Welp RIP Sorceror, not like it was as OP as alchemist or anything..

[SerPounce]

We don't make balance changes like this due to hardcore.

I'm agnostic on these changes, but I'm always curious as to what it is about. In this case I'm particularly unsure if it was about endgame or leveling? Sorc has been a powerful leveling tool for a long time, and there has recently been an uptick in endgame sorcs, so maybe a little of each? WHy did you choose to nerf DPS is a pretty flat way as opposed to reconsidering some of the defenses given by EK or more targeted nerfs to the strongest spells (like meteor swarm)?

I haven't done endgame sorc in years, but I was considering it for my caster coming off some TRs. They are really fun to play. I've had a lot of fun with alchemist also, but my test run at the end of a racial was concerning squishy even for a slightly under-geared trial.

[Kabaon]

If you've never understood it, perhaps you'd do well in trying to understand it instead of dismissing it. I'll help you.
A) PVE or PVP no one wants to feel useless compared to someone else (e.g. try going swashbuckler bard vs a sorc and see how much you get done)

But that's what I don't understand, why does it MATTER in the first place? You chose to be a swashbuckling bard, knowing it will never be able to compete with sorc in the first place, and therefore basically give up any argument to complain that a build or spec is better than yours. If you don't like that so called "Overperforming spec", then either don't play with them, or understand that no build will be equal and move on.

However, it's more that people have been complaining since the game came out that "X class is OP, nerf it" because they feel they can't compete. Which isn't true btw, that becomes the point where player skill and knowledge trumps builds

B) Bloating stats in a rampant rate. Buff every class to sorc, and you'll have to 2x the hp of all mobs in future content, and then 2x the damage when you buff everyone's defenses to that of the dominant tank class, etc. You'll find this in practice when you try e.g. Slavelords heroics @ level compared to e.g. stormcleave.

Right, totally agree. Tough to balance around for sure

C) Buff 200 builds and 13 classes, or nerf 1. Hmm, wonder what takes the most time.

Obviously nerfing sorcs was the faster option for sure, I just didn't see a reason for it. And I don't play sorcs so I'm not even upset by the nerf for my character, I'm just sure there will be some other "overperforming build" that people will call for nerfs on next, and again, and again.

D) Makes old content problematic in relation to new. See e.g. sos being the bis weapon from Module 1 to Module 6 (3 years or so? with 1 weapon choice. Nice), then see the same for esos. This would happen to Reflection of wave. Unless of course they make every weapon from now until the end of the game give +20% crit or more.

Sure, but from my understanding the time investment required is the biggest issue with this nerf. And had they realized sooner it was going to be a problem people would have understood the nerf to it. But they waited SO long that it doesn't quite make sense anymore to do so. Also, when the next X-pac comes out it's just going to be a bunch of power creep anyway, what would have been the harm leaving this as is?

E) Do you really need more reasons?

I need better reasons than "My class is not a sorc, therefore sorcs need nerfed"

[Tyrande]

[...]


I need better reasons than "My class is not a sorc, therefore sorcs need nerfed"

I think the reason is: Alchemists and Warlocks are not supposedly performing better than sorcerers and therefore sorcerers needs a nerf?

[Monkey_Archer]

But that's what I don't understand, why does it MATTER in the first place?

It matters because DDO is not a single player game. Let me answer this using a different example. Lets say, instead of sorc, we use a hypothetical class: we will call it "nuke". The main ability of this new class is to press one button, which launches a nuke that instantly completes any dungeon.

You chose to be a <any class other than nuke>, knowing it will never be able to compete with <nuke> in the first place, and therefore basically give up any argument to complain that a <nuke> is better than yours. If you don't like that so called "Overperforming spec", then either don't play with them, or understand that no build will be equal and move on.

Ultimately this boils down to: play solo or uninstall.

[Kabaon]

It matters because DDO is not a single player game. Let me answer this using a different example. Lets say, instead of sorc, we use a hypothetical class: we will call it "nuke". The main ability of this new class is to press one button, which launches a nuke that instantly completes any dungeon.

Ultimately this boils down to: play solo or uninstall.

Well, considering the amount of not full groups in the game these days, again I ask, WHY DOES IT MATTER?

And even if there are somehow full groups, I've been in quests where everyone knows what they are doing and dominate the quest even without a sorc. So again, what's the problem here?

And I wouldn't care "nuke" exists, just think how fast we could do all forms of TR'ing XD

[Monkey_Archer]

Well, considering the amount of not full groups in the game these days, again I ask, WHY DOES IT MATTER?

And even if there are somehow full groups, I've been in quests where everyone knows what they are doing and dominate the quest even without a sorc. So again, what's the problem here?

And I wouldn't care "nuke" exists, just think how fast we could do all forms of TR'ing XD

I support nerfs because I would like the highest difficulties to be/remain challenging, rather than just a new casual setting for people with good builds. Reaper mode was added because EE had become a joke. R10s are not quite at the same point yet, but with few more rounds of power creep they will be. Then we will need R20, then R100, etc..

I'm just sure there will be some other "overperforming build" that people will call for nerfs on next, and again, and again.

