Please Reconsider the Meteor Swarm Cooldown Nerf

[LightBear]

Unfortunately tone can be difficult to read - I don't think he is trying to be disrespectful at all. I have the same question. Why do you believe adding another spell to the rotation isn't an effective solution vs. not casting? I assume you are running 4 piece LGS and 1 piece LGS debuffer so slotting another spellpower is difficult, but even with potency some damage is better than no damage.

I am not trying to be disrespectful at all - I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint more.

To be honest, I have the same "problem" as the OP.

Where I used to be able to land 3 meteor swarms from a distance and swoop up the rest with the rest of my fire based spells.
I now can cast one meteor swarm, have to wait for things to be in range, delayed blast fireball, fireball, scorch and perhaps do the last 3 a couple of times as mobs run all over the place.
If things go bad I have to jump into a pack and do an energy burst, as a failsave jump out again and do a dragon breath.

My biggest pet peeve is the waiting for things to get in range but still be far enough for them to not hit me.
Energy burst is a really dangerous move to pull of without being cut in half as a sorc.

Also my spell list is limited in what I can carry around and utilize successfully, though I have been playing around with it as some of them I hardly use at all.

[Marshal_Lannes]

My argument is that balancing around R1 heroics doesn't make much sense since people are mostly just trying to rush through it ASAP and groups are absolutely crushing that content because most people are over-powered for R1.
.

I'm trying to understand your argument but you still haven't said what you believe the game should be balanced around.

I suspect you think simply demanding a citation or a source is the perfect argument.

Source: Me, seeing people leave the guild because of the continuous, poorly managed changes to the game over the past 4 years.

The Forum- people stating they are leaving or dropping SUBs/ purchases in game because of dissatisfaction.

Anecdotal observations are not evidence nor a reliable source beyond your opinion. Nor is reading someone's rage post on the forum who claims they aren't playing anymore (but most likely simply switches builds or gets over it in a week). So, any actual data to back up what you claim? The game has been here for a decade and a half and is more profitable than ever.

[Valerianus]

I'm trying to understand your argument but you still haven't said what you believe the game should be balanced around.




Anecdotal observations are not evidence nor a reliable source beyond your opinion. Nor is reading someone's rage post on the forum who claims they aren't playing anymore (but most likely simply switches builds or gets over it in a week). So, any actual data to back up what you claim? The game has been here for a decade and a half and is more profitable than ever.

source?

any actual data to back up what you claim?

you know, anecdotal observations are not evidence nor a reliable source beyond your opinion

[Jerevth]

Anecdotal observations are not evidence nor a reliable source beyond your opinion. Nor is reading someone's rage post on the forum who claims they aren't playing anymore (but most likely simply switches builds or gets over it in a week). So, any actual data to back up what you claim? The game has been here for a decade and a half and is more profitable than ever.

The folks who left- friends in my guild- were sufficient for me, based on discussions with them, to form my opinions.
Since I don't know you, you really don't enter into my opinion.
You aren't providing any wins trying to be the thought police, though.
I'm glad you still enjoy the game and feel your opinion is sufficient to prop it up.

It may coast another few years.
I doubt it.

[Lafshmaf]

The folks who left- friends in my guild- were sufficient for me, based on discussions with them, to form my opinions.
Since I don't know you, you really don't enter into my opinion.
You aren't providing any wins trying to be the thought police, though.
I'm glad you still enjoy the game and feel your opinion is sufficient to prop it up.

It may coast another few years.
I doubt it.

it is really just about bullying, and taking the most comfortable position for just that. You side with the powers that be to trample on the little guy. I mean, the environment is harmless enough, just a video game, but the mentality is just that of any snitch or willing helper in any totalitarian regime. Personally, I am in favor of the recent nerfs (even while having an active sorcerer character), that does not make me jump into all related threads and belittle/berate people. Just a willing little unwholeseome mind who enjoys basking in whatever little power shining on him. Bullying 101.

[slarden]

I'm trying to understand your argument but you still haven't said what you believe the game should be balanced around.

I said it but you omitted that part from your quote. I think it's fine to try and balance things around all level ranges, but the place it matters most is level 30 where people are pushing the difficulty, raiding, etc. so those balance issues are much more significant.

[ggmarquez]

I said it but you omitted that part from your quote. I think it's fine to try and balance things around all level ranges, but the place it matters most is level 30 where people are pushing the difficulty, raiding, etc. so those balance issues are much more significant.

https://www.playeraudit.com/servers

don't click that. don't scroll down to character level and content level distributions. just don't do it.

over 85% of the content being played is sub 30. over 75% of the characters logged in are sub 30. this isn't a gut feeling. these are hard numbers.
you want the game to be balanced for the highest level of play at the hardest difficulty setting? where it will matter to 2 out of every 10 players logged in at any given time? i see, i see... tell me more about this "balance for the top first" plan. if you want to achieve class to class parity, do you start by looking at level 30? interesting. very interesting. when you are trying to balance gear, number and power of effects, accessibility, usefulness across class platforms, do you start at level 30? uh huh, uh huh... i think i'm starting to understand.

real game balance begins at level 30. nothing matters before that. real game balance precipitates fotm builds, forcing players to pick the winners the dev's have provided for us. no bad builds need apply. real game balance is demonstrated when a handful of top players running a handful of fotm builds dominate the hardest difficulty setting. bingo, it's DDO.

[Tilomere]

Where did you ask for this feedback? This is not a sarcastic response, I would genuinely like to know so I can give this kind of feedback in the future.

Here. It was just a general thread.

You will notice the community is all over the place, all with reasonable reasons. Mixed with various fallacious arguments.

If you swap to air, you can rotate between ball, chain, and regular lightning bolt non-stop until your fingers fall off.

you want the game to be balanced for the highest level of play at the hardest difficulty setting? where it will matter to 2 out of every 10 players logged in at any given time?

No, don't be absurd, they don't want it balanced for 2 out of 10 players. Only 10% of those 2 out of 10 players are in high reaper. They want the game balanced for those 1 in 10 high reaper players of those 2 out of 10, or 2% of the population.

[Tuxedoman96]

How do people find the spell rotations for lightning / cold / acid? I honestly don't think I would get the same satisfaction out of any other element but I guess I will have to adjust if my pleas remain unheard.

Haven't really investigated the rotation for cold and acid sorcs too much, but I find the sonic spells to be a pretty good addition to the air savant's arsenal, especially after the sonic buffs. As far as filling in other spells for your rotation on your fire savant, there's always spells of an off-element. Even if you do less damage with such spells, I would think that would be better than doing no damage during that time.

[Tuxedoman96]

Anecdotal observations are not evidence nor a reliable source beyond your opinion. Nor is reading someone's rage post on the forum who claims they aren't playing anymore (but most likely simply switches builds or gets over it in a week). So, any actual data to back up what you claim? The game has been here for a decade and a half and is more profitable than ever.

You know, I read people ask for "evidence" and "data" all the time, but I don't think it really matters if we don't really know what data will actually be considered. Then the next question, after providing requested and well-received data is the validity of that information (i.e. the accuracy and its relevance).

[Marshal_Lannes]

It may coast another few years.
I doubt it.

Said someone back in 2009.

[Tuxedoman96]

https://www.playeraudit.com/servers

don't click that. don't scroll down to character level and content level distributions. just don't do it.

over 85% of the content being played is sub 30. over 75% of the characters logged in are sub 30. this isn't a gut feeling. these are hard numbers.
you want the game to be balanced for the highest level of play at the hardest difficulty setting? where it will matter to 2 out of every 10 players logged in at any given time? i see, i see... tell me more about this "balance for the top first" plan. if you want to achieve class to class parity, do you start by looking at level 30? interesting. very interesting. when you are trying to balance gear, number and power of effects, accessibility, usefulness across class platforms, do you start at level 30? uh huh, uh huh... i think i'm starting to understand.

real game balance begins at level 30. nothing matters before that. real game balance precipitates fotm builds, forcing players to pick the winners the dev's have provided for us. no bad builds need apply. real game balance is demonstrated when a handful of top players running a handful of fotm builds dominate the hardest difficulty setting. bingo, it's DDO.

