DoK/WP with book/chalice...

[Defiance]

I understand. My problem is that some people (not saying you do this) just say "no! bad idea!" but don't give any other suggestions.

My problem with a lot of these is that, "I don't like it.", "Let's 'fix' it", is how a lot of these "issues" get brought up. DoKs are powerful, okay, got that. Does this mean anything needs to be done? What if Zel/SHM had our armor values? Would that make it okay?

I don't like DPS AM's damage, buff DPS Shaman. Let me insert all kinds of words to insinuate that this is about game balance, as opposed to the fact that I just don't like their rate of damage. Let me then begin solutions to buff or nerf, to solve this "problem". Then come all the pages, the terrible suggestions (suggesting things is fine, but doing so without much care for balance because "we can test it"... :/), all because I didn't like something, but worded it in a way to get everyone else on board (Guard thread, I'm looking at you).

There are a lot of balance issues with WAR, won't deny. If 6v6 isn't a thing here (maybe with more people and a more stable cap, ie 40), who is supposed to 6vX? As someone else pointed out, this is where DoK/WP shines. For the sake of not making all archetypes the same, balance is sounding a lot like equality in this case; a pipe dream used to exploit minds.

DoK/WP get a lot of hate. How soon till we're humping each other's knees in combat, making it easier to be AoE'd? Then it would have to be 6v6, since 6vX would be relatively impossible. This is my fear, and you don't need an extreme example to bring us there... just little chips, because "balance".

[Azarael]

My problem with a lot of these is that, "I don't like it.", "Let's 'fix' it", is how a lot of these "issues" get brought up. DoKs are powerful, okay, got that. Does this mean anything needs to be done? What if Zel/SHM had our armor values? Would that make it okay?

If you disagree that something needs to be done when a class is "powerful" (like "strong", this is a code word for OP when said by the users of a given element of a game), then you don't really believe in balance. The only time I accept "strong" or "powerful" as a valid argument is when this word can equally be applied to a class or element's peers. Can it?

I don't like DPS AM's damage, buff DPS Shaman. Let me insert all kinds of words to insinuate that this is about game balance, as opposed to the fact that I just don't like their rate of damage. Let me then begin solutions to buff or nerf, to solve this "problem". Then come all the pages, the terrible suggestions (suggesting things is fine, but doing so without much care for balance because "we can test it"... :/), all because I didn't like something, but worded it in a way to get everyone else on board (Guard thread, I'm looking at you).

This is an elegant ad hom, implying that these topics are being made because of someone's personal and baseless dislike of some element. If someone is talking rubbish, you should be able to prove it without resorting to attacking the OP's motives.

There are a lot of balance issues with WAR, won't deny. If 6v6 isn't a thing here (maybe with more people and a more stable cap, ie 40), who is supposed to 6vX? As someone else pointed out, this is where DoK/WP shines. For the sake of not making all archetypes the same, balance is sounding a lot like equality in this case; a pipe dream used to exploit minds.

It's been pointed out that DoK (and WP) "shine" both in 6v6 and in large-scale RvR engagements... so, basically, the majority of the game. They shouldn't shine any more brightly than the other healers when we're talking about the core of the game, yet they do.

That said, a decision will need to be made later on whether DoK/WP are too strong, or whether the other healers lack the ability to contribute to their level (i.e. they don't have a good enough ability to spec for large-scale PvP, allowing them to be different yet equally valuable overall compared to a WP or DoK).

DoK/WP get a lot of hate. How soon till we're humping each other's knees in combat, making it easier to be AoE'd? Then it would have to be 6v6, since 6vX would be relatively impossible. This is my fear, and you don't need an extreme example to bring us there... just little chips, because "balance".

Slippery slope fallacy.

[Tesq]

Unless you think all healers are perfectly balanced between each other, which is an opinion i respect (but disagree with). There have been some other suggestions in this thread. I don't see any harm in taking at least 3 of those and testing them.

