Balancingteam, Developers and the community

[Slmjmosumb]

A spec for survival would include a heal cooldown of some type and some way to mitigate damage for a certain amount of time. 3rd skill would be utility of some type...knockdown or silence or disarm, etc. The IB trait trees are a great example of this idea. One tree dedicated to damage, one to tanking and one to survival/utility. Survival shouldn't mean turning WLs into tanks, it should mean providing some way to deal with incoming damage spikes.

[peterthepan3]

A spec for survival would include a heal cooldown of some type and some way to mitigate damage for a certain amount of time. 3rd skill would be utility of some type...knockdown or silence or disarm, etc. The IB trait trees are a great example of this idea. One tree dedicated to damage, one to tanking and one to survival/utility. Survival shouldn't mean turning WLs into tanks, it should mean providing some way to deal with incoming damage spikes.

Fair point, but one would argue that that is where detaunt and playing with tanks come into play. Also, Close Combat tactic exists for this sort of purpose.

[Mausini]

We are not particularly interested in balancing around 1v1, truth be told. If your role is that of a damage dealer then you need to be able to perform said role within all relevant environments of gameplay (this doesn't mean removing a spec favoured for solo play, but also means not deliberately making changes to facilitate to solo play; group/WB must trump in this regard).

No one asked for balancing around 1v1 for WL in particular but completely killing the solo capability of WL is sure not a good thing.
The point is. If you want to keep the pet as more than just a stylish add on you need to have some skills/tactics dedicated to it = some kind of tree or parts of a tree need to have some pet synergies. The problem: a Pet worth mentioning means decent to good solo capabilities because you can shift parts of your damage into the pet and build more tanky.

But lets turn it around. If solo play is not a thing at all, why didn't you strip away the solo roaming abilities of WH/WE ages ago and put everything into more WB viability?
I got the answer for you: because its part of the core identity of the class. Like good roaming potential was and still is one of the core identities of a WL.

[Ugle]

Just don't butcher class theme and spec diversity in the process of "making every class" viable for warband shlttery.

For example: For SW, remove dmg debuff off SFA aoe tactic, increase radius. Retain skirmish sustained dmg theme, make viable for wb play.

Add some kind of utility to sweeping slash. This way you dont make St tree, aoe tree, useless tree but retain spec diversity options.

Using SW as example, is applicable for all classes.

Small incremental changes.

[Mausini]

I had a PM discussion with lefze about WB viability of WL and he insisted, that more or less the only important thing for WB viability is the ability to bomb hard.
I strongly disagree with that point of view. Pure bombing builds have always been the curse of Warhammer online.
WB play should not only evolve around what side can dish out more pure damage. It should be about who plays more clever and uses its utility to his advantage.

I do think that the one sided situation in RvR right now is a matter of tools and utility, with Chopper and tank SH engaging and breaking frontlines much to easy. The lacking damage dealer options for order WB do come on top but is the minor problem.

So please don't try to change WL into a pure bombing tool. Give him good ways to deal AOE damage but keep him flexible by giving him 1 or 2 things that contribute into a WB without just using him as a dedicated frontline bomber.

[Acidic]

I had a PM discussion with lefze about WB viability of WL and he insisted, that more or less the only important thing for WB viability is the ability to bomb hard.
I strongly disagree with that point of view. Pure bombing builds have always been the curse of Warhammer online.
WB play should not only evolve around what side can dish out more pure damage. It should be about who plays more clever and uses its utility to his advantage.

I do think that the one sided situation in RvR right now is a matter of tools and utility, with Chopper and tank SH engaging and breaking frontlines much to easy. The lacking damage dealer options for order WB do come on top but is the minor problem.

So please don't try to change WL into a pure bombing tool. Give him good ways to deal AOE damage but keep him flexible by giving him 1 or 2 things that contribute into a WB without just using him as a dedicated frontline bomber.

Yes bombing warband as a goal for balancing does sound like a big big fail in direction.
Looking at the patch today and the comments it’s hard to imagine a happy outcome that is not bomb bomb moral done. I think the theory crafting and lack of being able to listen to the numerous change suggestion becomes evident when bw m2 returns when it has been said moral bombing is not the direction ppl want and utility on order is needed. Even as a bandaid it fails as other changes won’t get tested due to bw first choice in organized WB and pug coordination is limited.

[peterthepan3]

Just don't butcher class theme and spec diversity in the process of "making every class" viable for warband shlttery.

For example: For SW, remove dmg debuff off SFA aoe tactic, increase radius. Retain skirmish sustained dmg theme, make viable for wb play.

Add some kind of utility to sweeping slash. This way you dont make St tree, aoe tree, useless tree but retain spec diversity options.

Using SW as example, is applicable for all classes.

Small incremental changes.

Good suggestions, and precisely the approach we are going to opt for.

[Ramasee]

I had a PM discussion with lefze about WB viability of WL and he insisted, that more or less the only important thing for WB viability is the ability to bomb hard.
I strongly disagree with that point of view. Pure bombing builds have always been the curse of Warhammer online.
WB play should not only evolve around what side can dish out more pure damage. It should be about who plays more clever and uses its utility to his advantage.

I do think that the one sided situation in RvR right now is a matter of tools and utility, with Chopper and tank SH engaging and breaking frontlines much to easy. The lacking damage dealer options for order WB do come on top but is the minor problem.

So please don't try to change WL into a pure bombing tool. Give him good ways to deal AOE damage but keep him flexible by giving him 1 or 2 things that contribute into a WB without just using him as a dedicated frontline bomber.

And you will notice that the end product had utility built into it and the damage was actually not that high (had any community member bothered to actually read the math).

Also you are taking the opinion of 1 of what was 7 balance members. There is a reason we had 7 different perspectives creating the proposal in addition to the white lion think tank that fed us ideas.

Balance has been neutered to small changes and half measures that are at the whim of one man (that is the end reality).

[Acidic]

Maybe but looking today’s patch any faith in balancing took a knock

[peterthepan3]

We are not particularly interested in balancing around 1v1, truth be told. If your role is that of a damage dealer then you need to be able to perform said role within all relevant environments of gameplay (this doesn't mean removing a spec favoured for solo play, but also means not deliberately making changes to facilitate to solo play; group/WB must trump in this regard).

No one asked for balancing around 1v1 for WL in particular but completely killing the solo capability of WL is sure not a good thing.
The point is. If you want to keep the pet as more than just a stylish add on you need to have some skills/tactics dedicated to it = some kind of tree or parts of a tree need to have some pet synergies. The problem: a Pet worth mentioning means decent to good solo capabilities because you can shift parts of your damage into the pet and build more tanky.

But lets turn it around. If solo play is not a thing at all, why didn't you strip away the solo roaming abilities of WH/WE ages ago and put everything into more WB viability?
I got the answer for you: because its part of the core identity of the class. Like good roaming potential was and still is one of the core identities of a WL.

I didn't say solo play wasn't a thing. I said that balance needs to revolve primarily around group/warband play as endgame dungeons, scenarios, RvR, Forts & City sieges are all tailored towards these scales.

I am not sure what 'solo roaming abilities' you are talking about for WH/WE? Their KD - essential in group...their stealth - essential for their lightarmored role/element of surprise...their stagger - essential in a fight against other premades, and as an escape tool...etc. WH/WE have been given some WB love in recent patches (which isn't to say they won't be given more of a defined role if wanted by community).