Please Reconsider the Meteor Swarm Cooldown Nerf

[slarden]

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.

So any accomplished player is crushing content in heroics so it simply can't be balanced unless they nerf player power significantly across the board since all classes overperform at heroic levels. I don't think they would ever due that due to nerdrage potential.

The report is interesting - it doesn't give us any information about time played by level range or which characters are bank characters. I know in my case I log into several heroic level characters at various ranges that have all been converted to mules. But even so - assuming all those are played characters which they aren't - it doesn't matter since heroics are a lost cause already for anyone that knows how to play the game OR has significant experience playing the game.

As I said balance will always be looked at across level ranges, but the priority should be level 30 due to raiding and people actually pushing difficulty at that level. If a certain playstyle is sub-optimal it matters to a group pushing difficulty in legendary raids. It doesn't really matter all the way to 30 since anyone can crush content with any class. That is the point and it impacts not only the game, but the social raiding experience which is why the devs should care alot about the experience at level 30.

[ggmarquez]

all classes overperform at heroic levels.

if all classes over-preform equally, that's a good indicator of class balance. the only thing left to do is incentivize running higher skulls (which i believe would be a step in the right direction). but i seriously doubt the integrity of the player who states that all classes are over-preforming equally throughout the heroic leveling process.

The report is interesting - it doesn't give us any information about time played by level range or which characters are bank characters. I know in my case I log into several heroic level characters at various ranges that have all been converted to mules.

if you look at the 'content run' by level range, you'll see it. mules don't run content. they mule. sure, you can split hairs by arguing that bank 'toons need coin lord and house k favor. but they only need it once. the content by level graph shows that 85% of all content being played is from levels 1-29. if level 30 had anywhere close to 50% i would back down. but it's not even a contest here... end game players represent the smallest denomination of DDO's current population. i had a hard time believing it at first... but it's true.

As I said balance will always be looked at across level ranges, but the priority should be level 30 due to raiding and people actually pushing difficulty at that level. If a certain playstyle is sub-optimal it matters to a group pushing difficulty in legendary raids. It doesn't really matter all the way to 30 since anyone can crush content with any class. That is the point and it impacts not only the game, but the social raiding experience which is why the devs should care alot about the experience at level 30.

it's very easy to fall into this trap. it's player mentality, and once you've established it, it can be hard to break the habit of thinking this way. but let's examine it carefully. are you sure that what you have said here is absolutely true?

i have a rogue assassin on my main account. not many past lives. not a whole lot of reaper points. gear set includes at least 5 pieces of raid gear, several more as swap items, augments in nearly all slots, max sentient gem in Pain... the works. when i try to solo highskulls i get smushed. when i group in highskulls i do very well. i don't particularly mind that the game isn't balanced in a way that allows my assassin to solo highskulls. because in a raid group, i can be very confident in my ability to contribute. in a group, i can play to the strengths of the build. at cap, class balance doesn't mean as much to me. but at level 1, and at every level after 1, my assassin needs to be able to solo. if it can't, i won't be able to climb back to 30 after a TR. and since it's a raid alt, that assassin isn't very useful unless he's at cap.

so let's look at what needs to happen, in my admittedly self-serving illustration. raid alts need to be able to level at a moderate pace, even solo, from 1-29. which means class balance is actually imperative to the leveling process. if a tank can't level, or a healer or support 'toon can't advance on their own... it's a problem. but put them into the context of cap play, it's not nearly as important whether or not a tank or support character can complete quests on their own, because they don't need to. it's cap... the whole point was to get there so they can be effective party members and contribute. who cares about balance in a raid group? i mean, it's still important. but not nearly as important as being able to actually progress to the point where you finally get to run the raids.

the priority should be game balance from levels 1 to 29. due to people actually being required to run that content, and supported by the player audit data which clearly shows that the majority of players are running that very content. if a playstyle is suboptimal, it matters to a solo player because they will have a harder time getting back to level 30, where they can finally count on having a group for highskull and raid level play. which is why the dev's should care a lot about balancing the TR wheel, and not so much about what happens for that small window which is level 30. where you can count on having 11 other people to lag out with you, and where you can contribute, even on a build that isn't allowed to solo highskulls.