I wouldn't have made a suggestion, when everything is fine.
The range suggestion just has so many obvious flaws, I can't believe it is still discussed.
I mean, we can post a dozen ideas but shouldn't test all ingame. At first we should break those ideas from a gameplay perspective - basically finds the flaws in order to improve them. It should only be tested ingame, when it is refined on the paper.

I understand. My problem is that some people (not saying you do this) just say "no! bad idea!" but don't give any other suggestions.

i alredy done my suggestions and ppl angry at me when i re post my stuff furhermore they are always the same things.

-change the cast time of other healer g-heals from 2,5 to 1,5 (same proportion of healdirect heal+hot diff is 0,5)
- set the value from dok/wp according to that.(x1,5)
-give all other healer group core cleanse while dok/wp need to spec for it.

-force dok/wp to play front line due increase the cost of the heal and force them to aoe rec-
-make the aoe rec undefitable so that they have more controll x the risk.
---> this mean they need earlier aoe detaunt( or to better say when they get aoe heals)


-Nerf rkd from order (dok cannot front line unless you change this statue of the things)

-nerf kobs/chosen super punt (1 less uber punt around les problem for front line healers, less opness from kobs/chosen)

-then there are other problems regarding CD increase and decrease that are retarded OP in this game that make group cleane and group heal **** **** or **** godly. If i have to g-heal with a **** retarded slayer spam frontline shatter limbs then the discussion can even end now i just have to reroll a zealot.


These are the list of my suggestion and problems and some are around from a lot of times. and guess what some are connected to each other.

[Defiance]

doubled, sorry.

[Defiance]

My problem with a lot of these is that, "I don't like it.", "Let's 'fix' it", is how a lot of these "issues" get brought up. DoKs are powerful, okay, got that. Does this mean anything needs to be done? What if Zel/SHM had our armor values? Would that make it okay?

If you disagree that something needs to be done when a class is "powerful" (like "strong", this is a code word for OP when said by the users of a given element of a game), then you don't really believe in balance. The only time I accept "strong" or "powerful" as a valid argument is when this word can equally be applied to a class or element's peers. Can it?

Should it? The only peer a DoK has is the Warrior Priest. Archetypes, yes. Then I ask again, should they all be the same? Someone's signature says it best, "If you want mirroed classes, play chess." The same but different has been WAR's MO since inception. I don't think all members of an Archetype should do all things equally, same but different. Otherwise, we should just make them identical, then there'd be less issues. If there are differences, the group who feels like they're getting the short end of the stick will make a thread about it and then we'll be back here, sure as sunrise. That's MMO Balancing 101, right there, or at least, typical forum behavior.

Also, <if you this, then you this> isn't that a fallacy too? No True Scottsman, or something along those lines? Bruh.

I wouldn't say "equal" and "different" are mutually exclusive, but they definitely have different postal codes.

I don't like DPS AM's damage, buff DPS Shaman. Let me insert all kinds of words to insinuate that this is about game balance, as opposed to the fact that I just don't like their rate of damage. Let me then begin solutions to buff or nerf, to solve this "problem". Then come all the pages, the terrible suggestions (suggesting things is fine, but doing so without much care for balance because "we can test it"... :/), all because I didn't like something, but worded it in a way to get everyone else on board (Guard thread, I'm looking at you).

This is an elegant ad hom, implying that these topics are being made because of someone's personal and baseless dislike of some element. If someone is talking rubbish, you should be able to prove it without resorting to attacking the OP's motives.

Prove it. How so, when the English language allows us to talk each other in circles so nicely? Any topic under the sun can be debated almost endlessly (the only exception I think, is Math... but mathematicians debate Pi vs Tau, so no, not even the language of the universe is concrete) I don't think it's ad hom to acknowledge that "I don't like it" is where a lot of these come from. It's not unique to this OP, nor is it unique to many OPs. It's not unique at all.

