[TERA PC & Console] En Masse is closing, but TERA lives on! We will continue to support TERA PC (NA) and TERA Console until services are transferred. Our Service Moving Info page is now live here: https://bit.ly/tera_service_moving

Balancing Patches

24

Comments

  • seraphinushseraphinush ✭✭✭✭
    Can i also remind you guys that the premise to the issue OP brought up is invald? crit resist from Volley of Curses is a Talent, and we won't get it.
  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Sylviette wrote: »
    snip

    The issue is there is no evidence that they even bothered with looking into talents seriously. If they did, the disparity won't be as big as it is now.
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    They have said outright, repeatedly, that they balance the classes without considering talents because the other regions won't ever get them. So what makes anyone think that class balance will be any different than what we already have even if they do get rid of talents in Korea? It's just one massive assumption, like "oh, they say that, but they're actually lying and they balance it to talents and just don't care about any other region in the world." Okay, then let's ask a second question: is the game with talents actually any more balanced on the whole than it is here? If so, why is it that the Inven forums are constantly filled with coffins to represent the various classes Korean players have deemed "dead" due to being unbalanced? The fact is that the game is not balanced anywhere and it's not because BHS is secretly using talents as an equalizer. In fact, because of the way talents were implemented in Korea, it can actually never lead to true balance, just greater imbalance over time.

    It's true that, because of the talent system, the class meta in K-TERA is slightly different than what we have here, but that doesn't make it more balanced. It seems to me that this argument only comes up because people feel slighted because there's some talent they have in K-TERA that would make their class more powerful, but without considering all the other things the talent system does to wreck balance the other way.

    This argument is quite frankly ridiculous. Because the talent system is innately imbalanced, e.g. warriors have bad talents while slayers have amazing ones, balancing with or without the talent system will ensure at least one version of the game is imbalanced.

    If BHS does indeed balance without talents in mind, classes like sorcs, slayers, ninjas with amazing talents will be the strongest classes by far on KR and NA would be balanced.

    If BHS balances with KR version in mind, classes like warriors, LD and berserkers would be overwhelming in NA and every class would be balanced in KR.

    Having talent system does not guarantee balance, but that's a strawman. The point is, without talent system, you guarantee at least 1 version of TERA is imbalanced forever.

    The point I was making is that, if you look at the evidence, neither K-TERA nor NA TERA are balanced anyway as it is. So the fact that K-TERA has talents is itself the strawman that people are trying to blame for the game's lack of balance, even though BHS has said repeatedly that they do not balance with talents in mind. So the problem really has nothing to do with talents at all, it's just the fact that the game is not balanced. Now, I happen to think that "balance" is a moving target and we'll probably never arrive at a point that everyone will be happy with, but it's clear there's work to be done.

    People are trying to be too "smart" and come up with this deep reason why the game isn't balanced given that they know talents exist, or why balance can never happen as long as talents exist, but this is really inconsequential. We already know clearly and unequivocally that talents are not coming here. So, the only message BHS needs to hear from us, just like they get from K-TERA, is "coffins." It's their job to fix it.

    No, your argument is strawman because unless talents are balanced (which BHS has shown no interest of trying to do), truly balancing both NA and KR simultaneously is an impossible feat. The point isn't whether the game is balanced right now, which I argue it's the most balanced it's ever been, but the fact that leaving talents like this, you simply cannot balance the game.

    That doesn't logically follow at all, actually. The problem is that the talent system, the way it is now, cannot be balanced because it has no limits or caps. New players will forever be behind veterans no matter how they grind. So that is the main reason why it's impossible to balance a build with the current talent system. If not for that, it would be theoretically possible to balance both builds based on some sort of "ideal build" (a balance with no talents, and a balance with ideal talents), but it'd be a royal pain to do. Not impossible... just not likely.

    I'm pretty sure the problem alluded to in the OP is that they feel the game is not balanced now, and that they feel it's because of the talent system. If they thought the game we have now were balanced, I don't think they would be arguing anything, since that'd be pure semantics about internal dev policies and irrelevant to us as players.

    No what. New players are always behind vet players by virtue of everything from gear to resources to experience to skill. There is already a huge variety of things that work against new players just like every other game in existence. It doesn't matter that talent is infinitely scaling, just like it doesn't matter that level 1 characters aren't as powerful as level 65 characters.

    The problem comes when different class level 65 characters have different power scaling. Like I said and will repeatedly say if I have to, unless every class at any given level gains equal power from the talent system, otherwise balance is quite literally impossible.
    The issue here is the game is not any more balanced with the talent system than it is without. Also, all these other disadvantages, other than skill, can easily be brought down in a short time frame if dedicated, the talent system isn't like that.

    The talent tier is roughly inversely proportional to NA class ranking, which means talent is more balanced than without talent. Regardless, this is irrelevant. The point is that the talent system by virtue of being different between regions, essentially locks TERA into a position where at least one version will be imbalanced.

