Should the difficulty level of skill rotation reflect in the amount of DPS? Or being melee/ranged?

[Dadnir.5038]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"eldain stenlund.4306" said:You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be

balanced

. It is to be

fun

.

Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

Well, no! It doesn't since player that enjoy playing complex builds have fun for the same performances than player that enjoy playing simple builds. The only thing that can cripple the complex build is the image that the player that use it give to their team. If the player that use such build end up playing poorly, it won't be very thought out, however if the players end up playing well, the build will have good reputation.

The issue with unbalanced performance is that in the end you just keep the one which is at the top. While when the performances are balanced you have the choice in your playstyle. Pushing to have a profession above the other will always limit the choice of gameplay and thus reduce the "fun factor". Instead, pushing for balance will give option for every profession to be competitive whatever the complexity of the gameplay, allowing players to take part of the same content with varying builds.

[Feanor.2358]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"eldain stenlund.4306" said:You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be

balanced

. It is to be

fun

.

Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

Well, no! It doesn't since player that enjoy playing complex builds have fun for the same performances than player that enjoy playing simple builds.

Yeah, no. Condi engi history disproves this claim. And for a good reason. Higher complexity means much more chances to mess up and much higher impact when you do. Since nobody is perfect, messing up does happen, this translates in lower efficiency (actual performance / performance potential) of the complex builds. So you'll objectively be at a disadvantage by simply picking the complex build. This doesn't affect the decision to play it or not much when it's clear you'll clear the content anyway. As soon as the content becomes challenging, weighing down your team for no reason than "I prefer to play this" becomes very selfish, and very unaccepted thing to do. And then you change build, because you want to actually play the content.

[Dadnir.5038]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"eldain stenlund.4306" said:You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be

balanced

. It is to be

fun

.

Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

Well, no! It doesn't since player that enjoy playing complex builds have fun for the same performances than player that enjoy playing simple builds.

Yeah, no. Condi engi history disproves this claim. And for a good reason. Higher complexity means much more chances to mess up and much higher impact when you do. Since nobody is perfect, messing up

does

happen, this translates in lower efficiency (actual performance / performance potential) of the complex builds. So you'll objectively be at a disadvantage by simply picking the complex build. This doesn't affect the decision to play it or not much

when it's clear you'll clear the content anyway

. As soon as the content becomes challenging, weighing down your team for no reason than "I prefer to play this" becomes very selfish, and very unaccepted thing to do. And then you change build, because you want to actually play the content.

Your engi argument would have a point if this engi had competitive dps, however he was still far behind the favored dps, which is why you didn't see them used.

[Feanor.2358]

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@Dadnir.5038 said:

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"eldain stenlund.4306" said:You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be

balanced

. It is to be

fun

.

Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

Well, no! It doesn't since player that enjoy playing complex builds have fun for the same performances than player that enjoy playing simple builds.

Yeah, no. Condi engi history disproves this claim. And for a good reason. Higher complexity means much more chances to mess up and much higher impact when you do. Since nobody is perfect, messing up

does

happen, this translates in lower efficiency (actual performance / performance potential) of the complex builds. So you'll objectively be at a disadvantage by simply picking the complex build. This doesn't affect the decision to play it or not much

when it's clear you'll clear the content anyway

. As soon as the content becomes challenging, weighing down your team for no reason than "I prefer to play this" becomes very selfish, and very unaccepted thing to do. And then you change build, because you want to actually play the content.

Your engi argument would have a point if this engi had competitive dps, however he was still far behind the favored dps, which is why you didn't see them used.

Yeah, no again. When cengi became forgotten it was top dps on small.

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

@eldain stenlund.4306 You obviously start with probing for world war bombs. Who the hell would build a foundation before that? But the analogy falls short on more aspects than that. The game is almost 6 years old, we have an established base, walls and roof.

But back to the balancing aspect: You can't balance for equal dps on the golem. Heck, you can't even balance for equal dps in an average combat situation. This would completely destroy the whole risk-reward system. If every build had equal dps, everyone would just play the least risky build.

Risk needs reward. And risk comes in many different forms. Obviously being restricted to a smaller effective area is more risky than having a larger effective area. Having the effects of your attacks delayed is also more risky than dealing damage immediately. 40k dps is something only a few professions can pull off and only under special conditions in the hands of the best players. 13 buttons 40 k dps is a completely ludicrous request. 30 k dps is a normal benchmark for the golem. 35 k if the build requires special circumstances to be met like being able to stand still for a period of time, the boss standing perfectly still or a certain amount of allies being in close vicinity.

There are currently balancing issues with builds over- or underperforming. But buffing all professions to 40 k dps would be the opposite of balancing the game.