There are a lot of balance issues with WAR, won't deny. If 6v6 isn't a thing here (maybe with more people and a more stable cap, ie 40), who is supposed to 6vX? As someone else pointed out, this is where DoK/WP shines. For the sake of not making all archetypes the same, balance is sounding a lot like equality in this case; a pipe dream used to exploit minds.

It's been pointed out that DoK (and WP) "shine" both in 6v6 and in large-scale RvR engagements... so, basically, the majority of the game. They shouldn't shine any more brightly than the other healers when we're talking about the core of the game, yet they do.

That said, a decision will need to be made later on whether DoK/WP are too strong, or whether the other healers lack the ability to contribute to their level (i.e. they don't have a good enough ability to spec for large-scale PvP, allowing them to be different yet equally valuable overall compared to a WP or DoK).

The emphasis is probably the best reflection of my approach to anything balance related. Nerfs are ubiquitous when it comes to balance. In comparison, it's rare that other elements are buffed to match the offending element. I asked this in another DoK thread. Why nerf, leaving saltiness everywhere (the nerfed, and the untouched), as opposed to buffing, leaving the strong where they are, and giving the weak more/better options. I'd love it if spells granted by Zealots were worth the GCD to use them.

DoK/WP get a lot of hate. How soon till we're humping each other's knees in combat, making it easier to be AoE'd? Then it would have to be 6v6, since 6vX would be relatively impossible. This is my fear, and you don't need an extreme example to bring us there... just little chips, because "balance".

Slippery slope fallacy.

Excellent. Chip away.

To use that Guard thread as an example, 26 pages and counting, when the simplest and least detrimental "test" would be incremental % reduction. These threads and discussions can exist, doesn't mean they bring any good.

We disagree. You have power to do stuff, I don't. You'll do what you think is best/fair/etc, and the rest of us will deal with it.

[Lileldys]

Rule of MMO's... never nerf healers. Just buff everyone to their status.

On topic though (current topic)... nerfing range on WP and DoK again (it used to be 150ft before is really dangerous especially because of latency. You already have to account 30ft just for latency and never stay the full 100ft away from your intended healing target. As wingz already pointed out, IB's would hard counter DoKs with their heal debuff. I love the idea of the WP and DoK being put in harms way as heavier armored healers however I don't believe they should be healing nerfed on top of that (which is what will happen with the heal debuffs)

So err, stop stacking 2xDoK and get Zealot/Sham who can cleanse it...or M2...

[Azarael]

Should it? The only peer a DoK has is the Warrior Priest. Archetypes, yes. Then I ask again, should they all be the same? Someone's signature says it best, "If you want mirroed classes, play chess." The same but different has been WAR's MO since inception. I don't think all members of an Archetype should do all things equally, same but different. Otherwise, we should just make them identical, then there'd be less issues. If there are differences, the group who feels like they're getting the short end of the stick will make a thread about it and then we'll be back here, sure as sunrise. That's MMO Balancing 101, right there, or at least, typical forum behavior.

Also, <if you this, then you this> isn't that a fallacy too? No True Scottsman, or something along those lines? Bruh.

I wouldn't say "equal" and "different" are mutually exclusive, but they definitely have different postal codes.

Sorry, but I had to laugh. "If this, then this" is CAUSALITY.

No True Scotsman is shifting the goalposts, i.e.:

A: X has attribute Y
B: <shows X which lacks attribute Y>
A: All REAL X have attribute Y

Accepting that a class can be "strong" while others cannot be considered to be so and stating that this requires no action means that you don't believe in balance. That's self-evident, sorry. The only way that inconsistency can be defended is if you propose bringing the other healers up to WP / DoK level.

Prove it. How so, when the English language allows us to talk each other in circles so nicely? Any topic under the sun can be debated almost endlessly (the only exception I think, is Math... but mathematicians debate Pi vs Tau, so no, not even the language of the universe is concrete) I don't think it's ad hom to acknowledge that "I don't like it" is where a lot of these come from. It's not unique to this OP, nor is it unique to many OPs. It's not unique at all.

