Why nerfing core to bring down elites will cause issues next xpac.

[Kuma.1503]

Imagine you're a developer. You're in charge of creating the next wave of elite specs. You've got a number of goals you want to hit. 

 

• You want the elite specs to sell
• Change the playstyle of the class in a meaningful way
• The elite spec should be reasonably balanced
• The spec should not be core+

 

That last bullet point presents an issue. Take a moment to consider the ramifications of following this goal and how it conflicts with the other bullet points.

 

Lets start with the big one. 

 

The new elite should be balanced

 

The new elite should not be core+ meaning it should remain roughly equal in power to the core specialization. 

 

Now imagine you're trying to balance the elite spec around a core specialization that has been repeatedly and methodically stripped of power in order to bring down an overperforming elite. The core spec is undeniably underpowered and has been designed in such a way that it does not break its previous elite spec. 

 

If the new elite should = core then this forces you to build an equally underpowered elite, because otherwise you will have core+

 

Take core engi for example. It's been nerfed countless times to balance holo. I can guarantee that, unless the new expansion buffs the core profession, we will be left with either a new Holo (a.k.a Core engi+) or a new Scrapper (pre-quickness rework).  Useless in most game modes. Generally outclassed.

 

Either way, you're left with a case of imbalace. Either the new elite will be too strong or too weak. It's not possible (or at the very least exceedingly difficult) to create an elite that = core and is balanced when the foundation  has more holes than swiss cheese. 

 

Change the playstyle in a meaningful way

 

The problem this poses isn't apparent at first. You want to create something gameplay defining. Otherwise, what's the point of having a new elite? If the gameplay provided by the new spec is already covered by a previous spec, players will be left  underwhelmed with a feeling of same old-same-old. 

 

In order to create divergent playstyles this does require placing a good bit of power into one or more attributes. If you want to create a new elite that acts as a healer/support, then you  will have to pump a good bit of power into healing/support. If you want to create a new elite that acts as a utility dps, then the new elite should invest power into boons and damage. 

 

This works fine if you have a functional fleshed out core profession. The trade-off of giving up a core line will generally even out. If it doesn't, you can create a reasonable trade-off that doesn't cripple the class.

 

Now imagine the core spec you're working with is underpowered and full of holes. How do you create a new playstyle while also avoiding a core+ scenario?

 

You would have to create a trade-off that is beyond crippling just to satisfy the goal of making the new elite on the same level of power as the underpowered core spec. (One-dodge man 2.0?) 

 

Yet again, you cannot achieve every goal. 

 

You want the spec to sell 

 

This is the big one. If you're designing around an underpowered core spec, you're not going to create an underpowered elite because an underpowered spec will not sell. Why invest so much money and time into something that won't deliver? 

 

What this ultimately means is that we have two options. 

 

1. Perform a balance pass on core proffessions. Bring up their power in areas where they've been neutered, flesh them out. Perform reworks if necessary. Balance existing elites accordingly

 

2. Leave core specs underpowered. Accept that, in order to create something fresh and marketable, some elites will have to be Core+

 

Anet has ultimately created a bigger work load for themselves as a result of lazy balancing, and there is no quick/easy solution. Hopefully they address core in the upcoming expansion, otherwise we will see a repeat of PoF. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Kuma.1503
Fixing typos. Formatting.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

elite specs can and arguably should be core +, but only in one category (damage as either power or condi, tank, support, utility).

Edited July 12, 2021 by Stand The Wall.6987

[foste.3098]

28 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

elite specs can and arguably should be core +, but only in one category (damage as either power or condi, tank, support, utility).

At HoT release daredevil was core+ in the mobility aspect and it was op, chronomancer was core+ in the support aspect and it was literally immortal, berzerker was core+ in cc and it was over preforming, druid was core+ in sustain and it too was immortal.

At PoF launch soul beast was core+ in damage and it was awful to play against, firebrand was core+ in utility and it was stupid, ect..

If a elite spec is going to be core+ in some aspect then it should also be core- in some other aspect, otherwise you will get Hot/PoF launch situation again.

 

I totally agree with op, they need to have a balanced foundation in core classes for elite specs to even be remotely balanced, otherwise you get over preforming facerole machines or unplayable trash heaps.

The 'elite spec tradeoff' approach they use now is a good idea to slot in elite specs in to core classes and have them actually change playstyle, but this only works if the core class is balanced.

Edited July 12, 2021 by foste.3098

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

I'm in the camp of people that want tradeoffs...but not the kind of tradeoffs anet currently implements.

 

Tradeoffs in my view isn't simply an opportunity cost, it's more than that. Tradeoff's should be dynamic...nonlinear, and should scale with combat. You shouldn't be punished for picking a playstyle you like to play...you should be punished for playing bad.

 

That to me is the difference between the current tradeoffs, and the tradeoffs we actually need in the game, to prevent spammy, optimizable gameplay.

Edited July 12, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Khalisto.5780]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I'm in the camp of people that want tradeoffs...but not the kind of tradeoffs anet currently implements.

 

Tradeoffs in my view isn't simply an opportunity cost, it's more than that. Tradeoff's should be dynamic...nonlinear, and should scale with combat. You shouldn't be punished for picking a playstyle you like to play...you should be punished for playing bad.

 

That to me is the difference between the current tradeoffs, and the tradeoffs we actually need in the game, to prevent spammy, optimizable gameplay.

