[Gear] State Stabilization

[Grunbag]

Spoiler:

This only brings power creep to lower tiers, lvl 15 v lvl 30 is a huge difference, not so much in the armor sets but mastery points, tactic slots and skills.
Learn from the mistakes that mythic made with tier level requirements, which is why i strongly believe the current state of power with the t2/t3 merge is way out of sorts, for not only t2 and t3 but also t1.[/quote]

The t2/T3 is already merged (15/32) , adding more set to T3 (anni/conq) and also reduce difference between set in t2/T3 also .

Finishing T3 in conq would also make those tier more attractive, and player can debolster to be sure to get this set before starting T4.

Also is they starting T4 in invader would reduce a lot the gap between set in T4 especially if you add another set (WF?) between warlord and sovereign .
To me I'd be something that could be more understandable than tier gear or gear buff when 2 players interacting for most of players . And less work for te DB team.

Firstly, discussions in the balance forums do not consider t2 or t3 as per this point here; "Our strategy for making changes in T4 is as follows." it is not part of any discussion, period. Further posting regarding t2/3 will result in infractions for posting off topic on un-related issues.

Secondly, introducing invader as the entry level t4 gear set implies you believe balance changes should not be made at this point of gear implementation, contradicting your previous participation in balance forum discussions and posting of proposals. Additionally, you make no attempt to disprove why state stabilization is a not issue. I will explain the issue once more, afterwards, if you still don't understand the issue raised in the OP, send a balance mod a PM with questions. Posts about changing the base t4 gear set only reduce the scale of difference between the base balance gear set (invader you suggested) and Sovereign do not solve the issue.

The issue raised: if balance changes are to be made at the current level of implemented gear, Annihilator and Mercenary (therefore the respective stats, armor, mitigation and so on values), and not overwritten by forth coming gear sets up to the point of Sovereign, the outcome of the interaction, simply put as damage dealt (considering all aspects of the combat formula) between 1 group in Annihilator gear against another group in Annihilator gear, must be as close to, or equal to the damage dealt when 2 groups of Sovereign geared players fight against each other. Hence the state of stabilization.

This discussion thread is to allow the community to reach a consensus regarding what method they want to see implemented to achieve this level of state stabilization. By;
a) posting which option they agree with and why OR
b) explaining why they believe these options are not appropriate to reach a state of stabilization and proposing an alternative solution.
If a consensus is not achieved on how to approach this state then due to the differences between forth coming gear and our currently implemented sets, none, or extremely limited balance changes will occur and the balance forums will cease to exist until end game gear sets have been implemented and acquired by the majority of players.

-Gerv

[Collateral]

Spoiler:

The t2/T3 is already merged (15/32) , adding more set to T3 (anni/conq) and also reduce difference between set in t2/T3 also .

Finishing T3 in conq would also make those tier more attractive, and player can debolster to be sure to get this set before starting T4.

Also is they starting T4 in invader would reduce a lot the gap between set in T4 especially if you add another set (WF?) between warlord and sovereign .
To me I'd be something that could be more understandable than tier gear or gear buff when 2 players interacting for most of players . And less work for te DB team.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It sounds just sooo much more simple than anything else at this point. All the other proposals to me are just way too much over thinking and over complicating. I said like twice in this thread that the biggest problem is the imbalance of the tiers themselves, but no one seems to care about that. Or maybe I just got all of this wrong and it has nothing to do with balancing somehow.

Making it so that players start T4 in invader would make an absolutely huge difference imo. Would it not? Balancing between invader and sov is very different from balancing between anni and sov.

Introducing invader as the entry level t4 gear set implies you believe balance changes should not be made at this point of gear implementation. Additionally, you make no attempt to disprove why state stabilization is a not issue for balance changes to not be over-written by future gear sets and the known power differentiation. Posts about changing the base t4 gear set only reduce the scale of difference between the base balance gear set (invader you suggested) and Sovereign do not solve the issue.

If you believe that "the biggest problem is the imbalance of the tiers themselves" then it is duly noted by the team but;

a) does not positively contribute to the direction of this discussion as per not attempting to follow the guidelines of responders "the role of those responding to a topic is to reinforce or debunk the original poster's analysis of the issue and his proposed solution."
b) you have made the point of tiers previously, you are not required to continually re-state it.

[Aurandilaz]

Spoiler:

Another idea; if the T4 set have "hardly noticeable" stat increase from Anni to Conq to Inv/Wrlrd/Sov (assuming something like 3-5% increase in stats per armour set), work in a way that makes the sets unique; that is bonuses that might result in an Invader set being chosen in some situation over Sovereign set.
Say, one set would give a bonus of 3-5(/7) ability points in one tree, whereas other would give points in other tree. Maybe you choose a lower renown set because you want that ability from that tree, or you start going for weird combinations that do not max stats but give you various points in several trees.