It IS an ad hom - and it will be treated as such in the balance forum. You can attack the assertions made by the OP, but you cannot make an assumption about his motives.

The emphasis is probably the best reflection of my approach to anything balance related. Nerfs are ubiquitous when it comes to balance. In comparison, it's rare that other elements are buffed to match the offending element. I asked this in another DoK thread. Why nerf, leaving saltiness everywhere (the nerfed, and the untouched), as opposed to buffing, leaving the strong where they are, and giving the weak more/better options. I'd love it if spells granted by Zealots were worth the GCD to use them.

Yup. The only caveat I have to mention here is that you cannot always buff, or you will get power creep and shift the general state of the game instead of the classes.

Excellent. Chip away.

To use that Guard thread as an example, 26 pages and counting, when the simplest and least detrimental "test" would be incremental % reduction. These threads and discussions can exist, doesn't mean they bring any good.

We disagree. You have power to do stuff, I don't. You'll do what you think is best/fair/etc, and the rest of us will deal with it.

The Guard thread isn't a good example of slippery slope. If anything, it's an example of how you stop bad ideas and incorrect perceptions - by proving them misguided and wrong. Accusing people of poor motives just makes them more committed to their cause.

I will happily admit that I (as has been something of a pattern) made mistakes in that thread from looking at Guard with a too narrow viewpoint. There are still problems I have with Guard (its status as almost mandatory and its reinforcement of group healing effects even in smaller scale combat) but I, too, made suggestions in that thread which were outlined as flawed by other members of the community.

I feel, of course, that I'm given tolerance for posting incomplete ideas to the forum because I'm a developer, but the fact is that you accomplish far more from actually destroying an opponent's argument and showing why their viewpoint is wrong than simply assuming bad faith about them.

People in general need to accept that questions are going to be asked, some about core mechanics. That can't be avoided without censoring people (i.e. locking down topics). You're not going to be able to browbeat people out of doing that. The only way is to defend the mechanic satisfactorily, as has been done in the Guard thread.

[Defiance]

Should it? The only peer a DoK has is the Warrior Priest. Archetypes, yes. Then I ask again, should they all be the same? Someone's signature says it best, "If you want mirroed classes, play chess." The same but different has been WAR's MO since inception. I don't think all members of an Archetype should do all things equally, same but different. Otherwise, we should just make them identical, then there'd be less issues. If there are differences, the group who feels like they're getting the short end of the stick will make a thread about it and then we'll be back here, sure as sunrise. That's MMO Balancing 101, right there, or at least, typical forum behavior.

Also, <if you this, then you this> isn't that a fallacy too? No True Scottsman, or something along those lines? Bruh.

I wouldn't say "equal" and "different" are mutually exclusive, but they definitely have different postal codes.

Sorry, but I had to laugh. "If this, then this" is CAUSALITY.

No True Scotsman is shifting the goalposts, i.e.:

A: X has attribute Y
B: <shows X which lacks attribute Y>
C: All REAL X have attribute Y

Accepting that a class can be "strong" while others cannot be considered to be so and stating that this requires no action means that you don't believe in balance. That's self-evident, sorry. The only way that inconsistency can be defended is if you propose bringing the other healers up to WP / DoK level.

I was certain there's a fallacy for, "If you don't believe this, then you must believe this." The more you know, thanks.

I'm pretty sure buffing the others is the gist of my "leave this alone"/"be very careful" viewpoint when it comes to anything with the "n" word.

Prove it. How so, when the English language allows us to talk each other in circles so nicely? Any topic under the sun can be debated almost endlessly (the only exception I think, is Math... but mathematicians debate Pi vs Tau, so no, not even the language of the universe is concrete) I don't think it's ad hom to acknowledge that "I don't like it" is where a lot of these come from. It's not unique to this OP, nor is it unique to many OPs. It's not unique at all.

