to discuss this for the entire 2 weeks that was allotted, without constant screams of "close this thread zomg!!".
Never asked for close the thread , just think we should back to original issue and waiting for someone that can explain if at equal number of player (organised wb against organised wb) , the order wb would win because of keg or if keg is only a pugs issue ?
Grunbag - 40 - 33 Squig Herder
Skorri - 40 - 65 Engineer

Image

Penril
Posts: 4445

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#228 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:16 pm

Let's review the Balance Discussion forum rules, shall we?
Spoiler:
1. Identify the issue. Be as specific as possible. A thread identifying, for example, Festering Arrow in combination with the morale and SW-specific buffs would be a good example. A thread complaining about Shadow Warriors being OP would not.

2. Explain why it's an issue. You need to demonstrate why exactly the issue you've identified is such a problem, with reference to the metagame. To use an overpowered strategy as an example, this would involve demonstrating that the risk-reward balance of the strategy is incorrect, because the counterplay is either non-existent or overly demanding in comparison to the effort required to use the skill or strategy. It could also involve demonstrating that the strategy or game element is overcentralizing - i.e. that the metagame revolves around counters to this particular strategy or element, to the extent that not extensively preparing for it is an automatic death sentence.

To continue with Festering Arrow as an example, it would suffice to point out the difficulty of seeing the skill to detaunt it, its nature as a one-shotting skill preventing any after-the-fact plays, its ability to bypass resistances and the inability to stack other defenses to reliably mitigate it without unduly compromising other areas of one's build.

3. Propose a viable solution to the problem. In the case of an overpowered strategy, this would involve proposing either fair nerfs to the strategy or constructing a means of counterplay on the opposite side. It does not matter too much if the solution you propose is demonstrated to have flaws, as long as those flaws were not completely and totally obvious when you posted your topic. The purpose of the ensuing debate is both to verify the topic starter's thinking is correct and to refine a response to the problem.
OP fits all the requirements. He identified an issue, explained why it is an issue (for him and other players) and proposed several viable solutions to the problem.

23 pages though, and most people post things like "lock this whine thread" or "nerf this skill!!". Which are posts that are NOT allowed in this forum. Let's look at the rules again:
Spoiler:
1. Do not make arguments based on engagements smaller than 6v6.

We are not interested in class performance and balance on scales smaller than 6v6. Period. Topics made based around such scales will be locked immediately, and posters making arguments which are based around performance at very small scales will be infracted. This rule primarily exists to keep 1on1 duelling topics out of the forum and to make it very clear that regardless of what anyone's opinion on the validity of duelling in Warhammer may be, we are not interested in dealing with it.

2. Do not restate a debunked point.

This rule is to protect against posters who believe in the maxim "All of your elegant arguments can easily be ignored." If you make a post expressing point X, and another poster debunks this post, you will be infracted if you rely on the point that was already debunked unless you yourself can argue convincingly against the other poster's analysis. An example:

Poster A wrote:
Festerbombing is valid because Sorcerers can inflict 4k damage in a single timestamp.


Poster B wrote:
That is different; a Sorcerer has to load up his damage beforehand and will lead with Chillwind and Word of Pain, giving you advance warning in which to deal with the problem.


Poster A, later wrote:
It's ridiculous to nerf Festerbombing and leave Sorcs as they are.


In this case, Poster A is restating his previous point without dealing with Poster B's criticism, and Poster A will be infracted.

3. No reciprocal adjustments, aka: Don't appeal to your mirror.

When we are balancing classes, we are doing so in isolation. That means when we are considering, for example, Witch Elf and how to address any issues the class may have, we are NOT interested in hearing about how Witch Hunter will need X buffed or Y nerfed in order to maintain mirror parity. We will address Witch Elf first, and then, when Witch Hunter comes into the frame for adjustment, address that class.

The exceptions to this rule are:

- If Witch Hunter has already been addressed.
- If the problem is exactly the same for both mirrors.

This rule applies on the realm scale as well as the class scale, and it applies bilaterally. This means that, for example, if Destruction class X is in the frame for buffs or nerfs, we are not interested in hearing about how Order class Y must immediately be buffed or nerfed to compensate or how Destruction class Z has fewer viable specs and must be buffed first. Unlike with classes, there are no exceptions to this rule when it applies to realms.