This would be ideal. Hit sorcs more, and alchemists, and THF, and inquisitives again, and wizards, and clerics, and assassins, and i guess druids after that? I'm currently playing monk and fully support the monk nerfs and welcome more and keep going until we start failing R10s again.

[Kabaon]

I support nerfs because I would like the highest difficulties to be/remain challenging, rather than just a new casual setting for people with good builds. Reaper mode was added because EE had become a joke. R10s are not quite at the same point yet, but with few more rounds of power creep they will be. Then we will need R20, then R100, etc..

That's more due to reaper trees than it is the builds themselves. They would just have to remove them and viola, instant challenge.

This would be ideal. Hit sorcs more, and alchemists, and THF, and inquisitives again, and wizards, and clerics, and assassins, and i guess druids after that? I'm currently playing monk and fully support the monk nerfs and welcome more and keep going until we start failing R10s again.

Then you are insane, because nerfing every class is stupid as there will ALWAYS be a dominate class/build that some other person will be jealous of will call for nerfs. If the nerfs to these classes came from something beyond the forums and more hard data, sure. But basically the last several class/build nerfs have been from people complaining that "It's OP and unfun for me, I demand you nerf this class until my awful build performs better"

[A-O]

But that's what I don't understand, why does it MATTER in the first place? You chose to be a swashbuckling bard, knowing it will never be able to compete with sorc in the first place, and therefore basically give up any argument to complain that a build or spec is better than yours. If you don't like that so called "Overperforming spec", then either don't play with them, or understand that no build will be equal and move on.

I need better reasons than "My class is not a sorc, therefore sorcs need nerfed"

If that's your analysis no one can help you. You're stuck being forever ignorant of the other side's issues. And at that point, just stop asking "why do people what X nerfed", beucase whatever the response is you won't be able to understand or sympathize with it.

Just accept that you'll never know.

[Monkey_Archer]

That's more due to reaper trees than it is the builds themselves. They would just have to remove them and viola, instant challenge.

I fully support this, or at least remove the free hp.

Then you are insane, because nerfing every class is stupid as there will ALWAYS be a dominate class/build that some other person will be jealous of will call for nerfs. If the nerfs to these classes came from something beyond the forums and more hard data, sure. But basically the last several class/build nerfs have been from people complaining that "It's OP and unfun for me, I demand you nerf this class until my awful build performs better"

Perhaps... however I am not remotely concerned with jealousy or who has a stronger build than who. I am solely concerned with how any build performs against the quest/monster AI/difficulty setting. This is a PvE game. If a build is not regularly or at least occasionally failing on the hardest difficulty setting it should be nerfed. If a build literally cannot complete or contribute on the hardest difficulty it should be buffed. Almost all classes and builds fall into the former category.

[SerPounce]

But that's what I don't understand, why does it MATTER in the first place?

I'm not sure what this is getting at. It's a video game, big picture none of it really "MATTERS." Most people like there to be some degree of balance both between PCs and content and various PC options. That's a preference, not a fundamental truth of the universe, but since most players want some degree of balance that's what most game devs do. In terms of how finely tuned that balance is DDO seems to be somewhere in the middle. Seems like an oddly generic aspect of game design to get really worked up about.

[Arkat]

What do you guys actually balance it based on? The top 1% putting videos out of soloing reaper 7+ content with the best raid gear, the maximum pastlives and loads of reaper points?

Symbiont's Monk video comes immediately to mind.

Very shortly after that was put on YouTube, The Great Monk Nerf™ happened.

[Kabaon]

Perhaps... however I am not remotely concerned with jealousy or who has a stronger build than who. I am solely concerned with how any build performs against the quest/monster AI/difficulty setting. This is a PvE game. If a build is not regularly or at least occasionally failing on the hardest difficulty setting it should be nerfed. If a build literally cannot complete or contribute on the hardest difficulty it should be buffed. Almost all classes and builds fall into the former category.

But it's not just the build itself. It's also player knowledge.

It's the player piloting the build itself, it's the player that knows the quests backwards and forwards and knows that X mobs spawn here and are already waiting for them to spawn. The mobs stand up and die instantly.

The jealousy comes from some players not understanding that this player has been playing for the last 10 years straight and can do the quests blindfolded, so they just assume it's the build that's overpowered.

I don't care that nerfs happen, I care about WHY nerfs happen. I hate that there are players out there that go "I CAN'T compete, so nerf until I do".
I'd rather that nerfs happen becuase the data overwhelmingly supports a nerf. If SSG looks behind the scenes and says "Oh man, everyone and their dog is playing Sorc right now, and no one is even trying to play any other way. We need to figure out why and tone it down a notch" then that's fine by me. But anecdotal evidence from the forums or wherever else calling for nerfs makes me go "Look at the bunch of complainers, I don't understand what they are complaining about, it's not like everyone is playing a sorc right now anyway".

And then people have been posting that sorc is great in lower Reaper but falls off heavy in R7+, isn't that by your definition balance since now R7-10 is harder and therefore balanced?

[Monkey_Archer]

But it's not just the build itself. It's also player knowledge.

It's the player piloting the build itself, it's the player that knows the quests backwards and forwards and knows that X mobs spawn here and are already waiting for them to spawn. The mobs stand up and die instantly.

This is exactly the point. I want nerfs so that when the mobs stand up, they DON'T die instantly. And if they don't die instantly to the veteran player, then both veterans and new players actually have to deal with them...

I don't care that nerfs happen, I care about WHY nerfs happen. I hate that there are players out there that go "I CAN'T compete, so nerf until I do".

I agree that this is stupid, and not a real argument for nerfs.

I'd rather that nerfs happen becuase the data overwhelmingly supports a nerf. If SSG looks behind the scenes and says "Oh man, everyone and their dog is playing Sorc right now, and no one is even trying to play any other way. We need to figure out why and tone it down a notch" then that's fine by me. But anecdotal evidence from the forums or wherever else calling for nerfs makes me go "Look at the bunch of complainers, I don't understand what they are complaining about, it's not like everyone is playing a sorc right now anyway".

Build popularity and broad scale data are mostly unhelpful in understanding top level DDO metas. The best players are not running popular builds. Half of them are running random flavor builds because they are triple/uber completionists and the game is too easy, while the others run endgame meta (currently anything THF, CC alchemist, sorc, etc..)

And then people have been posting that sorc is great in lower Reaper but falls off heavy in R7+, isn't that by your definition balance since now R7-10 is harder and therefore balanced?

This is incorrect. Anyone who says sorc falls off in R7+ are bad players who don't know what to do when mobs stop dying from one spell rotation. Good sorcs are still tearing up R10s.

[Monkey_Archer]

Symbiont's Monk video comes immediately to mind.

Very shortly after that was put on YouTube, The Great Monk Nerf™ happened.

Thank you Symbiont. After the nerf monks are now one of the more balanced classes (still a bit strong I would say).

[Arkat]

Thank you Symbiont. After the nerf monks are now one of the more balanced classes (still a bit strong I would say).

I was bummed when they took so much damage-dealing ability away from Handwrap monks. Even though my Shintao monk, Arkat, never did anywhere NEAR the kind of damage Symbiont's monk did, I was happy with it, it was fun, and I actually played him.

It's been about two years since the nerf and, over time, I've gotten used to the less damage because the tactics DC increases have somewhat made up for it.

Recently, I went through a MAJOR overhauling of Arkat's gear and raised his hit-points by about 330 (from about 1,780 to just over 2,110). I figured that would increase his survivability enough to where I could start to enjoy playing him again. I was wrong. Even with a 5 piece Nystuls's filigree set, a 90 MRR is still woefully insufficient for an up close and personal melee toon.

Capping the Cloth armor MRR at 50 was an awful design decision. I'd be much happier if they raised the MRR cap on cloth to 100 (140 with Nystul's).

[SirValentine]

Also crit chance really only dropping 5% if you think about it. Read on for explanation.
...
If you are wearing esoteric set which I think most sorcs do, you have order's garb which already has 15% exceptional on it. So really the only thing this patch does to ice sorcs is take away 5% crit chance while adding 5% multi.

Are you sure? I'd seen it claimed that the universal crit on Order's Garb stacked with the single-element crit formerly on Wave.

I haven't tested. Anyone able to confirm?

[Arkat]

Are you sure? I'd seen it claimed that the universal crit on Order's Garb stacked with the single-element crit formerly on Wave.

I haven't tested. Anyone able to confirm?

I haven't tested but as far as I can see, they're both Exceptional bonuses and shouldn't stack.

[SirValentine]

I haven't tested but as far as I can see, they're both Exceptional bonuses and shouldn't stack.

Sure, that makes sense, but DDO has not actually always been consistent about that kind of stuff. Someone in the other thread specifically claimed otherwise, that they did stack. I'd love to hear from someone who actually tested it; I could speculate on my own just fine. :-)

[noinfo]

Sure, that makes sense, but DDO has not actually always been consistent about that kind of stuff. Someone in the other thread specifically claimed otherwise, that they did stack. I'd love to hear from someone who actually tested it; I could speculate on my own just fine. :-)

They stacked, I am down 20% crit chance.

[noinfo]

If you've never understood it, perhaps you'd do well in trying to understand it instead of dismissing it. I'll help you.


D) Makes old content problematic in relation to new. See e.g. sos being the bis weapon from Module 1 to Module 6 (3 years or so? with 1 weapon choice. Nice), then see the same for esos. This would happen to Reflection of wave. Unless of course they make every weapon from now until the end of the game give +20% crit or more.

And here is the thing I disagree with. You can see the devs trying to create an effective 2 handed casting weapon with the new raid staff (complete fail) and the new random loot. Again doomed to fail. With Wave they finally found what it would take to move from 2 caster sticks to a staff. Then they got rid of it. a 2 handed weapon for casters should offer a strong benefit over an single handed one. Now if they nerfed Wave and replaced it with feats or effects that boost casting with 2 handed weapons that would be fine but they didn't and sorry that is just completely poor design.

Lets see how many people are using staffs for casting after this. 20% crit chance vs other options such as ash swap in or other lgs effect? Now its 5% crit damage vs those and it won't even be close with that choice.