It IS an ad hom - and it will be treated as such in the balance forum. You can attack the assertions made by the OP, but you cannot make an assumption about his motives.

I'll stay out of there then, good to know.

The emphasis is probably the best reflection of my approach to anything balance related. Nerfs are ubiquitous when it comes to balance. In comparison, it's rare that other elements are buffed to match the offending element. I asked this in another DoK thread. Why nerf, leaving saltiness everywhere (the nerfed, and the untouched), as opposed to buffing, leaving the strong where they are, and giving the weak more/better options. I'd love it if spells granted by Zealots were worth the GCD to use them.

Yup. The only caveat I have to mention here is that you cannot always buff, or you will get power creep and shift the general state of the game instead of the classes.

After 10+ years of watching classes get neutered in MMOs (and balance destroyed in the process), I don't mind the power creep. This has only ever been an issue after a: numerous expansions, b: mobas (which feature numerous expansions via characters).

These things can't be adjusted in isolation. I hope I'm saying stuff you already know right now. If you buff one, the others go down. If you nerf one, the others go up. To nerf one, then "revisit the other classes" as if solving a related problem is going to create new problems.

Excellent. Chip away.

To use that Guard thread as an example, 26 pages and counting, when the simplest and least detrimental "test" would be incremental % reduction. These threads and discussions can exist, doesn't mean they bring any good.

We disagree. You have power to do stuff, I don't. You'll do what you think is best/fair/etc, and the rest of us will deal with it.

The Guard thread isn't a good example of slippery slope. If anything, it's an example of how you stop bad ideas and incorrect perceptions - by proving them misguided and wrong. Accusing people of poor motives just makes them more committed to their cause.

I will happily admit that I (as has been something of a pattern) made mistakes in that thread from looking at Guard with a too narrow viewpoint. There are still problems I have with Guard (its status as almost mandatory and its reinforcement of group healing effects even in smaller scale combat) but I, too, made suggestions in that thread which were outlined as flawed by other members of the community.

I feel, of course, that I'm given tolerance for posting incomplete ideas to the forum because I'm a developer, but the fact is that you accomplish far more from actually destroying an opponent's argument and showing why their viewpoint is wrong than simply assuming bad faith about them.

People in general need to accept that questions are going to be asked, some about core mechanics. That can't be avoided without censoring people (i.e. locking down topics). You're not going to be able to browbeat people out of doing that. The only way is to defend the mechanic satisfactorily, as has been done in the Guard thread.

I didn't intend to use it as a slippery slope example. I used it to point out that 26 pages can be taken care of in a sentence that has very little to do with getting change happy, which is something we can do, given that it's a pserver. Let's just change everything and make the perfect WAR, right? "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." is a saying I live by, and I'm applying it here.

It's not like every change is final, so tolerance is granted, but every argument doesn't need a solution, and it's not "disbelieving in balance" to say so.

[Tesq]

g-heals and cleanse are just like guard and challenge for tank every healer need to have those with the same efficency.

if dok are high in efficency bring them to medium and also buff other rhealer efficency to mefium from low.

you cannot jsut nerf something that have this greart impact you need to make close these healers by nerf a bit one and buff a bit the other, in the end the heal/cleanse game balance remain the same but classes are more close each other which is the aim of the fix.

[Shadowgurke]

senseless discussion about non topic related stuff

...

After 10+ years of watching classes get neutered in MMOs (and balance destroyed in the process), I don't mind the power creep. This has only ever been an issue after a: numerous expansions, b: mobas (which feature numerous expansions via characters).

Powercreep has been an issue in many games and it is not necessarily tied to new characters in mobas or expansions in MMOs

These things can't be adjusted in isolation. I hope I'm saying stuff you already know right now. If you buff one, the others go down. If you nerf one, the others go up. To nerf one, then "revisit the other classes" as if solving a related problem is going to create new problems.

6 healers in the game. 2 being stronger than the others. Why would you not nerf the 2 overperforming ones?