[Indure.5410]

My two cents:Should complexity of rotation increase DPS?Overall no, but maybe a 1-2% increase in damage is fine, since even the best players can't always be perfect in their rotations (sometimes of no fault of their own), which will lead to their profession under preforming against less skilled classes. Overall I do think they should be getting additional benefits but not in terms of DPS. They could be given more utility, party support, or even burst damage.

Should melee do more damage than range?Yes. DPS is a representation of damage over time and melee naturally will have lower DPS due to needing to reposition and chase. A simple dodge and reposition back to melee cost 1-2 seconds and these seconds add up over the course of the fight and will reflect in much lower damage compared to range. Additionally melee typically have more incoming damage and lesser time to respond to damage than range, resulting in more defensive cooldowns needing to be used which is another time sink and can possibly damage rotations.

EDIT: I should clarify that the goal shouldn't be to reward one class with more damage than others, but instead look at some intrinsic shortcomings associated with class/role design and increase them so overall, all classes feel balanced in the end. So melee shouldn't be doing more DPS than range, they should be doing more damage so they end up with the same DPS.

[lLobo.7960]

There is a lot more to it.

• Complex rotation should give more dps if done perfectly.

• A rotation that include defensive skills (evade frames) or utility (boons, heals, cc, fields) should give less dps than a pure dps one.

• Single target should provide more dps/heal/suport than cleave, cones, and AoEs.

• Skills with preparations (stealth attacks, overloads, adrenaline burst, etc) should have higher dmg/effect than simple attacks

• Skills with channel casting should have higher dmg/effect than instant ones.

• Skills that root you in place should have higher dmg/effect than mobile ones.

• Skills with ground target should have higher dmg/effect than direct (tab target) ones.

• Skills/traits that depend on outside factors (number of conditions, number of boons, etc) should have higher dps/effectiveness than ones that don't. (to promote group play)

• Melee hits harder but is more reliable (no travel speed/LoS). Ranged, if projectiles, can be reflected. (It is riskier for a ele to get his fireball reflected on his face than a warrior to stand toe-to-toe for arcing slice)

Things should be a trade-off, risk-reward, etc. But it is way more than just melee/range or direct/dot. And its more than just how many skills you have to press.

Also, some classes have core mechanics that makes them more supportive or with more defense, that sometimes cannot be traded for dps. Such classes should not have the same dps potential of classes without such core mechanics.

Example:A reaper deals low dps with a simple rotation, but its dps is very achievable on many scenarios as it depends less on external factors and the reaper has a high HP pool and shroud to avoid interrupting its dmg for healing or going defensive.A thief does high single target dps with a simple rotation but has very low hp, medium armor and needs to position itself correctly or loose a lot of dps.A ele does high ranged AoE dps with a complex rotation but it has no utility/cc and it depends highly on external factors (boons, heals, etc)

Just to clarify something.A complex rotation is not a long chain of skills!!Complex rotation is when certain skills, positioning, and effects are chained to have greater result.Weaver rotation is complex as you need to time your burst during the 10secs while you have the increased dmg buff from double attunes AND match that to CC phases (cc done by your team) and avoid using long lasting effects/field on invul or moving phases. You need to place your conjures where you are going to pick them up, so you need to think ahead of the fight (easier on fights that just stay in one spot, trickier on moving ones). You need to be on the right attunement setup before the burn phases so you can pre-cast skills to trigger at the start of such burn or the long cast of such skills will make them deliver the dmg at the end or even after the phase.A long rotation is just using a lot of skills whenever they are off CD while prioritizing certain skills that have more dmg. A bit like the condi engi, as the kits don't have CD on their use, unlike attunements, and there are no limited windows of using certain skills.

[cat.8975]

Any rotation that is complicated/difficult to pull off needs to have higher potential DPS. Someone who is capable of playing an "easy" spec at 80% efficiency will likely struggle to play a "hard" one at 60%. Arbitrary numbers, but the point should be obvious.

[MyPuppy.8970]

Any ranger can do more dps and kills by 32111 rinse and repeat than a sword weaver swinging its toothpick. Although at melee range they do far more damage with maul and worldy impact. So yeah, melee should be more rewarding, but not for every spec.

[Barnabus Stinson.1409]

5% more tops, but even that is a little kitten.Also hardest rotation in the game goes to Reaper on targets below 50% HP.... Being bored to death is tricky!

[TwiceDead.1963]

@MyPuppy.8970 said:Any ranger can do more dps and kills by 32111 rinse and repeat than a sword weaver swinging its toothpick. Although at melee range they do far more damage with maul and worldy impact. So yeah, melee should be more rewarding, but not for every spec.

I guess that depends on how punishing it is for something to be within melee range. For example, the Rangers Longbow is punished for being closer to targets by doing far less damage and rewards longshots on Auto Attacks specifically.

There's not a whole lot of mechanics like that in this game outside of that example though...