4. No strawmanning, cherry picking or Omnislashing.

Strawmanning is misrepresenting a post in a way that suits you, usually by acting as if the poster holds an opinion which they clearly do not.

Cherry picking is selecting the parts of a post you think are easier to attack, and responding to those, while ignoring those which are detrimental to your own argument.

Omnislashing is a combination of both of the above, which involves dividing a post into many very small quotes, in order to break the context of each quote, then attacking each quote by abusing the lack of context which was created.

5. No PUG arguments.

Balance is based around classes being played competently. Do not make any argument which involves disparity of skill, gear or specialization on either side. It is desirable when buffing classes or specs to avoid making them PUG killers, but a buff to an underpowered element of the game which renders it or the class more powerful against PUGs is not a problem as long as this element has valid counterplay.

6. No arguments to item procs or abilities.

Class balance (abilities, tactics, morales) both supersedes and ignores the effect of all items. Any unusual effect (proc, ability) granted by an item MUST NOT be a prerequisite for a class's viability. Do not appeal to an item proc or item ability when discussing the balance of any class.

7. Post legibly.

Your arguments must be presented concisely and with good structure. Posting an illegible wall of text or a stream of consciousness post will result in action.
Now, there are a few things I want to point out:

- "It is better/worse than Aegis" is not a valid argument for either side. No reciprocal adjustments, aka: Don't appeal to your mirror.
- "A WB + 10 keg engies wil beat a destro WB" has been debunked several times already, because this is not a 24v24; it is a 34v24. Do not restate a debunked point.
- The reason I asked for proof that a 10-keg engie WB can beat a balanced destro premade, was because of rule 5. No PUG arguments. I want proof that this is not a PUG issue. That's the point at where this discussion is atm.

Ads
Daknallbomb
Posts: 1781

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#229 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:26 pm

Penril wrote:Let's review the Balance Discussion forum rules, shall we?
Spoiler:
1. Identify the issue. Be as specific as possible. A thread identifying, for example, Festering Arrow in combination with the morale and SW-specific buffs would be a good example. A thread complaining about Shadow Warriors being OP would not.

2. Explain why it's an issue. You need to demonstrate why exactly the issue you've identified is such a problem, with reference to the metagame. To use an overpowered strategy as an example, this would involve demonstrating that the risk-reward balance of the strategy is incorrect, because the counterplay is either non-existent or overly demanding in comparison to the effort required to use the skill or strategy. It could also involve demonstrating that the strategy or game element is overcentralizing - i.e. that the metagame revolves around counters to this particular strategy or element, to the extent that not extensively preparing for it is an automatic death sentence.

To continue with Festering Arrow as an example, it would suffice to point out the difficulty of seeing the skill to detaunt it, its nature as a one-shotting skill preventing any after-the-fact plays, its ability to bypass resistances and the inability to stack other defenses to reliably mitigate it without unduly compromising other areas of one's build.

3. Propose a viable solution to the problem. In the case of an overpowered strategy, this would involve proposing either fair nerfs to the strategy or constructing a means of counterplay on the opposite side. It does not matter too much if the solution you propose is demonstrated to have flaws, as long as those flaws were not completely and totally obvious when you posted your topic. The purpose of the ensuing debate is both to verify the topic starter's thinking is correct and to refine a response to the problem.
OP fits all the requirements. He identified an issue, explained why it is an issue (for him and other players) and proposed several viable solutions to the problem.

23 pages though, and most people post things like "lock this whine thread" or "nerf this skill!!". Which are posts that are NOT allowed in this forum. Let's look at the rules again:
Spoiler:
1. Do not make arguments based on engagements smaller than 6v6.

We are not interested in class performance and balance on scales smaller than 6v6. Period. Topics made based around such scales will be locked immediately, and posters making arguments which are based around performance at very small scales will be infracted. This rule primarily exists to keep 1on1 duelling topics out of the forum and to make it very clear that regardless of what anyone's opinion on the validity of duelling in Warhammer may be, we are not interested in dealing with it.