    Regardless of what BHS says about balancing not around talent, they will still balance to satisfy the KR playerbase needs, which means NA will be thrown under the bus.

    Closer dps=/=balance. I also don't see any data that supports the game is closer to balanced with the talents anyways. The performance of the classes in KR is not just altered due to talents, keep in mind they all play with fairly similar and low ping, in NA we do not have that luxury and some classes suffer more than others from desyncs, delays, and general packet loss problems that occur more often with out infrastructure.
  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    \
    Except that in a PvE context, it absolutely does mean balance.
    Up until most forms of party support was removed, no. Even then, there are other things classes have that vary. Unless you intend on making all classes with the same level of safety, mobility, and similar patterns balance would not happen 100% of the time. DPS also varied for each class depending on instance for this reason. There are also other use cases, where even if they don't have the best perceived dps they would still be picked over another (TSHM for example). You can't keep all classes equally balanced at all times with all these variables unless you basically make them all the same.
  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    \
    Except that in a PvE context, it absolutely does mean balance.
    Up until most forms of party support was removed, no. Even then, there are other things classes have that vary. Unless you intend on making all classes with the same level of safety, mobility, and similar patterns balance would not happen 100% of the time. DPS also varied for each class depending on instance for this reason. There are also other use cases, where even if they don't have the best perceived dps they would still be picked over another (TSHM for example). You can't keep all classes equally balanced at all times with all these variables unless you basically make them all the same.

    Nobody who argues for balance uses your literal and absolute definition of it. The point is not to make every class equal in every single parameter, but simply two practical considerations:

    1. Classes should do roughly the same DPS so you aren't disadvantaged from picking the "wrong" class.
    2. Classes do not suffer from glaring weaknesses that make them unplayable/borderline for current content, e.g. if they have 1 iframe in a patch that requires 2.

    Your example of TS is irrelevant. If every class does similar DPS it doesn't matter if gunners and sorcs could cheese the mechanic. Sure they would be in higher demand, but for all practical purposes:

    1. Gunner x3 + Lancer + Healer
    2. Gunner + Slayerx2 + Lancer + Healer

    Simply applying basic maths would show there is no power discrepancy if classes are balanced. Both compositions would be equal in power in TS if classes were balanced in DPS. Hence the mechanic specific cheese is completely irrelevant on the issue of PvE DPS balance.
    Up until most forms of party support was removed, no.
    Also no, this is a complete misconception. There is a reason lancers are considered superior to brawlers despite having lower DPS, it is because having party buffs that boost DPS is mathematically equivalent to having increased personal DPS. In the case of lancers, their party buffs are stronger than the gap in DPS between them and brawlers, hence lancers are better tanks.

    When traverse cut was nerfed to 4.5% and warriors were among the lowest DPS pre-rework, warriors objectively contributed less than FoTM classes at the time by a significant margin. Just because they have a debuff doesn't make them situationally balanced, they're still objectively a weak class because their debuff isn't strong enough to offset the damage loss from having a warrior in the first place.

    No where have I mentioned all classes being 100% equal. It is a fact that even if you have two classes performing in a similar range in instance A the gap could widen in instance B with 0 changes made to either classes, and this has in fact happened. Berserker for one example saw a pretty wide average dps in two different instances of the same patch. Then you have HH that functions differently than RMHM enough that Gunner can be perceived as competitive there while being trash in RMHM.

    As for the debuff comment, that is exactly my point. You can't look at strictly just dps, because each class has had its own set of strengths. Despite the fact Lancer is vastly superior in literally every single way for boss fights, guess who NA thinks is the OP tank? That's right Brawler just because personal dps is all people look at. On the subject of Brawler, their dps varies extremely widely depending on the boss fight for another example. What do you do when Brawler has to deal with a boss that hardly attacks? Do you buff them and nerf them again when it's a patch where they attack often? What if a patch consists of bosses that do both? How do you balance desyncs that are going to occur on NA for certain abilities?

    Also what skill level are you using to determine what is balance? Your example of Warrior, they were still taken to speed runs on NA before they even got buffed the first time a while back, suggesting their debuff, and ability to enrage the boss, made up for the lowered personal dps, yet you think otherwise. Archer was also taken to some speed runs despite being "low tier" according to the average player base. Does this mean you're looking at how the average player base performs to determine what is balanced or not? Should you simplify all class mechanics like resource generation (Edge, WP, Chi) and remove Brawler's perfect block mechanic just to achieve balance in a mediocre setting without breaking them at higher skill levels?
  • edited March 2017
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Any reasonable person will agree that PvE balance means:

    For any two players of roughly equal skill level playing DPS classes, their damage contribution will be roughly equal regardless of class choice.
    No, that is not balanced. DPS classes can have varying advantages of utility, mobility, survivability, burst-vs.-sustained, and so on that means not all classes will do equal damage in all content (even at "equal skill"). Just because the latest content has mechanics that prefer classes a, b, c, the next content could have mechanics that prefer classes x, y, z. It should not be so out of proportion that it's completely useless to be certain classes for certain content, but your measurement is not considered "balanced" in an MMO. It just helps make every class, and every encounter, boring and predictable; it means there is no strategy to choosing the best classes for each encounter, which is part of high-end play in an MMO. The key is that it should not always be the same classes that are advantaged in all encounters, and that comes down to good encounter design.
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Some people define balance as equally cute characters or flashy animations. Some people think endgame is about dressup or RP.
    Now those are strawmen. The examples I gave are actually valid definitions that relate to class balance, not complete nonsense that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this conversation.
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    I'll believe you when I see NA/EU specific class balance changes.
    And you'll never get it, because (as they've said all along) they balance classes for the common/global build (i.e. the one that every region gets, without consideration for any publisher-specific variations). So, once again, this conversation is completely and utterly useless.

    If there is something in particular that exists in the talent system that is needed to make the game more balanced in NA (and it really would make it more balanced), that is the feedback that needs to be sent, and that change would have to be made in the global build (including Korea). It's useless to say "hey BHS, you can never balance the game as long as you keep talents in Korea"; you might think they don't care about our opinions in general, but there's nothing they'd care about less than our opinions on their dev process.
  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    This is not the result of class variation, this is a result of poor class balance. The overuse of arbitrary crit increase is the reason HH is so imbalanced and my point 2 from before was the reason for large variation in sandbag vs mobile boss DPS.

    The crit resist difference does not apply to the case of Berserker, I only used HH for a more recent example. However you can go to the previous season and you would see the differences in average dps for each class was different depending on the instances. Some instances also favor range, with others favoring melee. Some bosses a Brawler can achieve high enough dps that it can compete with a Lancer as well, and for most of them they can't. All bosses are not the same, even if you gave them similar crit resistances there would still be variances. Unfortunately my old desktop is a few thousand miles away so I can't bring up the data from before.

    Each class still has pretty wide variance in mobility, slapping on a high cool down dash, where a boss could random aggro multiple times, isn't going to do a whole lot. Also, it's not like dps is all that is imbalanced, the usefulness and reliability of each tank class is pretty wide, and the difference between Priest and Mystic is constantly varied. Even if say you buffed Berserker's damage, why would you want one when Lancer is not only as good but more reliable? Reliability and ease of use is partly why Lancer is more common for RMHM. The same is true for Mystic, their motes make literally anything so easy, and guess which healer keeps receiving buffs and QoL changes? That's right, Mystic. How would you balance out Lancer, Berserker, Warrior, and Brawler, along with Priest vs Mystic without making them all function the same?
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Then you missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is debuffs can be numerically quantified, hence having debuffs does not preclude balance by numbers. You previously claimed that before debuffs were removed DPS =/= balance, which is completely false. Because debuffs can be quantified as DPS, whether debuffs exist or don't exist does not affect whether balance is strictly numerical, which it is.

    I had said anytime there is utility involved, you can not have a class with utility have the same personal dps as one without it. This is one of the reasons Lancer should have THE lowest personal dps of every single class that deals damage. However, they have very high dps when performed at a peak level, and yet the community constantly asks for Lancer buffs. Utility is not all you can look at either.
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    The warrior example I was talking about is the one just before the most recent buff. We're not talking about any version of warrior older than that.
    I am talking about that version of Warrior, they were apart of the fastest runs despite being the "lowest" dps, and by the way, they were not the lowest dps at the time.
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    No. And you don't need to, because they can be tweaked either by how they work mechanically or by the numbers.
    E.g. if noob brawlers are underperforming and pro brawlers are overperforming, increase the window of whether a skill achieves perfect block but reduce the perfect block damage reflect is one way that balance could be potentially achieved.
    Increasing the window, or lowering the effectiveness is the same thing as simplifying it... You're either making it easier to do, or not worth doing. The end result is it becomes easier to achieve peak performance. This also effectively makes the class less interesting to play all around. Sacrificing how good a class feels in the name of balance for a shortcut probably results in more dissatisfaction than imbalance itself does. Again, I will use Berserker as an example, even when it is performing well, and all the qol it received over time to be more reliable, it is still an all around unpopular class. Why? Because it doesn't feel good to play even if it is strong. This is why these "revamps" aren't only straight buffs, they have animation changes specifically for the appeal factor.

    At the end of the day this is an MMORPG, pve wise any sort of reasonable balance isn't going to ever be achieved until all classes and instances are homogenized; however, doing so would make the game bland as Counterpoint said.

