[Gear] State Stabilization

[Bozzax]

Per developers statement - ROR won't have big power creep like AOR used to either way, so you wont have to regrind anyway if you're ok with staying behind in gear a bit which you will in both systems if you don't "grind the hell out of the game every time new gear is released".

I mean if balance is gonna stay the same with new armor then why release new armor at all? Just leave the old one - maybe release side-grade armor with diffrent stat distibution but same stat pool. It will be even better for casual players than -2 tier system - even less grinding.


If balance via gear is meant to remain the same with each new set of armor - then why don't stop inflating those stats with new tiers of armor in first place? It will bring state stabilization as well and no grinding as added benefit. - even more attractive for those that don't like grinding new sets. New looks can still be added via cosmetic only sets/items. Win/win.

Playing @ -2 long term in a pvp game isn't really an option. Either you are power grinding to end gear, already are playing with end gear or arent playing ror at all.

if the gap is so small -2 is competitive there is no progression from gear at all making relative tiering pointless

[Stmichael1989]

I feel that the discussion is entirely too abstract to glean any kind of appreciable conclusions from.

From my understanding of the OP, the problem is that gear progression introduces a non linear scaling that is either difficult or impossible to balance around. I agree with this statement, because most of these functions don't scale linearly.

Where I'm a bit fuzzy is in the proposed solutions. I understand that the goal is to preserve class balance between equally geared players regardless of whether they're in annihilator or sovereign. As to how you get there though, at least in the way described in the OP, I'm at a bit of a loss.

Because of the way soft caps, talismans, and renown training work, getting higher levels of gear (especially if you go split set for double stat bonuses) allows for these nonlinearities to form. For example, a DPS class that needed to slot strength talis and spec parry for renown in annihilator may have all the strength he needs in sov/warlord duo, thus letting him slot weaponskill and spec crit. Both of his new changes introduced a non-linear scaling boost because of increased linear benefits.

The problem is vertical scaling. If you want to have gear progression, you need to find a way to prevent that scaling from changing each classes internal stat priorities.

[Gerv]

14 pages in, here is a summery of the discussion so far, to give the discussion direction and insure the community can reach an informed discussion about the way forward in terms of a stable base for balance discussions occurring now which are not over-written by later gear sets.

**Firstly, it is clear from the community that a change is needed to prevent the observed power difference between entry T4 sets and top end that we saw on live as well as a system which can be understood**

** These are the current frame-work options proposed to reach this point;
1) tier'd gear: posted on page 1
2) secondary stat pools where selected secondary bonuses are conferred against low geared players to a cap but not against equal geared players: posted on page 1
3) normalizing to a point the stats conferred via gear and creating horizontal customization through, for example set bonuses: page 4 posted by Karast
4) Adjustment of renown points, renown abilities and procs + and semi normalization of gear to address stat blow out: page 4 posted by Eatthisword

Based on responses the favored options so far are 1) and a combination of 3) & 4).

** The specifics and intricacies of each solution are not up for discussion and will be moderated**
**A community consensus on which direction is taken is the discussion. Either, post which option you agree with and why
OR
state why you disagree with these options and post an alternate option to achieving to state stabilization.

**It is clear that regardless of the option chosen, complications including Armor stacking, crit stacking, min/max customization, abilities that scale vs abilities will be addressed**

[Grunbag]

14 pages in, here is a summery of the discussion so far, to give the discussion direction and insure the community can reach an informed discussion about the way forward in terms of a stable base for balance discussions occurring now which are not over-written by later gear sets.

**Firstly, it is clear from the community that a change is needed to prevent the observed power difference between entry T4 sets and top end that we saw on live as well as a system which can be understood**

** These are the current frame-work options proposed to reach this point;
1) tier'd gear: posted on page 1
2) secondary stat pools where selected secondary bonuses are conferred against low geared players to a cap but not against equal geared players: posted on page 1
3) normalizing to a point the stats conferred via gear and creating horizontal customization through, for example set bonuses: page 4 posted by Karast
4) Adjustment of renown points, renown abilities and procs + and semi normalization of gear to address stat blow out: page 4 posted by Eatthisword

Based on responses the favored options so far are 1) and a combination of 3) & 4).

** The specifics and intricacies of each solution are not up for discussion and will be moderated**
**A community consensus on which direction is taken is the discussion. Either, post which option you agree with and why
OR
state why you disagree with these options and post an alternate option to achieving to state stabilization.

**It is clear that regardless of the option chosen, complications including Armor stacking, crit stacking, min/max customization, abilities that scale vs abilities will be addressed**

There is something I don't understand in the proposal 3 (by karast)

Normalizing set stats to reduce stats between sets . That would mean all the set would got the same stats , just increased numbers for higher sets ?

That mean set would be designed of one gameplay ? Or will you add more sets with differents stats (lik actual anni/merc) ?

What if an engineer lookin for a def spec if the stats are (for exemple) normalized to offensives stats ?

Same exemple for a healer that want to spec dps or a tank to spec dps too ?

[Stmichael1989]

I'm a fan of option 3 for a number of reasons. First of all, it gives the devs some options for balancing different gameplay modes through gear. Second, it makes the actual task of balancing classes easier given that scalar values are being held relatively constant. Thirdly, it's much more newbie/alt friendly. And last but not least, I personally find it a more interesting form of progression than boosting numbers to output more damage or healing.

[Stmichael1989]

There is something I don't understand in the proposal 3 (by karast)

Normalizing set stats to reduce stats between sets . That would mean all the set would got the same stats , just increased numbers for higher sets ?

That mean set would be designed of one gameplay ? Or will you add more sets with differents stats (lik actual anni/merc) ?

What if an engineer lookin for a def spec if the stats are (for exemple) normalized to offensives stats ?

Same exemple for a healer that want to spec dps or a tank to spec dps too ?

Normalized as in even volume of stats, not identical stats. Picture the annihilator/merc differences, but each new set is on the same level with a different focus.

[Grunbag]

Spoiler:

Ok thanks , so basically keep the actual sets stats but normalized the volume of stats between sets .

But making sovereign stats to actual invader lvl (still proposal 3) would make sets really really close isn't it ?
I am totally agree that power creep is a balance issue , but making really close stats between sets would not reward player that focused on their main .

I mean why would I only play my main to get the highest set when I just have to up many characters and gear them with conq (enough to be competitive in T4 if sets stats are really close?)

Firstly, we are not discussing the specifics, secondly, your point of "close stats between sets" is acknowledged, as per Azarael's comment here;

"Doing so makes progression less attractive, as the increase in power between sets is reduced. Despite my aforementioned distaste for gear advantage, power differences must exist and they must be noticeable. They just mustn't be allowed to be taken to extremes. The simple solution of compacting gear alone has two flaws:

It maintains a limit on the highest power set that can exist without reintroducing the original flaw of excessive power advantage
It fails to maintain a large enough power difference between two nearby sets."

The team would not let the normalisation go that far. Please do not bring this up again.

- Gerv

[Bozzax]

Spoiler:

4

None of the solutions imo gives an option for adding sets forever. The grind to acquire them cant incyrease indefenitly if new players is expected join.

The idea imo with adding grinds on top of end gear to create false progression seems like a short term ban aid. How many will actually grind to stay the same and enjoy it?

Reducing, balancing and controlling the stats in ror and thus avoiding 'hidden' code that balance all heals and damage in out seems like the best one. When you get new gear it means somthing even though the power increase is smaller then on war. It also imply at some point progression from gear needs to die off and only be stuff like more renown points or somthing small.

Either way end game cant be new gear unless you also remove old gear every time you add stuff.

Spoiler:

Increasing healthpools is one of the biggest problems. Remove it and use total mit on sets to controll diff btw sets. Everything static example Jagged edge becomes weaker and weaker untill they are fluff

Within gear tiers...
Penetration needs to go up with physical mit. Increasing resist needs to be balanced vs the inrease in mp, int

Weapon dps need to be increasing at a more controlled rate as welll or rdps lag behind.

Inc ini and reduced crits vs crits. I believe crit damage / heals likely needs to be stripped of all all sets or be signifficantly lowered

Rework procs so they dont come 'free' on top of already better gear. Meaning gear with op procs needs to have areduction in stats

[Grunbag]

Ok thanks Gerv , it wasn't clear to me, that makes more sense how you explained it .

[blaqwar]

** These are the current frame-work options proposed to reach this point;
1) tier'd gear: posted on page 1
2) secondary stat pools where selected secondary bonuses are conferred against low geared players to a cap but not against equal geared players: posted on page 1
3) normalizing to a point the stats conferred via gear and creating horizontal customization through, for example set bonuses: page 4 posted by Karast
4) Adjustment of renown points, renown abilities and procs + and semi normalization of gear to address stat blow out: page 4 posted by Eatthisword

Just to be clear here the first two options are from the original proposal?

3.) I'd say that instead of creating a balanced state that won't need rebalancing with each new tier iteration this idea aims to minimize the power gain in tiers (and with it the difference in gameplay) to the point where rebalancing isn't needed.

But it has issues, Karast himself outlines the biggest problem with the original proposal as being the lack of progression relative to the top end (farming towards wearing a top set while the top set vs. top set battles won't feel like an upgrade and will play the same as anni vs anni). The original proposal still maintains progression relative to the general population in the sense that you're still on top of the food chain when it comes to people not wearing top sets.

Karast's solution however has progression relative to the top end but it minimizes both (relative to the top end and general pop) to the point of establishing a miniscule disparity between the sets thus minimizing the need for rebalancing, since ideally the differences would be almost unnoticable. However in terms of giving the players a sense of progression and motivation to work towards the sets it does worse than the OP in my eyes. In the original proposal the top players will at least have a somewhat significant gain in absolute power. In Karast's proposal they won't have much gain at all (they can't, otherwise the idea fails at the original aim of the difference not being big enough to require rebalancing). Thus I feel like it's a self-defeating idea.

Not to mention he proposes giving out crit set bonuses and procs, which according to the OP's analysis (which we're accepting by default), are one of the culprits of the imbalanced state.

I'll take a look at 4.) when I have time but I feel like the aim of the OP needs to be reiterated, it's either:
a) creating a stable system where balancing efforts are done once and not every x months or
b) no system is created, balance forums shut down and the dev team do their best to not introduce too much power-creep until we reach Sov.

It is not about the bottom end phenomenom itself, those issues can and should be solved in a different manner (I feel like since the OP mentioned them they're being overly fixated on here).