Instead of giving people more crit, wounds, str/bal/int, ws, toughness... give them options to go for more in-depth specialization and going for abilities that usually do not see daylight for being considered sub-optimal for normal t4 specs by handing out more specialization points via various set bonuses.

Basic assumption: three levels of T4 gear; three mastery trees, three ways of gathering gear (PVE - SC - RVR) - lowest gear hands out 3 mastery points in left/mid/right tree depending whether it came from rvr/pve/scs (assume class based variations) - mid gear hands 5 mastery points again in different trees depending on which set it is - highest gear gives 7 mastery points depending on where it is earned.
Now if Ruin PVE set is left as it is, the other higher gears would all need renown ranks even if they drop from PVE (say Bloodlord rr50, Darkpromise rr65, Tyrant rr80)

Firstly, please follow the rules guidelines for topic responders as posted here;

"The role of those responding to a topic is to reinforce or debunk the original poster's analysis of the issue and his proposed solution. Analysis of the topic starter's post must be thorough, and any solutions posted by responders which compete with the topic starter's proposed solution must be soundly based around resolving the issue in question.
When responding, be sure to use facts and support your reasoning" - Azarael

Either post in agreeance with the options outlined on page 15 or explain why they are not an adequate frame-work to reach a state of stabilization and then post your alternative idea. Secondly, do not begin your alternative solution with "if the T4 set have "hardly noticeable" stat increase from Anni to Conq to Inv/Wrlrd/Sov". Find out the information regarding the sets and bring facts to support your proposal. As per the role of topic responders.

- Gerv

[Morf]

Spoiler:

The t2/T3 is already merged (15/32) , adding more set to T3 (anni/conq) and also reduce difference between set in t2/T3 also .

Finishing T3 in conq would also make those tier more attractive, and player can debolster to be sure to get this set before starting T4.

Also is they starting T4 in invader would reduce a lot the gap between set in T4 especially if you add another set (WF?) between warlord and sovereign .
To me I'd be something that could be more understandable than tier gear or gear buff when 2 players interacting for most of players . And less work for te DB team.

Yea t2 and t3 are already merged and the gap between a lvl 30 and a lvl 15 is huge (same between a fresh char and a lvl 14 in t1), its very imbalanced, also not to forget npc/keep guards 1 shotting lowbies.

Long ago it was said that the tier level requirements change that mythic made was disastrous, granted it was worse on live due to lotd stuff and that imbalance wouldnt be seen here, yet the same mistake was made to try and breath life into the 2 middle tiers for the sake of having a better population, a worthy compromise ? maybe so however i believe a better solution could of been made, one that doesnt bring a huge power imbalance.
Learning a new class in the middle tier can be pointless as no matter how well you do it you will face higher lvl players who can walk over you with ease so players will just end up powerleveling to bridge the gap anyway, the same way ppl use to when t2 and t3 were separate, difference now is nobody ever sees t2.
Some of the best fights to be had were in t2, the gap between skilled geared players and unskilled undergeared players was minimal, arguably t2 in terms of balance was the best.

I just hope the team doesnt forget the original ideas/statements that were made when this project was still early in development, that they look at and learn at the mistakes mythic made and can come up with better ideas or ways to get the middle tiers to work without such a large imbalance.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It sounds just sooo much more simple than anything else at this point. All the other proposals to me are just way too much over thinking and over complicating. I said like twice in this thread that the biggest problem is the imbalance of the tiers themselves, but no one seems to care about that. Or maybe I just got all of this wrong and it has nothing to do with balancing somehow.

Making it so that players start T4 in invader would make an absolutely huge difference imo. Would it not? Balancing between invader and sov is very different from balancing between anni and sov.

Not necessarily true, all heal classes will still be in anni as conq and invader are dps sets, the next heal set being warlord and as was said by staff before we wont see any additional sets created (like merc/duelist) to make up for lack of diversity on original sets.

Also remember not everyone has pvp sets, the balance between random green vendor gear/pve gear and the pvp sets cant be to great, one of the big complaints was that pve gear was useless because pvp armor was so much better, if armor sets are to be changed in a way that makes then useable earlier for the sake of t4 pvp balance pve stuff once again becomes absolutely useless.

The implication of merging tier 2 and 3 and the resulting gap are not the topic of this discussion. This forum thread is reserved for discussion revolving around tier 4, period. Do not discuss the issues of t2 and 3.

This discussion is about reaching a community consensus about the direction of approach to achieve a state of stabilization so balance changes can continue to occur or whether that is not appropriate.