2. Do not restate a debunked point.

This rule is to protect against posters who believe in the maxim "All of your elegant arguments can easily be ignored." If you make a post expressing point X, and another poster debunks this post, you will be infracted if you rely on the point that was already debunked unless you yourself can argue convincingly against the other poster's analysis. An example:

Poster A wrote:
Festerbombing is valid because Sorcerers can inflict 4k damage in a single timestamp.


Poster B wrote:
That is different; a Sorcerer has to load up his damage beforehand and will lead with Chillwind and Word of Pain, giving you advance warning in which to deal with the problem.


Poster A, later wrote:
It's ridiculous to nerf Festerbombing and leave Sorcs as they are.


In this case, Poster A is restating his previous point without dealing with Poster B's criticism, and Poster A will be infracted.

3. No reciprocal adjustments, aka: Don't appeal to your mirror.

When we are balancing classes, we are doing so in isolation. That means when we are considering, for example, Witch Elf and how to address any issues the class may have, we are NOT interested in hearing about how Witch Hunter will need X buffed or Y nerfed in order to maintain mirror parity. We will address Witch Elf first, and then, when Witch Hunter comes into the frame for adjustment, address that class.

The exceptions to this rule are:

- If Witch Hunter has already been addressed.
- If the problem is exactly the same for both mirrors.

This rule applies on the realm scale as well as the class scale, and it applies bilaterally. This means that, for example, if Destruction class X is in the frame for buffs or nerfs, we are not interested in hearing about how Order class Y must immediately be buffed or nerfed to compensate or how Destruction class Z has fewer viable specs and must be buffed first. Unlike with classes, there are no exceptions to this rule when it applies to realms.

4. No strawmanning, cherry picking or Omnislashing.

Strawmanning is misrepresenting a post in a way that suits you, usually by acting as if the poster holds an opinion which they clearly do not.

Cherry picking is selecting the parts of a post you think are easier to attack, and responding to those, while ignoring those which are detrimental to your own argument.

Omnislashing is a combination of both of the above, which involves dividing a post into many very small quotes, in order to break the context of each quote, then attacking each quote by abusing the lack of context which was created.

5. No PUG arguments.

Balance is based around classes being played competently. Do not make any argument which involves disparity of skill, gear or specialization on either side. It is desirable when buffing classes or specs to avoid making them PUG killers, but a buff to an underpowered element of the game which renders it or the class more powerful against PUGs is not a problem as long as this element has valid counterplay.

6. No arguments to item procs or abilities.

Class balance (abilities, tactics, morales) both supersedes and ignores the effect of all items. Any unusual effect (proc, ability) granted by an item MUST NOT be a prerequisite for a class's viability. Do not appeal to an item proc or item ability when discussing the balance of any class.

7. Post legibly.

Your arguments must be presented concisely and with good structure. Posting an illegible wall of text or a stream of consciousness post will result in action.
Now, there are a few things I want to point out:

- "It is better/worse than Aegis" is not a valid argument for either side. No reciprocal adjustments, aka: Don't appeal to your mirror.
- "A WB + 10 keg engies wil beat a destro WB" has been debunked several times already, because this is not a 24v24; it is a 34v24. Do not restate a debunked point.
- The reason I asked for proof that a 10-keg engie WB can beat a balanced destro premade, was because of rule 5. No PUG arguments. I want proof that this is not a PUG issue. That's the point at where this discussion is atm.
hm there was not one time someone spoke about 24 + 10 engis vs 24... PLZ read the Textes again. It makes no sense If ppl Just read half Things and than gute an Argument against
Tinkabell 40/41 Magus Whaagit 40/41 SH Whaagot 40/54 BO Daknallfrosch 40/72shammy

User avatar
Grunbag
Project Team
Posts: 1743

Re: [Engineer,Magus]Keg,Aegis change v.2

Post#230 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:31 pm

Daknallbomb wrote: Cause of the engi dont have to be in the wb to Group heal tham

You did I think if I right understand your post
Grunbag - 40 - 33 Squig Herder
Skorri - 40 - 65 Engineer

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest