Return of Reckoning

Great points Tk. The objection is obviously targeted at WLs. If we test the change and WLs are a problem then adjust WLs.

Nobody is seriously worried about 2H Slayers and Choppas taking over as those specs already lag behind DW.

I Would need a tutorial on how to quote, i'm such a forum n00b.
Soz

U don't seem to rely highly on crit Tesq xD
If at t4 stage FS get implemented but TB not, then almost every dps would want to stack crit ; but if devs implement both tacts then the crit stack path could be just a choice for some careers.

Tklees wrote:2h most definitely lags behind SnB at the end game just due to the tanks lack of survive-ability for little to no real benefit dps wise in most cases. Something should be done about that in the long run imo.

If you want to determine the balance of a class, you must consider the following attributes:

- How much offensive potential does the class have
- How much defensive potential does the class have
- In what way does the defense restrict the offensive and vice versa (if you imagine having a number line with the numbers 1-10 on the left and right side, which represent your defense resp. offensive, and in the middle a 0, the question is: how would it affect the ratio at one side if you'd manipulate the other side?)

Those are general things you have to define before you strive for further deliberations about balance.

A few facts referring to the mentioned points above:

1.) Tanks in general are the strongest archetype in the game due to their large amount of CC and the probably strongest ability in the game "Guard". On top, they have both an insane high defensive and offensive potential. Depending on your playstyle and personal preference you'd have to choose between offensive and defensive. Going for one will of course sacrifice the other. That's exactly how it works for every class in WAR unless you're a marauder; but that's a different story. If you choose to go damage, you can still have all the CC a melee can't have and you will never lose guard!

2.) Tanks don't have the dual wield option; 2h will always deal more damage than SnB since it grants extra dps which can be converted into strength. Also it's both the strongest Burst and sustain dmg source a tank has access to.

3.) Additional to their ability to use a 2h they have the possibility to maximize their damage output by abilities/tactics such as Greataxe Mastery, Etherdance, Crimson Death, Attack Speed Modifier (which are in general a lot better on 2h than on DW/SnB), Rending Blade, Mighty Soul, Stab you Gooder and multiple more. Granting a player the possibilty to use one of these without any restriction would lead into a huge imbalance.

4.) Taking a two-handed tank over a SnB tank for your group is a matter of preference; If you choose a two-handed tank you usually lack damage which you try to compensate by having more damage on your tank whereas a SnB tank provides utility and is able to support his team better than the 2 handed one. Does this automatically make one worse? No, just different.

Tklees wrote:The "proc problem" as I am going to call it, DW having many more could be addressed by having procs on work on main hand AAs and restrict offhand AAs from causing procs if possible? would reduce the gap in procs to just attack speed.

If we assume having a character, who is able to wear both a 2h and dual wield in the endgame at a 1050 str cap with the following stats:

DW: 60 DPS | 1,7 Speed 2H: 82 DPS | 3,9 Speed and let him DPS for 1 gcd (where we assume a guaranteed offhand swing), 5 seconds and 10 seconds with a 46% chance to proc his offhand swing, you will have the following outcome (considering that you ignore both crit & mitigation):

2h (1gcd): 729
DW (1gcd): 421

2h (5s): 1458
DW (5s): 1263

2h (10s): 2187
DW (10s): 2106

as you can see, the longer the fight gets, the more effectiv dual wield will become. Having an additional chance to to proc a proc on a proc is not that kind of a big deal compared to 73,16% more burst damage in the first gcd, 15,45% more damage after 5 seconds and still 3,85% more damage after 10 seconds. I don't see any point to nerf either DW nor to buff 2h.

The WL is an awesome example for how good burst damage already works and i think i explained quite well why we shouldn't change anything at this point.

Tklees wrote:10% parry strike through is seriously not that big of a deal.

honestly, it is! getting behind your enemy is a l2p issue, preventing your enemy from getting behind you is a l2p issue too, in the end skills will get parried.

Tklees wrote:wth is parry strike through going to do?

you claimed to know that it is not a big deal above but yet you don't even know how effective it is or how it will affect the balance? nice one..

Tklees wrote:What classes are going to really be hurt by loosing 10% parry to one mdps that is build around burst and currently has horrible AP problems (even when addressed they will still lack any form of reliable CC compared to their mirror which is a CC bot)? The answer is none.

it is not about one class but about 8. also your mrd/wl comparison seems to be more than weak. i can't neither see how marauder is a cc bot nor do is see HORRIBLE(!) AP problems on the WL.

Tklees wrote:When we are looking at balance the bias simply needs to be taken out the the equation and 90% of the playerbase here seems to lack the ability to do that when talking about these subjects.

When we are looking at the balance we have to make sure, we know what we talk about.

Tklees wrote:Its disappointing to me that things like this get shelved due to the opinions of such players

it's disappointing for me that people still trying to get a change implemented when they don't know its extend.

Tklees wrote:because at the end of the day this is an alpha and we are testers and the server pop isnt going anywhere if the adjustments that are made are incremental.

and that's why you want to bother the devs with an "issue" like that?

Tklees wrote:Its ignoring balance issues for years that killed the old game.

wow.. if this is ignoring a balance issue which killed the games i'm done here.

Bretin wrote:as you can see, the longer the fight gets, the more effectiv dual wield will become. Having an additional chance to to proc a proc on a proc is not that kind of a big deal compared to 73,16% more burst damage in the first gcd, 15,45% more damage after 5 seconds and still 3,85% more damage after 10 seconds. I don't see any point to nerf either DW nor to buff 2h.

All i see is random numbers that have little basis on reality.

You just made up some ****, made one bigger than the other and somehow are trying to pass it up as a evidence of 2h being good? What the ****?

Abilities have ratios, classes have tools, this random "look this number is bigger than this one so ima right" is baffling to me.

bloodi wrote: all i see is random numbers that have little basis on reality.

the numbers are all based on the game formula and they match 1:1 with your tooltip (considering my stats). i would recommend you calculate it yourself if you want a proof but tbh, i think your intelligence is not capped yet. should work on your gear bro

Bretin wrote:

Tklees wrote:2h most definitely lags behind SnB at the end game just due to the tanks lack of survive-ability for little to no real benefit dps wise in most cases. Something should be done about that in the long run imo.

If you want to determine the balance of a class, you must consider the following attributes:

- How much offensive potential does the class have
- How much defensive potential does the class have
- In what way does the defense restrict the offensive and vice versa (if you imagine having a number line with the numbers 1-10 on the left and right side, which represent your defense resp. offensive, and in the middle a 0, the question is: how would it affect the ratio at one side if you'd manipulate the other side?)

Those are general things you have to define before you strive for further deliberations about balance.

A few facts referring to the mentioned points above:

1.) Tanks in general are the strongest archetype in the game due to their large amount of CC and the probably strongest ability in the game "Guard". On top, they have both an insane high defensive and offensive potential. Depending on your playstyle and personal preference you'd have to choose between offensive and defensive. Going for one will of course sacrifice the other. That's exactly how it works for every class in WAR unless you're a marauder; but that's a different story. If you choose to go damage, you can still have all the CC a melee can't have and you will never lose guard!

2.) Tanks don't have the dual wield option; 2h will always deal more damage than SnB since it grants extra dps which can be converted into strength. Also it's both the strongest Burst and sustain dmg source a tank has access to.

3.) Additional to their ability to use a 2h they have the possibility to maximize their damage output by abilities/tactics such as Greataxe Mastery, Etherdance, Crimson Death, Attack Speed Modifier (which are in general a lot better on 2h than on DW/SnB), Rending Blade, Mighty Soul, Stab you Gooder and multiple more. Granting a player the possibilty to use one of these without any restriction would lead into a huge imbalance.

4.) Taking a two-handed tank over a SnB tank for your group is a matter of preference; If you choose a two-handed tank you usually lack damage which you try to compensate by having more damage on your tank whereas a SnB tank provides utility and is able to support his team better than the 2 handed one. Does this automatically make one worse? No, just different.

Tklees wrote:The "proc problem" as I am going to call it, DW having many more could be addressed by having procs on work on main hand AAs and restrict offhand AAs from causing procs if possible? would reduce the gap in procs to just attack speed.

If we assume having a character, who is able to wear both a 2h and dual wield in the endgame at a 1050 str cap with the following stats:

DW: 60 DPS | 1,7 Speed 2H: 82 DPS | 3,9 Speed and let him DPS for 1 gcd (where we assume a guaranteed offhand swing), 5 seconds and 10 seconds with a 46% chance to proc his offhand swing, you will have the following outcome (considering that you ignore both crit & mitigation):

2h (1gcd): 729
DW (1gcd): 421

2h (5s): 1458
DW (5s): 1263

2h (10s): 2187
DW (10s): 2106

as you can see, the longer the fight gets, the more effectiv dual wield will become. Having an additional chance to to proc a proc on a proc is not that kind of a big deal compared to 73,16% more burst damage in the first gcd, 15,45% more damage after 5 seconds and still 3,85% more damage after 10 seconds. I don't see any point to nerf either DW nor to buff 2h.

The WL is an awesome example for how good burst damage already works and i think i explained quite well why we shouldn't change anything at this point.

Tklees wrote:10% parry strike through is seriously not that big of a deal.

honestly, it is! getting behind your enemy is a l2p issue, preventing your enemy from getting behind you is a l2p issue too, in the end skills will get parried.

Tklees wrote:wth is parry strike through going to do?

you claimed to know that it is not a big deal above but yet you don't even know how effective it is or how it will affect the balance? nice one..

Tklees wrote:What classes are going to really be hurt by loosing 10% parry to one mdps that is build around burst and currently has horrible AP problems (even when addressed they will still lack any form of reliable CC compared to their mirror which is a CC bot)? The answer is none.

it is not about one class but about 8. also your mrd/wl comparison seems to be more than weak. i can't neither see how marauder is a cc bot nor do is see HORRIBLE(!) AP problems on the WL.

Tklees wrote:When we are looking at balance the bias simply needs to be taken out the the equation and 90% of the playerbase here seems to lack the ability to do that when talking about these subjects.

When we are looking at the balance we have to make sure, we know what we talk about.

Tklees wrote:Its disappointing to me that things like this get shelved due to the opinions of such players

it's disappointing for me that people still trying to get a change implemented when they don't know its extend.

Tklees wrote:because at the end of the day this is an alpha and we are testers and the server pop isnt going anywhere if the adjustments that are made are incremental.

and that's why you want to bother the devs with an "issue" like that?

Tklees wrote:Its ignoring balance issues for years that killed the old game.

wow.. if this is ignoring a balance issue which killed the games i'm done here.

the fact that you use the words l2p and spent what i would consider an extremely long time to break down one post that you don't like because it refutes your previous post goes to prove my point. You are completely right about tanks being the best classes in the game no doubt there and I didn't say otherwise. The point of spec options is that each should be as viable as the others thats all I was pointing out about the gap between the current SnB and 2H tanks (SnB leading the way in group utility by a landslide currently).

I guess we agree on the proc problem then. At least there is that.

WLs do have huge AP issues and Maras have a pull(much more reliable than WLs), an AOE kd, a disarm, an aoe interrupt, If you had played one on live in t4 you would know this. I have done this on both classes. As to the positioning being an l2p issue the suggested change that you are fighting against with every part of your core is for a WL to be able to have a viable benefit from being 2H. Your WE gets 10% extra parry, as does your dok. Why shouldnt the WL get something that balances this? because that is the only problem i see here that WL would get 10% parry strike through and a destro mirror wouldnt which isnt a problem.

The rest of your post I will ignore as it was useless elitism trash talk. What you will find Bretin is I don't care how many pugs you stomp or how good your premades are or just how great you are at the game. Just like grulo said to you, you are out of line. The flaming and trash talk is completely uneeded. You're a smart guy. People would take you more seriously if you didnt belittle them every time you quoted a post.

My apologies to all reading this wall of text and I will keep the rest of my posts in this thread on topic.

Bretin wrote:the numbers are all based on the game formula and they match 1:1 with your tooltip (considering my stats). i would recommend you calculate it yourself if you want a proof but tbh, i think your intelligence is not capped yet. should work on your gear bro

Again, what you posted is a really skewed view of it, you dont take into account special attacks, which mostly ignore weapon speed, you just listed white damage numbers to tell everyone how much more burst 2h does.

The fact that you really believe that this proves you are right either means you are stupid or you believe everyone else is stupid, probably both of them.

Please don't pull out your e-peens again, no matter how swollen or limp those are. And stay away from insults...

If I only have 2h on my WE, mmmm.

Atropik wrote:If I only have 2h on my WE, mmmm.

not worth it to lose parry bonus for disarm, aa bonus and considering that a majority of our attacks are ment to be done from the back this wouldnt really help us