We get into a problem of definitions. First, how do we determine that one class is balanced against another? For example, Sorcs and alchemists still DPS better than divine casters. Now, many say that this is fair because sorcs cannot heal themselves and alchemists are restricted to robes without multiclassing or spending feats (and they have to put more effort into reducing ASF). However, how much more damage are those drawbacks worth? How can we say that the amount of damage is justified? And this isn't restricted to casters. What about THF vs SWF or TWF? How much damage is the ability to hit multiple enemies at a time worth? Does the ability score tax make up for this disparity? Without really hammering down an ideal for this all we're really doing is gut checks in conjunction with vague terminology and fuzzy metrics. I fail to see how we achieve "balance" effectively this way.

Second, what are we even talking about when we reference balance? Is balance merely having the same damage numbers? Or maybe doing the same DPS (which is not exactly the same thing)? Or maybe having the same hitpoints or mitigation? What about the skill floor and ceiling? What is it that we're even trying to achieve with this quest for so-called "balance"?

Third, where should this balance start? Should my level 1 Sorc be able to handle content as well as my level 1 cleric? What about at level 10? Level 20? Level 30? What difficulty should we be balancing around? Certainly elite and low reapers seem to be the standard (I'm not saying it is; this is simply my observation), but is that because that's the most that those characters can handle or because running at those difficulties merely serves as a means to an end? Perhaps it is both in equal measure, but I find more often than not that there is a leaning to one side or the other.

Balance changes do not usually have a linear effect across all levels and difficulties and between all combat styles. For example, reducing the effectiveness of Meteor Swarm and Multi-vial doesn't hurt as much in elite or low reapers as it does at high reaper for several reasons. One, the character's damage isn't reduced as much in a lower difficulty. Being able to one-shot or two-shot things at a higher difficulty would carry over to the lower difficulty, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Two, with the reduction in damage comes the increase in resource expenditure. If I'm one or two-shotting things at the lower difficulty settings, this is a non-issue because my resource expenditure hasn't really increased. However, if I have to go through an extra rotation to kill the same pack of monsters, then I've effectively doubled the amount of spell points I'm burning through each fight. Additionally, the longer I have to fight a pack of monsters the more likely I'll take damage and the more likely I'll have to use up resources to regain lost hp (which also takes away from the DPS).

So depending on the changes, certain classes are likely to be influenced at different difficulties than players may argue for. Players complaining about Sorcs dominating on Elite and low reapers are probably still going to complain, and people that complain that Sorcs are having a hard time running high reapers are going to continue complaining on that front, and both groups will be correct for different reasons. And the lack of context when looking at the achievements or deficiencies is in my opinion the largest hurdle in providing constructive feedback on issues in the game. What I normally see, on the forums at least, are threads that call for nerfs or buffs based on what another character is able to do.

What I don't know when first investigating such a thread is: whether both characters have a large number of past lives; whether they are both geared appropriately; if optimal feats have been chosen; if, for CC or damage purposes, monsters are being appropriately targetted wrt to saving throws (for example a trip is probably gonna land on a divine caster better than a stun will); whether rotations and (for spells) AoE shapes are being effectively utilized; and your UI, hardware, and keybind/hotkeys setup. I usually don't see posters explain that the hotbar and keybind settings play a huge part in the effectiveness of playing a character. Saying that a player that you're running with runs into a room before you (not directed at any person) get there and demolishes everything in sight before you get the chance to do anything in and of itself doesn't really paint the whole picture on what's going on behind the scenes. Some aspects of gameplay can't really be fixed by buffing or nerfing because they hang on the factors of skill, experience, and experimentation.

[Knightrose]

Casters/Nukers are what trivialize content in my opinion. No one breathes a sigh of relief when they see a melee DPS fighter join a group in endgame. However, if it's a Sorc with 3k+ HP and 4k+ SP (with better defenses and a shield, lol) then right away the experience feels like a win. They're out of whack. A sorcerer is not a Warlock in my opinion. They're just fast-casting wizards. The gunslingers of magic. They need to use their other options not rely on one type of 'ammo' and then complain when they're reload takes too long.

I'm in favor of caster balancing. It is LONG overdue. Test it yourself. A full group of players playing any other class combination minus Alchemist and/or Sorcerer feels far more balanced. They move closer together. They close flanks. They participate more like a team. As soon as the Alchemist or Sorcerer is added it just makes everyone else look like puppies chasing a bag of Alpo.

[Tuxedoman96]

Casters/Nukers are what trivialize content in my opinion. No one breathes a sigh of relief when they see a melee DPS fighter join a group in endgame. However, if it's a Sorc with 3k+ HP and 4k+ SP (with better defenses and a shield, lol) then right away the experience feels like a win. They're out of whack. A sorcerer is not a Warlock in my opinion. They're just fast-casting wizards. The gunslingers of magic. They need to use their other options not rely on one type of 'ammo' and then complain when they're reload takes too long.

I'm in favor of caster balancing. It is LONG overdue. Test it yourself. A full group of players playing any other class combination minus Alchemist and/or Sorcerer feels far more balanced. They move closer together. They close flanks. They participate more like a team. As soon as the Alchemist or Sorcerer is added it just makes everyone else look like puppies chasing a bag of Alpo.

But you're not getting my point. You say that Sorcs are fast-casting wizards and need to use other options. So my question is what in your opinion is making alchemist and sorc overperform, is it justified (for example because of less versatility or weaker defenses, etc.), and, if it isn't, what solution could be given that is unlikely to have serious bleed-over to the other casters? The biggest gripe I've seen about many changes throughout the years is the seemingly lack of attention to collateral damage, so just throwing around the "balance" buzz word is likely to result in a corrupt-a-wish blanket nerf.

[ggmarquez]

snip. Some aspects of gameplay can't really be fixed by buffing or nerfing because they hang on the factors of skill, experience, and experimentation.

this is very true. and i won't disagree with the gist of your post. but to simplify the question and prune it down to a more basic level : if the game isn't being balanced with the initial premise of equality of build, parity of class, and access to content, starting from level 1... then what is it being balanced around? can you even use the word 'balance' if you don't start from that position, without first acknowledging the irony, when balance starts to mean the opposite of its definition?

we 'balance' the game around level cap, for the highest challenge setting, with the aim of fostering a select subset of builds to function well beyond the scope and range of every other build, causing the other classes, at every other level of play, to function below those few we have chosen to be the standard with which we 'balance' around. ironic.

balance is all about play-testing, at every level range, across the entire spectrum, with every build. sounds like a lot of work. but anything else is just a distortion of the term balance, the kind of noise which causes interference.

[Tuxedoman96]

this is very true. and i won't disagree with the gist of your post. but to simplify the question and prune it down to a more basic level : if the game isn't being balanced with the initial premise of equality of build, parity of class, and access to content, starting from level 1... then what is it being balanced around? can you even use the word 'balance' if you don't start from that position, without first acknowledging the irony, when balance starts to mean the opposite of its definition?

we 'balance' the game around level cap, for the highest challenge setting, with the aim of fostering a select subset of builds to function well beyond the scope and range of every other build, causing the other classes, at every other level of play, to function below those few we have chosen to be the standard with which we 'balance' around. ironic.

balance is all about play-testing, at every level range, across the entire spectrum, with every build. sounds like a lot of work. but anything else is just a distortion of the term balance, the kind of noise which causes interference.

That still doesn't really answer my question though. How would one be able to say that the classes are all balanced at each level? What metric are we using to decide this? Kills? Completion times? Perceived difficulty of handling? And how do we go about deciding how those values are adjusted? For example, playing a monk has a steep learning curve. How much should that learning curve justify its survivability or the effectiveness of its damage or CC? Does it make sense to have a 1:1 conversion (for example, this class does 5% more damage than another class, so it should be 5% less survivable)? And even then, how do you quantify some of these character aspects? How do we equate how useful the ability to cast is or how useful the ability to heal is? What about the ability to use heavy armor innately or gaining extra feats. I mean, I suppose the easiest solution would be to just make everything exactly the same, but I for one am definitely against such an approach.

[jetster11]

Tell me something, if you were on a melee DPS, thrower or bow/crossbow user and your attack animation suddenly had you standing still for 2-3s out of every 6s rotation would you be OK with that? I don't think so, so why should spell DPSers be OK with it?

Although I don't disagree with your sentiment here, melees/ dpsrs accept this all the time when they have to swap out weapons or ranged when they hit their big attacks they almost always have a windup involved. some melees swap out massively for salting, ash, vulnerability, DR breaking, oozes, rust monsters, etc.... the those lots of DPS times in those situations.

As for my ranged build every time I swap weapons, i have to jump in the air and back or I freeze and the mobs swat me hard in high reapers, so the swapping thing / loss of DPS is comparable for most melees / ranged. Some builds , not as much so.

[ggmarquez]

snip. I suppose the easiest solution would be to just make everything exactly the same, but I for one am definitely against such an approach.

i would also be against the total vanilification of DDO by such an approach. character building is such an integral aspect of the DDO experience, it would be almost unthinkable to dumb it down to an arbitrary x=y=z philosophy.

still, it's probably a lot simpler, though certainly more time consuming, to understand balance, than you are allowing for. run the grotto on a first life alchemist. then a first life bard. then a first life cleric. a-b-c's and eventually you will have played through the first "quest" in the game, on every class and race combo. now move to the first korthos dungeon and repeat the process. eventually you will have played through the entire game, on a first, second, third life+ on every race and class combo, with reaper points and racial ap ranging from 0 to max achievable. now, have someone who has spent the past 15 years playing DDO, run the same test. now, have someone who has no gaming background at all do it.

of course, this method is absurd and unrealistic. but then, calling a game balanced, without the application of such rigorous play-testing, is also absurd and unrealistic.

[Tuxedoman96]

i would also be against the total vanilification of DDO by such an approach. character building is such an integral aspect of the DDO experience, it would be almost unthinkable to dumb it down to an arbitrary x=y=z philosophy.

still, it's probably a lot simpler, though certainly more time consuming, to understand balance, than you are allowing for. run the grotto on a first life alchemist. then a first life bard. then a first life cleric. a-b-c's and eventually you will have played through the first "quest" in the game, on every class and race combo. now move to the first korthos dungeon and repeat the process. eventually you will have played through the entire game, on a first, second, third life+ on every race and class combo, with reaper points and racial ap ranging from 0 to max achievable. now, have someone who has spent the past 15 years playing DDO, run the same test. now, have someone who has no gaming background at all do it.

of course, this method is absurd and unrealistic. but then, calling a game balanced, without the application of such rigorous play-testing, is also absurd and unrealistic.

The absurdity of the experiment aside, what I'm asking about is what exactly are we trying to equate/make similar or compare? Even committing to and completing such an exhaustive test, we can't deny that each class handles each quest in a different manner. For example, a cleric that is sufficiently effective at turning is going to have an easier time doing an undead quest than another class. Additionally, we're not taking into account how multiclassing factors into this. You suggest, as a thought experiment, having a veteran player do this and then having a new player do this. However, that's not to say that the experience and skill of the more knowledgeable player is going to translate to all classes equally, nor are we accounting for the fact that certain players have gameplay preferences which would likely influence their gameplay experience during this experiment. Having two 15-year vets conduct this experience would probably yield different results between the two just as having a 15-year vet and a new player, although probably not to such a large extent. My point still stands though, that part of the data you seem to be interested in is qualitative rather than purely quantitative, and 2 players simply wouldn't serve as a good sample size for such an experiment, as extensive as it might be.

But I'll ask again for clarification. What are we specifically looking for in conducting this experiment? Are we comparing completion times? How often we die? How often we need to shrine? What in particular?

I'll go further and add that even with the data that such an experiment would provide, it still doesn't really mean anything without some sort of standard to abide by. Just because my bard doesn't complete a quest as quickly as my sorc, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that it should.