Post on topic or not at all, either agree with one of the options and post why, or debunk why achieving a state of stabilization is not relevant to balance changes. Do not re-post points you have made previously.

- Gerv

[Grunbag]

Spoiler:

@morf : I do remember what mythic done . It's a bit different here : no lotd OP stuff and no rr90/100.
I know t2/T3 need to be fixed but as long as we have not enough players in those tiers , I don't think we can balance middle tier easily . Plus , we are talking about few hours/weeks to get from t2 to T4 , so it's fast for a player to get a decent lvl in those tiers .

I am not married to any of my set's lvl proposal , still can separate t2 an de T3 of dev want it to .

And sentinel set is a heal set , as I proposed T4 will start with invader as rvr set (rr45/50) and just make sentinel equal to invader set . So you'd have a dps set and a heal set .
Don't release invader til sentinel instance is up , to not make sentinel set useless .

For those who haven't read my idea , here it is :

Spoiler:

The gap between annihilator and sovereign is indeed too big.
But that's (IMHO) because there is too much set at T4 zones.
Annihilator, mercenary, conqueror, sentinel, invader, darkpromise, warlord, tyrant, sovereign.

but the gap is lower between invader and sovereign.

Changes the set tiers to rebalance t4 without drastic set changes:

t1 : lvl 1/15 : - Decimator lvl 7/8 , obliterator lvl 13/15
t2 : lvl 15/30 : - Devastator lvl 18/20 , annihilator lvl 25/30
t3 : lvl 30/39 : - Conqueror lvl 34/39
t4 : rr45/50 : - invader, rr55/60 : warlord, rr65/70 : WF (with appropriate stats), rr75/80 :Sovereign

PLayers will enter t4 with a good lvl (39) and a good stuff (ruins or conqueror), then will have access to invader.
Up sentinel to be equal as invader stats, and darkpromised to be equal as warlord, and make DF (drop from TI with appropriate stats) equal as WF, and still have tyrant equal to sovereign.

Firstly, your post continues comments on tier 2 and 3 balance, which has no realation to this discussion. Secondly, you are re-posting the same points as your previous post, that a state of stabilization between annihilator and Sovereign gear is not needed because annihilator is not, in your proposal a tier 4 gear set. This is not contributing positively towards the discussion.

- Gerv

[Stmichael1989]

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.

Who's to say that progression needs to be in a vertical direction? Something akin to his proposal solves the issue of maintaining class balance with absolute surety while also providing a sense of progression that isn't merely a grind to the top. A fight between someone in annihilator and sov wouldn't be an instant win for the guy in sov, but he would have a lot more options available to customize how he wants to play and what he can do with his class. That is valuable to a player and is every bit as compelling a reason to climb the ladder, but it doesn't make fighting newer players trivial either.

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.

Crit and procs are difficult to deal with because they are unpredictable and allow a sufficiently geared character to continue increasing their DPS well past the soft cap. However, if such bonuses came at the cost of other stats such as strength/ballistics/int, then you can balance it such that stacking crit costs you long term DPS for the benefit of better random burst.

[Gerv]

** 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?

Yes they are.

[blaqwar]

@Stmichael1989

Karast did, and I do. Since his proposal still has vertical progression (albeit lower) in it I imagine he finds value in it being in the game. In addition, he points out that the OP's proposal removes a sense of progression and risks the playerbase losing drive because of it. I imagine he wouldn't favour removing vertical progression so I really can't see why he accepts minimzing it as an option. Am I the only one pessimistic enough to not see the game designed around vertical progression doing well if that is removed? And I don't believe this is something that can be remedied, the skill ceiling is too low to not have some sort of a treadmill in place to hold the player's attention.

Perhaps Karast himself can chime in?

[TenTonHammer]

Reading all of this

I think it's fair to state at this point to mention that no price of gear should "solve" a classes inherent balance issues, classes like BG and Ib shouldn't suddenly be great because of some sov set bonus or proc

To that extent the claim by az that he will shut down the balance fourm till we see the impact of high tier sets make no sense

Now I was under the assumption that things such as the massive armor scaling and what not discepencies would be addressed down the line by the devs but this was why I opposed people who wanted the pre 1.40 armor system, t4 should have been from invader to sov and anni and what not should have been in t3

Also like blaqwar said as proposal will ruin that sense real progression and power

[Kragg]

Hold on, stacking armor is an issue? If i stack armor I will not do high damage. If i stack strength i will have less armor. What is the problem here? Isn't this just up to the player to decide what he or she wants to get out of the game? Is stacking armor just not part of groupplay as well? Be the best tank i can be and take away damage ment for a slayer? :/