[slarden]

if all classes over-preform equally, that's a good indicator of class balance. the only thing left to do is incentivize running higher skulls (which i believe would be a step in the right direction). but i seriously doubt the integrity of the player who states that all classes are over-preforming equally throughout the heroic leveling process.



if you look at the 'content run' by level range, you'll see it. mules don't run content. they mule. sure, you can split hairs by arguing that bank 'toons need coin lord and house k favor. but they only need it once. the content by level graph shows that 85% of all content being played is from levels 1-29. if level 30 had anywhere close to 50% i would back down. but it's not even a contest here... end game players represent the smallest denomination of DDO's current population. i had a hard time believing it at first... but it's true.



it's very easy to fall into this trap. it's player mentality, and once you've established it, it can be hard to break the habit of thinking this way. but let's examine it carefully. are you sure that what you have said here is absolutely true?

i have a rogue assassin on my main account. not many past lives. not a whole lot of reaper points. gear set includes at least 5 pieces of raid gear, several more as swap items, augments in nearly all slots, max sentient gem in Pain... the works. when i try to solo highskulls i get smushed. when i group in highskulls i do very well. i don't particularly mind that the game isn't balanced in a way that allows my assassin to solo highskulls. because in a raid group, i can be very confident in my ability to contribute. in a group, i can play to the strengths of the build. at cap, class balance doesn't mean as much to me. but at level 1, and at every level after 1, my assassin needs to be able to solo. if it can't, i won't be able to climb back to 30 after a TR. and since it's a raid alt, that assassin isn't very useful unless he's at cap.

so let's look at what needs to happen, in my admittedly self-serving illustration. raid alts need to be able to level at a moderate pace, even solo, from 1-29. which means class balance is actually imperative to the leveling process. if a tank can't level, or a healer or support 'toon can't advance on their own... it's a problem. but put them into the context of cap play, it's not nearly as important whether or not a tank or support character can complete quests on their own, because they don't need to. it's cap... the whole point was to get there so they can be effective party members and contribute. who cares about balance in a raid group? i mean, it's still important. but not nearly as important as being able to actually progress to the point where you finally get to run the raids.

the priority should be game balance from levels 1 to 29. due to people actually being required to run that content, and supported by the player audit data which clearly shows that the majority of players are running that very content. if a playstyle is suboptimal, it matters to a solo player because they will have a harder time getting back to level 30, where they can finally count on having a group for highskull and raid level play. which is why the dev's should care a lot about balancing the TR wheel, and not so much about what happens for that small window which is level 30. where you can count on having 11 other people to lag out with you, and where you can contribute, even on a build that isn't allowed to solo highskulls.

LOL It's not a trap it's my opinion and your opinion and they don't line up. That's fine it's up to the devs ultimately. I think supporting level 30 and raiding better will be beneficial for player retention and satisfaction with the game

If you find levels 1 to 29 challenging I certainly understand and respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it.

[timmy9999]

Why do you need to spam DPS?
Why not just nuke a bit, then walk up and melee?
Or just stand back and wait a !

Walk up and melee LOL, you people really play a different game.
What weapon you thinking, sceptre or you have some other hidden secret weapon of destruction...

[Clemeit]

The report is interesting - it doesn't give us any information about time played by level range or which characters are bank characters. I know in my case I log into several heroic level characters at various ranges that have all been converted to mules. But even so - assuming all those are played characters which they aren't - it doesn't matter since heroics are a lost cause already for anyone that knows how to play the game OR has significant experience playing the game.

Bank toons are filtered out by default. You can use the "Filter" buttons above the chart to change that.

[slarden]

Bank toons are filtered out by default. You can use the "Filter" buttons above the chart to change that.

I got that, but I don't think it really changes the discussion much. You can't balance classes properly at heroic levels when it can get crushed by any class due other player power. That would only be possible with absolutely massive nerfs.

[Tuxedoman96]

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?