[ggmarquez]

The absurdity of the experiment aside, what I'm asking about is what exactly are we trying to equate/make similar or compare?

well, i can't speak for anyone else, but i would be comparing... everything. i don't think i would feel satisfied if i left anything out. if i were seriously considering 'balance' and making a sincere attempt, i wouldn't exclude any single aspect from my testing, no matter how mundane it might seem, or if it fell under the blanket of "this should always work in the same way for everyone." like opening the store ui during combat. opening the inventory while standing in a public zone. swapping weapon sets underwater. movement speed in every possible set of circumstances. for example, i have 2 halfling warlocks, both pure, both male, both abyss pact... that have 129% movement speed inside of quests. which is 5% more than any of my other warlocks. no clue where it's coming from. but never look a gift horse in the mouth, right?

Even committing to and completing such an exhaustive test, we can't deny that each class handles each quest in a different manner. For example, a cleric that is sufficiently effective at turning is going to have an easier time doing an undead quest than another class.

of course. turn undead is a unique class feature. it would be a shame if they removed it, or gave it to every class in the name of 'balance'. but turn undead is only of situational use, and the main thing to look at would be it's overall effectiveness. "does it work?" would be the question i would attempt to answer first, if i were testing it. then perhaps "how much of an advantage does a cleric gain from this feature?" if indeed i found it to be working. if i noticed it was always destroying undead, and not only undead, but constructs and evil outsiders as well... and if i went back through the combat log and picked out the fact that all undead, constructs and evil outsiders were being instantly killed, no matter what i rolled on my turn attempt... i would conclude that it was bugged, over preforming, and that it would need a patch to fix it. likewise, if i discovered that it did exactly as it was advertised as doing, and it did it exactly as i expected it should, but i found that it really did not enhance the experience of actually running content, even undead heavy content, as a cleric, i would also consider this to be a bug. if turn undead really didn't give any benefit to the class, i would conclude something was wrong. why have a unique class ability if it doesn't actually do anything meaningful for game-play when using that class and feature?

Additionally, we're not taking into account how multiclassing factors into this. You suggest, as a thought experiment, having a veteran player do this and then having a new player do this. However, that's not to say that the experience and skill of the more knowledgeable player is going to translate to all classes equally, nor are we accounting for the fact that certain players have gameplay preferences which would likely influence their gameplay experience during this experiment. Having two 15-year vets conduct this experience would probably yield different results between the two just as having a 15-year vet and a new player, although probably not to such a large extent.

quite right. the idea isn't to address the disparity between any 2 players... but to provide evidence which supports or refutes the position "is this balanced?". sure, no 2 players, even 2 who have equal experience with DDO, will have the exact same conclusion when faced with such a question. quite the opposite, rather. one may find a melee build easy and enjoyable, the other might wish to avoid such a build altogether, finding it much too difficult and slow. but we aren't trying to determine which player is a "good" melee player, or which is a fair representation of the build they are running. we are simply looking, from as many angels as possible, at the broader base of 'balance'.

i was "leading" with the example of a new player vs. a 15 year vet, because i'm relatively sure that the dev's use some form of server wide analysis when they make balance changes. i might be naive, in that regard. perhaps they don't have any data on hand when making sweeping changes to game systems or class trees. but i would find that hard to believe, as almost invariably they target over-performing builds for nerfs, and bolster the stragglers. also, when they release a new class or universal tree, it is almost always better than anything else in the current meta, which supports the conclusion that they do have the data, and know exactly what they are doing.

My point still stands though, that part of the data you seem to be interested in is qualitative rather than purely quantitative, and 2 players simply wouldn't serve as a good sample size for such an experiment, as extensive as it might be.

2 may be better than 0. though all i can say for sure is... 1 is the loneliest number.

But I'll ask again for clarification. What are we specifically looking for in conducting this experiment? Are we comparing completion times? How often we die? How often we need to shrine? What in particular?

yes. all of the above. and then some. why stop there?

I'll go further and add that even with the data that such an experiment would provide, it still doesn't really mean anything without some sort of standard to abide by. Just because my bard doesn't complete a quest as quickly as my sorc, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that it should.

but why shouldn't your bard get completions at the same rate as your sorc? what makes sorc so special, to you, that you feel the poor bard aught to accept the longer completion times? if i were your bard, i would be indignant! ;-)