wargrimnir wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:44 pm
metroid24 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:19 pm
wargrimnir wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 4:44 pm
Rampage threads are like warm blankets at this point. It is working as intended according to the data we have in the client files. Whether or not it gets changed in the future was left wide open, but methinks people hear what they want to hear.
If you dont mind me asking, which data is this and are you able to share it with the community? What class do you play , or are you seeing this only from the order side of things? I wonder if anyone who has a say in Class Balance and the power to do something about it is playing Destruction at the moment. We could really do with someone who has a neutral view in this. All we are asking for is a fair balance and if you have played forts/cities it is blatantly obvious that Rampage is Scale tipping and cumulative with how many Slayers are in an area doing their AoEs, put on top the far greater AoE pressure Bright Wizards have over Sorcerer's in chokepoints. So the data would have to be from forts and well, i think there is plenty of evidence how those types of fights go....
-Forgot to mention that Engineers get Auto Attack damage, where Maguses get none. That is a few thousand damage over 10-15s missing there.....
The client data is what was leftover from live that informs us how abilities need to be constructed in order to line up with tooltips and effects. Early in the project we didn't have access to it, and had to rely on whatever we could find from live, be that videos of abilities working, old tooltips, player accounts for finer details on things, it was essentially a mess and we didn't have good ways to verify anything. As we've been able to get into client files and decode what they actually mean, it's helped inform how these abilities are actually designed to perform, rather than how they were implemented from a server code perspective. So when I say "it's working as intended" that means the server code is doing what the client code is expecting.
All the devs and contributors in balance are more than capable of evaluating class balance from a neutral perspective, and in fact are doing so with the best intentions for the class to be successful in their intended roles regardless of the faction they're from. Otherwise, they simply wouldn't be active on the balance team. We don't need people who are only interested in providing a benefit for their own faction, and I believe the vast majority of people are capable of making honest assessments while acknowledging personal bias. They just choose not to in open discussions, as if balance is some polarized battle that needs to be won. I explained during the Q&A, our goals in balance are not to mirror classes or make X class on Destro equivalent to Y class on Order, even for the more mirrored ones. We would prefer classes to be less mirrored over time and more unique. We're looking at what needs each class has and making small adjustments. Larger reworks are much more rare and take more time to implement.
If anything based on your posts today, your view on balance is blatantly biased towards Destro. We can absolutely work with passionate opinions and design suggestions from people who are openly biased, that's not a problem at all. What you might want to consider is that asking devs to approach balance from a neutral perspective means that many of their opinions on balance changes are not going to match up with your own openly biased opinions. I don't want you to think we're being unfair if decisions aren't made that fit your perspective, but clearly that's going to be a reality if you're hard set on supporting one side over the other. What frequently tempers balance threads like this much more often comes down to realm failures to organize and perform, the actual class balance is far closer than you're giving it credit for if you want to lay blame for realm defeat as the balance teams responsibility. We don't make balance decisions based on who is zerging one realm or the other.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the organized well written response. We cannot stress enough the work RoR staff are putting in are so much appreciated, Dev's , GM's, moderators. Everyone involved past and present helped give us the game we love and enjoy to play.
The old live data for abilities and how they function was for an AoE cap of 9 people? So the increased cap to 24 people would AoE abilities not have very different impacts in Warband/Large scale ORVR play? I think rather than old server data , since the AoE cap was increased the results are obvious in certain scenarios such as chokepoints and forts and i would argue that all is "Working as intended".
I play both sides, i do not realm swap all the time but when i do i play it with all my heart, not to milk the RvR system to swap for fort/keep defenses and get bags. I have played since the very first day from Live again both realms so i have alot of experience in classes and mechanics. My view on balance seems blatantly biased towards Destro and mostly towards large scale RvR play because there are a few abilities on Order side that require almost no skill to use with massive cumulative and beneficial results in an AoE environment.
If you do not intend to change major abilities like Rampage and the way they work, could we redesign Fort gameplay so such abilities as Rain of Fire (Funnel Power, Fire Proc, Proc tactic, Dot tactic) and Slayers out of line of sight spamming AoE abilities hitting 24 players in a chokepoint and being undefendable be less impacting? It is literally easymode. From what i have seen such abilities in smaller scale RvR have less impact than say 100 v 100. Suggestions for Fort gameplay to make it more interesting and competitive could be made under a new thread. Is that something we could look into?
My perspective is really a birds eye view of the overall experience for both sides. Me wanting to to tip the scales in favor of Destro could not be farther from the truth. I simply love this game and do not want people from either sides to quit due to severe balance issues. You are very correct that realm defeat or wins are the responsibility of the organization of the Realm and ability to rally together, make proper compositions, and coordinate, but the results remain and are there for everyone to see in plain sight. Whether they will admit it or not.
You are also correct the actual class balance is quite close if we break it down to a 1 v 1 , 6 v 6 and in that scale, i would just argue the fact that Destruction do not have a long ranged knockdown available, as opposed to Orders 2. I think giving the Ranged Squig Herder a knockdown same like the Shadow Warrior and bring it more in line on DPS with the ST ranged SW would go a very long way. More Melee Squigs would again play Ranged Squig, and as a result you will have more ranged CC on Destro side to counter what Order already have. SW is a good class and multiple Ambush m2s covering Warbands and groups are a nasty CC. SH has it with Squig Goo too but currently, there is no incentive to play it until they get tweaked a bit.
Someone in this thread mentioned that Shamans are nigh unkillable due to the fact that they have Run Away tactic, coupled with a Detaunt tactic that stacks with Detaunt abilities. Something can be sayd for that to be fair...