While that goal is indeed commendable, how would you use this data to factor in what exactly needs to change? Take the monk for example. If we decide that that particular class is overperforming, what do we reduce (or for the underperforming classes, increase)? The survivability? The damage? The DCs? What about the ability to hit more than one target?

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?

Not sure what you mean exactly by "enhancing the experience". Also, you mention bugs, but I would think that in the discussion of balance we'd also be looking at factors that are working as intended. Let's say that in this example of yours, the clerics turns did work on all of those monsters as you proposed, but they instead were given a save, and whatever means you acquired this power specified that it could work in that way. How would you determine that the ability needs to be tuned down?

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 don't understand. How can you say that we are looking at balance without representing each of the builds fairly? If I state that monks are in a terrible position but never really took the time to play the class effectively, then how does that serve as adequate data for the actual state of the class wrt balance? Furthermore, you say that we are simply looking at the broader base of balance, and I'd appreciate some clarification on this, because as far as I know, there is or should be a metric for balance. You'd never really have a working system for balance by making the classes with little to no regard for said metric and then define the metric based on the relative position of each of the classes to each other. There's a reason there's such a thing as a reference point.

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.

Fair enough. However, we are discussing the notion of balance both without those data points and the goal they represent. I'll also add that how the devs wish to "balance" the game does not necessarily align with how the players would balance it. I'm not saying this as a bad thing of course, I'm merely suggesting that when discussing balances we are taking half measures when we don't clarify what we really expect the standard to be and why and how to achieve it.

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

2 is better than 0 when it is relevant. If the data doesn't convey anything with regards to what I'm looking for then it's inconsequential, isn't it? That's why it's just as important to know what we want and what information would help with our awareness/understanding as it is to actually get said information.

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

Wasn't stopping there, just wanted to understand what exactly you were looking for.

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! ;-)

Quite simply because the two classes are different in what they can do and to what extent. A caster that specializes in dealing damage is probably going to finish encounters faster (and therefore the quest). That's not to say that each class shouldn't finish classes at roughly the same time, but rather that I don't see why they should. I mean, some classes are easier to solo with than others. Some classes have more versatility. Obviously being more versatile should take away from the benefits that result from having a specialty. Or, let's take warlock. Warlock has the eldritch blasts, which do not cost spell points. I think we could both agree that those blasts probably shouldn't do as much damage as full-blown 9th level spells that cost 40-50 a piece. Why and how, then, should a warlock be able to clear a dungeon as quickly as casters that actually utilize spell points for the majority of their damage?

[mikarddo]

Or, let's take warlock. Warlock has the eldritch blasts, which do not cost spell points. I think we could both agree that those blasts probably shouldn't do as much damage as full-blown 9th level spells that cost 40-50 a piece. Why and how, then, should a warlock be able to clear a dungeon as quickly as casters that actually utilize spell points for the majority of their damage?

If the sorc has enough spell points to finish the quest without ever slowing down then the spell point cost is irrelevant though. Failure to include that into to the equation is unwise.

[Tuxedoman96]

if all classes over-preform equally, that's a good indicator of class balance. the only thing left to do is incentivize running higher skulls (which i believe would be a step in the right direction). but i seriously doubt the integrity of the player who states that all classes are over-preforming equally throughout the heroic leveling process.

It sounds like there's two different definitions of overperforming here.

so let's look at what needs to happen, in my admittedly self-serving illustration. raid alts need to be able to level at a moderate pace, even solo, from 1-29. which means class balance is actually imperative to the leveling process. if a tank can't level, or a healer or support 'toon can't advance on their own... it's a problem. but put them into the context of cap play, it's not nearly as important whether or not a tank or support character can complete quests on their own, because they don't need to. it's cap... the whole point was to get there so they can be effective party members and contribute. who cares about balance in a raid group? i mean, it's still important. but not nearly as important as being able to actually progress to the point where you finally get to run the raids.

And what would you consider a moderate pace of leveling?

the priority should be game balance from levels 1 to 29. due to people actually being required to run that content, and supported by the player audit data which clearly shows that the majority of players are running that very content.

The problem arises when the difficulty you are running is such that you'd easily be able to complete it no matter what class you are playing. At that point, how would you know that there is anything that needs changing? I think this is what Slarden was getting at.

if a playstyle is suboptimal, it matters to a solo player because they will have a harder time getting back to level 30, where they can finally count on having a group for highskull and raid level play.

"Suboptimal" implies that there is an optimal playstyle or class. If you look at the definition of optimal, you'll find that it is defined as "most desirable or satisfactory". Even in the absence of differences in completion times and contribution, the idea of an optimal class is subjective. Some players will, for the sake of effectiveness, decide on what class is "optimal" based on their gameplay preferences, skill level, and comfort/willingness to learn the class. Even a sufficiently large population of players claiming a class to be optimal is not an immediate indication of a balance problem, since those gameplay preferences again factor into these sentiments. Take warlock for example. Warlock is simple enough that most players should be able to bring out a large portion of its potential. So if many players decide that warlock is optimal to level through the game, is it because the warlock is truly superior to the other classes (this is an example so I'm not saying it is)? Or maybe it's because many players have a playstyle that synergizes well with warlock? I understand that these conclusions are not mutually exclusive, but I'm trying to demonstrate that the situation isn't all that cut and dry.

And even if changes are made to the other classes as a result of this data should they be balance changes? I mean, I wouldn't classify making changes to the monk's inability to retain finishers when interacting to be a balance change, since balance changes implies that I'm measuring the class/ability up to something else in terms of some quantitative analysis of some variable. Not losing a finisher upon picking something up doesn't really influence how much damage I'm doing relative to the next guy, nor how much I heal with my healing ki, nor how good my DCs are or how much mitigation I have. It's simply a QoL change.

[Tuxedoman96]

If the sorc has enough spell points to finish the quest without ever slowing down then the spell point cost is irrelevant though. Failure to include that into to the equation is unwise.

It would only truly be irrelevant if this is true of all casters, since we are not only measuring the warlock's spellpoint-free eldritch blasts against sorcs but also all other characters that would be using spells as their primary means of damage. In this case, perhaps it is sorc that would be the outlier if we look at it in absence of its drawbacks.

[janave]

If the sorc has enough spell points to finish the quest without ever slowing down then the spell point cost is irrelevant though. Failure to include that into to the equation is unwise.

Just for notation:

My Sorcerer cannot use new gear, where I play only one competent Sorcerer i trust for advice breaks 8k ( uses DOM2 with some sacrifices I dont want to make), most of the good ones have around 6.5 to 7.5k, Meteor is stupidly sp efficient, try an Air / Water caster at level cap, they burn thru spell points FAST. I find that it is much better to throw IKs when possible than keep nuking with Air and Water. A capstone using Sorcerer loses -10%. I mostly see Fire casters exaggerate the spell points bonuses, and easy to see why if one has experience with multiple builds.

[LurkingVeteran]

Just for notation:

My Sorcerer cannot use new gear, where I play only one competent Sorcerer i trust for advice breaks 8k ( uses DOM2 with some sacrifices I dont want to make), most of the good ones have around 6.5 to 7.5k, Meteor is stupidly sp efficient, try an Air / Water caster at level cap, they burn thru spell points FAST. I find that it is much better to throw IKs when possible than keep nuking with Air and Water. A capstone using Sorcerer loses -10%. I mostly see Fire casters exaggerate the spell points bonuses, and easy to see why if one has experience with multiple builds.

Fire spells aren't that efficient in terms of damage to mana, but they have one big thing going for them which is big AoE in an AoE centric game, in addition to having a few big nukes you can pile metas on at minimum cost. Casting Chain + Ball Lightning gives you about the same damage as one meteor, but target capped, and you have to pay twice for the metas. Lightningbolt is actually stupidly efficient if you don't use metas, although you will suffer -6 DC. I believe metas previously scaled both the cost and damage by a multiplier, which made a lot more sense.

[janave]

Fire spells aren't that efficient on their own, I think it's mainly because you can clear big packs with one nuke, so you can pile on the metas. Casting Chain + Ball Lightning gives you about the same damage as one meteor, but if you have to pay twice for the metas. Lightningbolt is actually stupidly efficient if you don't use metas, but good luck with -6 DC. I believe metas previously scaled both the cost and damage by a multiplier, which made a lot more sense.

Chain has max target limit of 6, hitbox seems smaller too, Ball caps at 15, but the big reason is Meteor gives damage on first cast vs immune targets and applies most debuffs. I agree that Bolt is efficient without metas, but also RNG heavy, it is not something i want when the goal is melting down important targets hp asap, but efficient to attack static, cc-d targets for sure.

Ball avg ~ 127.5 @ 20sp
Chain avg ~ 190 @ 25sp
Meteor avg ~ 440 @ 40sp

0.72 * 0.89 => ~.642

CL/MCL increases favor Meteor, Spell power, Lore, favors fire, race synergies favor Fire, loot favors Fire, no save component is nice to have for some content a fair trade off. Single spell power favors electric.

If Master of Air affected Eladars, that could maybe earn Air a spot for boss beatdowns.

[LurkingVeteran]

Chain has max target limit of 6, hitbox seems smaller too, Ball caps at 15, but the big reason is Meteor gives damage on first cast vs immune targets and applies most debuffs. I agree that Bolt is efficient without metas, but also RNG heavy, it is not something i want when the goal is melting down important targets hp asap, but efficient to attack static, cc-d targets for sure.

Ball avg ~ 127.5 @ 20sp
Chain avg ~ 190 @ 25sp
Meteor avg ~ 440 @ 40sp

0.72 * 0.89 => ~.642

CL/MCL increases favor Meteor, Spell power, Lore, favors fire, race synergies favor Fire, loot favors Fire, no save component is nice to have for some content a fair trade off. Single spell power favors electric.

If Master of Air affected Eladars, that could maybe earn Air a spot for boss beatdowns.

+MCL favors Ball, since it has an MCL of 15. Redo the same calc with +6MCL and it will be slightly closer. 40% of Meteor damage is also force, which (although not as bad after the belt nerf) will be lower just because it's split. Completely agree on immunity dropping and target cap. Besides those, I think metas and DC are big ones though. When Chain hits for half of Meteor and costs 80% as much with metas, efficiency goes down the drain.

EDIT: I also think Air Savant could get some + MCL on Ball specifically in its cores. Same for Cone of Cold on Water. Chain could also benefit from having its target cap raised. It's basically the same AoE as Ball anyway. There was no target cap in D&D. It did half damage on secondary hits, but that was the trade-off for being one of the few party-friendly AoEs that only hit enemies.

[janave]

+MCL favors Ball, since it has an MCL of 15. Redo the same calc with +6MCL and it will be slightly closer. 40% of Meteor damage is also force, which (although not as bad after the belt nerf) will be lower just because it's split. Completely agree on immunity dropping and target cap. Besides those, I think metas and DC are big ones though. When Chain hits for half of Meteor and costs 80% as much with metas, efficiency goes down the drain.

EDIT: I also think Air Savant could get some + MCL on Ball specifically in its cores. Same for Cone of Cold on Water. Chain could also benefit from having its target cap raised. It's basically the same AoE as Ball anyway. There was no target cap in D&D. It did half damage on secondary hits, but that was the trade-off for being one of the few party-friendly AoEs that only hit enemies.

Ahh true in the 1st Sorcerer nerf they removed the easy MCL grabs from Earth, so you are probably right, still close

[mikarddo]

Just for notation:

My Sorcerer cannot use new gear, where I play only one competent Sorcerer i trust for advice breaks 8k ( uses DOM2 with some sacrifices I dont want to make), most of the good ones have around 6.5 to 7.5k, Meteor is stupidly sp efficient, try an Air / Water caster at level cap, they burn thru spell points FAST. I find that it is much better to throw IKs when possible than keep nuking with Air and Water. A capstone using Sorcerer loses -10%. I mostly see Fire casters exaggerate the spell points bonuses, and easy to see why if one has experience with multiple builds.

My claim started with a very important "if". I did not say that sorcs always have enough mana, only that if/when they do, the spell point cost is not important when comparing to a warlock.

I certainly do run out of mana often enough on my sorc to know that

[OfElectricMen]

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?

Well, I'd be mildly annoyed, unless I had made a full attack and so only had a 5-ft step available.

[OfElectricMen]

And what would you consider a moderate pace of leveling?

13.3 CR-appropriate encounters.

[DarkSkysz]

Who TF cares about balance on a pure pve game...I mean... these kobolds complaning about balance should go back to the sewers and let us, the players, enjoy our overpower spells.

[ggmarquez]

While that goal is indeed commendable, how would you use this data to factor in what exactly needs to change? Take the monk for example. If we decide that that particular class is overperforming, what do we reduce (or for the underperforming classes, increase)? The survivability? The damage? The DCs? What about the ability to hit more than one target?

you can't really expect a specific answer to such a general question. i can give a general answer though... in an in-depth analysis of all, or as close as we can come to all, relevant game systems and design features, when something is or is not balanced, it will manifest in some empirical form, and becomes a data point. it doesn't need an arbitrary numerical representation. if confront any foe is doing more damage per second than any other destiny active attack, we don't need to first define how much damage per second it should be doing, then subtract that number from the current amount, and make an adjustment with such precise mathematical clarity. it seems counter intuitive to put it that way, because it's all just math, after all. but i stand by that statement. there is no valid reason to place the onus of such deliberate, highly detail focused scrutiny, on the player-base. you know it isn't balanced because it's being built around, not because the equation reveals an exact amount of additional damage beyond what other similar abilities are outputting. it seems like you want to suggest all balance changes need to first conform to some 'standard' that is being deviated from. and that to do so, without first defining with numerical precision, would be impossible. or at least a mistake. but i don't think that it's necessary or prudent to wait for that level of detail. adding a 2 second cooldown to CaF was a good start. but it was still being used to cancel attack animations in the attack chain, to provide higher dps where it wasn't intended. even without the exact numbers in front of us, we the players could still see it was preforming, in a way which was never intended, beyond the scope of its purported purpose.

Not sure what you mean exactly by "enhancing the experience". Also, you mention bugs, but I would think that in the discussion of balance we'd also be looking at factors that are working as intended. Let's say that in this example of yours, the clerics turns did work on all of those monsters as you proposed, but they instead were given a save, and whatever means you acquired this power specified that it could work in that way. How would you determine that the ability needs to be tuned down?

enhancing the experience. right, on it's own, that figure of speech does have a certain culinary ring to it. maybe i should have said... modify the playstyle to add a layer of enjoyment and provide quality to the class through meaningful choices intended to give players a broader spectrum when making decisions which influence the way they build their characters. but joseph heller taught me about prose being too prolix. i think i'll stick with enhances the experience, as its a bit more succinct. as to the question, how to determine when to tune down a specific ability: this is where exhaustive playtesting becomes more and more relevant. if turn undead were capable of providing an unbalanced advantage, at any point in the leveling process, it would demonstrate itself, and eventually work to the meta. meaning, the playerbase, at large, would adopt turn based builds and prioritize turning as a preference. if that happened, i would look closely at how other insta-kill effects were implemented... maybe cap max turn at the same level as wail, or circle of death. but that hasn't happened because turn is still such a niche ability, and its most useful feature, using turn attempts to fuel CaF, was recently nerfed.

I don't understand. How can you say that we are looking at balance without representing each of the builds fairly? If I state that monks are in a terrible position but never really took the time to play the class effectively, then how does that serve as adequate data for the actual state of the class wrt balance? Furthermore, you say that we are simply looking at the broader base of balance, and I'd appreciate some clarification on this, because as far as I know, there is or should be a metric for balance. You'd never really have a working system for balance by making the classes with little to no regard for said metric and then define the metric based on the relative position of each of the classes to each other. There's a reason there's such a thing as a reference point.

representing builds fairly, and watching 2 players run those builds, aren't the same thing. if you state that monks are in a terrible position, i can either ignore you, or attempt to refute your statement with my own evidence. because you have merely stated an opinion. the data you are asking about isn't derived from your play experiences, or mine. but rather, from the amalgam of all player experience, over the course of a meta cycle. which is why, again, exhaustive playtesting is very important. one person, playing monk poorly, doesn't indicate anything other than that they play monk poorly. 27 concurrent raid completions of the latest raid, all by different players, all on some ranged monk bow using hybrid build, means nerf monk, nerf manyshot, nerf ips and then nerf monk again for good measure.

There's a reason there's such a thing as a reference point.

this is important enough to quote a second time. the point of reference is determined on live. lama is where we get a small showcase for upcoming changes which take this point of reference, and we glimpse how the meta may shift, as the dev's attempt to balance for the future, since obviously balancing for the past is impossible and would be in poor taste. the live servers are collecting the data used to establish this reference point, in real time, minute by minute, even as i'm typing this. it isn't substantial in the same way as a fixed integer. it's a flow. an ebb and a tide. poetry again... i know, i know. but really, DDO plays, in part, like a poem, rather than a mathematical formula. there's music in it, not just in dryad and the demigod, but in everything from the banker who refuses to give us the bank ui until it's auto-closed on us once, to the piece of newspaper which keeps floating around the same parts of the harbor, over and over.

Fair enough. However, we are discussing the notion of balance both without those data points and the goal they represent. I'll also add that how the devs wish to "balance" the game does not necessarily align with how the players would balance it. I'm not saying this as a bad thing of course, I'm merely suggesting that when discussing balances we are taking half measures when we don't clarify what we really expect the standard to be and why and how to achieve it.

well, not to put to a fine a point on it, but... the standard is obviously enjoyment. if it isn't enjoyable, why is it even in the game? there isn't really an adequate method of establishing 'enjoyment' and expressing it mathematically. if the additional cooldown recently added to meteor swarm impedes the ability of the player using it from deriving any enjoyment or satisfaction by that use, something is certainly wrong. but i don't think one whinge thread is enough to relay that information, or signifies that a walk-back on the extra cooldown is required. it is, however, a good starting point for further investigation. it may turn out that enough players feel similarly to the OP. then, perhaps, a different solution to the problem will present itself.

2 is better than 0 when it is relevant. If the data doesn't convey anything with regards to what I'm looking for then it's inconsequential, isn't it? That's why it's just as important to know what we want and what information would help with our awareness/understanding as it is to actually get said information.

but, of course, this is just pretense for disregarding any opinion you disagree with. if two people tell you what you wish never to hear, you say that the data doesn't convey anything. then label it inconsequential. all data is meaningful, its only in a specific context that it becomes relevant/irrelevant. if you say monks are in a terrible place, and i say CaF is overpreforming and needs to be adjusted... the data doesn't convey anything with regard to what you are looking for. but that doesn't make it inconsequential, right? obviously i should post my data in a different thread, because it isn't relevant to your beg for better monk... but if CaF really is over-tuned, it shouldn't be considered inconsequential to anything other than your own little monk-is-bad pity party.

Wasn't stopping there, just wanted to understand what exactly you were looking for.

what i am looking for? why, nothing short of the best and most awesome'ist player experience possible, from on of the greatest and most amazing'ist of all the MMO's i've ever played... naturally. why, are you looking for something else?

Quite simply because the two classes are different in what they can do and to what extent. A caster that specializes in dealing damage is probably going to finish encounters faster (and therefore the quest). That's not to say that each class shouldn't finish classes at roughly the same time, but rather that I don't see why they should. I mean, some classes are easier to solo with than others. Some classes have more versatility. Obviously being more versatile should take away from the benefits that result from having a specialty. Or, let's take warlock. Warlock has the eldritch blasts, which do not cost spell points. I think we could both agree that those blasts probably shouldn't do as much damage as full-blown 9th level spells that cost 40-50 a piece. Why and how, then, should a warlock be able to clear a dungeon as quickly as casters that actually utilize spell points for the majority of their damage?

do you really support the notion that any one class should not be able to complete a quest in relatively the same time-frame as any other class? sounds like class prejudice. not saying you're classist... but it sorta' sounds like a classist remark. should female characters also be forced to conform to your standards? maybe have less carrying capacity? better cooking and cleaning skills, but lower strength and endurance? ;-)