Yup some trade offs are laughble, one extra dodge for -300 steal range :,D

[Stand The Wall.6987]

2 hours ago, foste.3098 said:

At HoT release daredevil was core+ in the mobility aspect and it was op, chronomancer was core+ in the support aspect and it was literally immortal, berzerker was core+ in cc and it was over preforming, druid was core+ in sustain and it too was immortal.

At PoF launch soul beast was core+ in damage and it was awful to play against, firebrand was core+ in utility and it was stupid, ect..

If a elite spec is going to be core+ in some aspect then it should also be core- in some other aspect, otherwise you will get Hot/PoF launch situation again.

 

I totally agree with op, they need to have a balanced foundation in core classes for elite specs to even be remotely balanced, otherwise you get over preforming facerole machines or unplayable trash heaps.

The 'elite spec tradeoff' approach they use now is a good idea to slot in elite specs in to core classes and have them actually change playstyle, but this only works if the core class is balanced.

that wasn't what i meant. classes at expac releases were core +++, obviously they should be balanced but its not impossible for an elite spec to be stronger in one area but not broken. its possible its necessary for especs to be weaker in another area for balance, not entirely sure of that. core classes for the most part are balanced, there are some op stuff and up stuff.

[Crab Fear.1624]

Make the top traitline to core Elite and exclusive.

 

Wam, all probs fixed.

 

Why can't core have it's own elite?

 

Only legit answer is ....money

[Kuma.1503]

6 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I'm in the camp of people that want tradeoffs...but not the kind of tradeoffs anet currently implements.

 

Tradeoffs in my view isn't simply an opportunity cost, it's more than that. Tradeoff's should be dynamic...nonlinear, and should scale with combat. You shouldn't be punished for picking a playstyle you like to play...you should be punished for playing bad.

 

That to me is the difference between the current tradeoffs, and the tradeoffs we actually need in the game.

 

If you ask me one Elite that does trade-offs extremely well is Spellbreaker. 

 

You have weaker burst skills but you gain full counter. The only catch is that full counter does absolutely nothing unless you time it right. The good spell breakers can get a lot of value out of this and the bad ones get punished. If you're not landing your FC's you'd be better off playing core.

 

 I wouldn't mind seeing more trade-offs done like this. 

 

Another great one is reaper, where you get a more powerful but shorter and less durable shroud with different skills. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Kuma.1503

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

13 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

 

If you ask me one Elite that does trade-offs extremely well is Spellbreaker. 

 

You have weaker burst skills but you gain full counter. The only catch is that full counter does absolutely nothing unless you time it right. The good spell breakers can get a lot of value out of this and the bad ones get punished. If you're not landing your FC's you'd be better off playing core.

And then there is Berserker, with multiple tradeoffs. They could have just limited it to 10 Adrenaline, gave out the Primal Bursts all the time, but only ever count as T1 bursts, then rework the minor traits to be persistent benefits of some sort. That would have been a proper trade off.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

15 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

 

If you ask me one Elite that does trade-offs extremely well is Spellbreaker. 

 

You have weaker burst skills but you gain full counter. The only catch is that full counter does absolutely nothing unless you time it right. The good spell breakers can get a lot of value out of this and the bad ones get punished. If you're not landing your FC's you'd be better off playing core.

 

 I wouldn't mind seeing more trade-offs done like this. 

 

Another great one is reaper, where you get a more powerful but shorter and less durable shroud with different skills. 

 

For sure. Another tradeoff I like to point out that I think is well designed, are condition transfer skills like Rune of Altruism and Unholy Martyr. Essentially you pull conditions from your allies, and those conditions are transferred to you. Not only does the beneficial effect scale with combat (where you get to cleanse more, the more allies there are around to cleanse) but the trade off also scales with combat (where by cleansing conditions from more allies, you personally take on more conditions). The scaling nature of both the beneficial effect and the tradeoff, makes decision making dynamic, both in the skills you need to take, and in combat where taking on too many conditions that you don't have self cleanses available for, will rightly punish you for that decision. 

 

So, in essence, my perspective is that tradeoffs should alter player behavior on the decision-making level of combat, and not simply the selection of choices (opportunity cost).

[UNOwen.7132]

Usually Id have agreed. Now? Nah screw that. The new elites better be powercreepign what we have right now, because good lord this powerdip is unbearable.

[Kuma.1503]

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

For sure. Another tradeoff I like to point out that I think is well designed, are condition transfer skills like Rune of Altruism and Unholy Martyr. Essentially you pull conditions from your allies, and those conditions are transferred to you. Not only does the beneficial effect scale with combat (where you get to cleanse more, the more allies there are around to cleanse) but the trade off also scales with combat (where by cleansing conditions from more allies, you personally take on more conditions). The scaling nature of both the beneficial effect and the tradeoff, makes decision making dynamic, both in the skills you need to take, and in combat where taking on too many conditions that you don't have self cleanses available for, will rightly punish you for that decision. 

 

So, in essence, my perspective is that tradeoffs should alter player behavior on the decision-making level of combat, and not simply the selection of choices (opportunity cost).

 

I just got flash backs to that one grimjack video where a minion necro committed sodoku because he pulled condis off his minions. 

 

"He had 45 stacks of boneing"?

[Leonidrex.5649]

7 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

 

I just got flash backs to that one grimjack video where a minion necro committed sodoku because he pulled condis off his minions. 

 

"He had 45 stacks of boneing"?

I bet he didnt even read what his skills do lol, he could have 1shot himself to any condi build with aoe skill