3 years of patch notes from a destruction warband perspective

[satanlol]

Had me in the first half. Didn't expect to end on AoE cap.

It was either that or Order biased changes. I decided to go for the more constructive one.

[anarchypark]

you need to see reasoning behind changes.
comparing quantity is meaningless, same as comparing city win/lose ratio.
what's more important is wb comp, player level.
and why skills changed.

lastly, why would anyone take biased perspective seriously?

[satanlol]

you need to see reasoning behind changes.
comparing quantity is meaningless, same as comparing city win/lose ratio.
what's more important is wb comp, player level.
and why skills changed.

lastly, why would anyone take biased perspective seriously?

If you read my post I've under each spoiler posted some kind of reason for the changes. It's also in the conclusion where I answer why so many changes affected Destruction only.

Comparing quantity is not meaningless. Being on the negative end of the changes for a long time do harm to the playerbase of the faction - and in the end also the game itself.

Instead of asking "Why would anyone take a biased perspecitve seriously?" You should tell me where you beleive that I'm having a biased perspective so I have the chance to answer you and even change something in the main post that I might have missed. Just because I'm a Destruction player does not make me biased by nature and I think you have missed the essence of the post.

[derekmlv]

you need to see reasoning behind changes.
comparing quantity is meaningless, same as comparing city win/lose ratio.
what's more important is wb comp, player level.
and why skills changed.

lastly, why would anyone take biased perspective seriously?

you mean the biased perspective that all the RCs on each side have? Kinda the reason they took RC from both sides.

[wargrimnir]

you need to see reasoning behind changes.
comparing quantity is meaningless, same as comparing city win/lose ratio.
what's more important is wb comp, player level.
and why skills changed.

lastly, why would anyone take biased perspective seriously?

you mean the biased perspective that all the RCs on each side have? Kinda the reason they took RC from both sides.

There's been no significant bias during discussions. It wasn't a factor in selection. High level of game experience and the ability to discuss constructively on complex issues were our primary concerns.

[anarchypark]

you need to see reasoning behind changes.
comparing quantity is meaningless, same as comparing city win/lose ratio.
what's more important is wb comp, player level.
and why skills changed.

lastly, why would anyone take biased perspective seriously?

If you read my post I've under each spoiler posted some kind of reason for the changes. It's also in the conclusion where I answer why so many changes affected Destruction only.

Comparing quantity is not meaningless. Being on the negative end of the changes for a long time do harm to the playerbase of the faction - and in the end also the game itself.

Instead of asking "Why would anyone take a biased perspecitve seriously?" You should tell me where you beleive that I'm having a biased perspective so I have the chance to answer you and even change something in the main post that I might have missed. Just because I'm a Destruction player does not make me biased by nature and I think you have missed the essence of the post.

from title and post, you clearly stated it's one side view.
i still think 'why' is more important than 'how many'
no need to track down nerf numbers.
I guess you wanna say destro is victim.
I can't help you, only recommend to see reasons.
to avoid bias, fight everyone and you have no side.

[anarchypark]

you mean the biased perspective that all the RCs on each side have? Kinda the reason they took RC from both sides.

two opposite bias nullify each other.
that's discussion and listeners can judge.
this post have only 1 side.
I'm trying to make discussion but my forum warrior level is not enough to fight this wall of text.
maybe you can help, wanna join ?

[satanlol]

you need to see reasoning behind changes.
comparing quantity is meaningless, same as comparing city win/lose ratio.
what's more important is wb comp, player level.
and why skills changed.

lastly, why would anyone take biased perspective seriously?

If you read my post I've under each spoiler posted some kind of reason for the changes. It's also in the conclusion where I answer why so many changes affected Destruction only.

Comparing quantity is not meaningless. Being on the negative end of the changes for a long time do harm to the playerbase of the faction - and in the end also the game itself.

Instead of asking "Why would anyone take a biased perspecitve seriously?" You should tell me where you beleive that I'm having a biased perspective so I have the chance to answer you and even change something in the main post that I might have missed. Just because I'm a Destruction player does not make me biased by nature and I think you have missed the essence of the post.

from title and post, you clearly stated it's one side view.
i still think 'why' is more important than 'how many'
no need to track down nerf numbers.
I guess you wanna say destro is victim.
I can't help you, only recommend to see reasons.
to avoid bias, fight everyone and you have no side.

There's no where in the post stated that it's a one sided view. I know what setups that are harder to beat, and easier to win against from a destruction perspective. For example: if I say that a Slayer setup is hard to beat, one of the stronger setups to be up against. With your logic you will dismiss my statement by saying I'm biased becuase I haven't played in that setup.


The "why" and "reasons" is stated in the conclusion of the post.

And again, just because I was destruction player does not mean I'm by nature biased. If you've read the post you can see the following. "I do think the game is in a somewhat more balanced state now, but I enjoyed the faster gameplay of morale bombing", you can also find "The AoE cap increased to 24 players. We can have a very long discussion of who this benefits the most. But from how I see it, Destruction with their knockdowns and faster morales came out stronger than Order after this patch" and "Also a nerf to the morale drain of WE and WH. This patch affected Order the most due to their only morale drain, which some guilds started to use, got nerfed."

[derekmlv]

you need to see reasoning behind changes.
comparing quantity is meaningless, same as comparing city win/lose ratio.
what's more important is wb comp, player level.
and why skills changed.

lastly, why would anyone take biased perspective seriously?

you mean the biased perspective that all the RCs on each side have? Kinda the reason they took RC from both sides.

There's been no significant bias during discussions. It wasn't a factor in selection. High level of game experience and the ability to discuss constructively on complex issues were our primary concerns.

Sorry I didnt mean like that I just ment the implied bias having RCs for order and RCs for destro they are there to counter each others arguments if they dont like it. Some bias is a good thing is all i really ment

[Dabbart]

Decent break-down. Don't agree with all your patch-break downs, but well written, thanks for the work.

I would like to add, that with the AoE emphasis, ST specs and classes almost have to be fundamentally changed just go be worth-while, or they simply become solo roamers. Through-out Live, ST WBs were a thing. There was a major argument before the servers started merging about this, and how they would match up. It was my experience, that the best ST WBs often beat the bomb WBs(I was Karak Norn with INQUISITORS then Red Guard. Note, Red Guard didn't lose that often...).

Now though, is there a single class that prefers ST outside of solo roaming, or SCs? And I say prefer, not forced due to lack of "viable" spec. 1 ST group is used for city, but honestly it'd just be better to have a debuff grp or more AoE.

I'm biased though, I dislike anything that empowers targetless or spammable AoE. I played Bomb WBs for too long on Live, I don't find that fun anymore. I'm not against 24AoE cap inherently, but for nearly every AoE ability? And the OP has a good point on the balancing structure stemming from the change. Every class "has" to have a WB spec, with WB spec simply meaning AoE, preferably targetless and spammable.

But, that basic argument applies to every impactful change. This was before the OPs time, but when ICD was added to procs it radically altered the Meta, and a vast stretch of changes, bug fixes, and balancing was required(and still is to some point) to accommodate that change. That's not proof that procs shouldn't of received an ICD. The fact the game requires a lot of work due to a single change doesn't mean that change was bad.

One thing OP doesn't mention, is that the AoE change didn't come from nowhere. This server has tried **** LOADS of changes to counter Zerging, nearly every single one was reverted. If the Devs think that 24AoE is the best of the bad answers then so be it. Definitely not the route I would of gone, and one of the reasons I don't login anymore. I think it rewards poor gameplay. But as of this post, there are 1375 players logged in. 48% order 52% destro. So the server looks to be in a relatively healthy spot.

Edit: Imo the outrage over BOs loss of CDR shows the reliance on AoE and spammable AoE in particular. Good, Bad, or simply something that requires more tweaking and balancing? I dunno. Time will tell.