    More importantly, on the matter of talents, no one has shown the dps gap between the classes for Korea.
  • xEmptiness wrote: »
    Given you are a TERA veteran I find it completely bewildering that you would give into such sophistry.

    It should not be "bewildering" at all. The fact that people are so focused on having near-identical DPS outputs under the guise of that meaning "the classes are balanced" is part of what results in this sort of race towards similarity in the classes. It's what a lot of people have argued for (in this and many other MMOs), but that doesn't mean I think it's the right way to do things. And this is exactly why I think it's very important to clarify what is meant when we talk about "class balance" -- it's not as obvious as you are arguing that it is.

    The other definitions I provided are based on the threads we see on the forum all the time. You may think them completely invalid, but they're perspectives that need to be considered if we want to get the game to a point where the overall perception is that the classes are balanced.
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    To date BHS had never cared about the global versions. I wonder if they even try get feedback from us at all. You've been here for a while, you know BHS doesn't care about NA.
    They care to the degree that we're one voice at a table of many. There have been changes made to the game based on feedback specifically from our market, when other markets agreed that our feedback made sense. But it's clear that they're not that interested in doing things for us specifically. That's why problems have to be stated in such a way that they can change the build worldwide to address the issue. Arguing that they have to do special balancing for us is a total nonstarter.
  • edited March 2017
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    The reason people are focused on DPS is because people got better at the game.
    The reason people are focused on DPS is because there's an illegal parser, and people use that parser to judge performance in content. Higher numbers = better. But such a one dimensional view doesn't adequately consider all the variables -- except when the developers design content and classes where that really is all that matters. I think it's a flaw that things have gotten so one-dimensional.
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Let X = damage variability between talent balance.
    Let Y = damage variability between class balance.
    Let X + Y = total damage variability.

    If X > 0 (talents are not balanced) & Y = 0 (classes are balanced) then X + Y > 0.
    Even if we just looked only at damage as the only thing that matters, it's still a multidimensional equation.

    If the talent system were designed with some subtlety, it would be trying to give people different options or play styles that have different benefits on your damage in different circumstances. It would be contextual or situational so that there's some sort of trade off (or a reason for prioritizing one set of talents over another).

    Otherwise, all that really matters is that the "net change" for each class at "optimal talents" be equalized. Then it'd be no different than having "class balance" at level 65, while also having "class balance" at level 70 (which in this case would be "65+talents"). You could indeed balance for both, although it'd be extra work. Obviously it would not work if the talents for Class A give a global net DPS boost, and Class B get no net boost.

    But this is why it's important that talents can't just be a runaway train in the first place, and why the whole talent system is flawed. IMO, it was a questionable idea with terrible implementation.

    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Your answer had just been "relax, they'll work it out somehow" but it's simply logically contradictory to even think that.

    That was never actually my answer. My answer was that talking about talents is a complete waste of our time. It still is. You're not going to win any argument trying to tell BHS how to do their job (because that's something they truly don't want to hear from you or me). The only hope is to focus on the concrete problems. They've told us they don't balance around talents, yet the classes still have balance problems. That is the problem.
  • edited March 2017
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    No what are you talking about? The only way to balance talent (without actually touching the talent system numbers) and make both KR/NA balanced is by quite literally deleting every skill that's affected by talent or simply by making them not viable. This isn't just my opinion, this is a logical truth, the alternative is simply logically contradictory.
    No... if you want to stick to your one-dimensional equation, then the answer is that the talents of every single class have to have the same net increase in damage so the classes are balanced against each other at optimal settings. It's not as though an NA player will ever play against a KR player.

    Let's say that in Base Build your class achieves damage level of 5000, and this applies equally to all DPS classes (they are "balanced").

    And then let's say that, with optimal Talent configuration, the net effect is a damage level of 5500. The way it accomplishes the increase is different for each class (i.e. which skills get boosted and in what way). But if the boost with talents applies equally to all DPS classes, then they are once again "balanced".

    So, if the talent system were designed with balance in mind (and under your theorycrafting model where there is one and only one optimal build), it is completely possible to have two different balances at the same time (one with talents that's balanced to itself, and one without talents that's balanced to itself). But that isn't the way the talent system is at the moment, which is just one of its many flaws.

    (And well, furthermore, with a true branching talent system, you could still have multiple parallel optimal balance points, but that'd require a much deeper change to the game.)

    In other words, you keep putting the two at odds with other, but they needn't be. It only is because they didn't design it properly.
  • edited March 2017
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    @counterpoint
    No... if you want to stick to your one-dimensional equation, then the answer is that the talents of every single class have to have the same net increase in damage so the classes are balanced against each other at optimal settings. It's not as though an NA player will ever play against a KR player.
    Firstly, before criticizing an equation for being "one-dimensional", you need to at least be able to list another dimension.... which you have repeatedly failed to do when I asked you what is a measure of skill in endgame PvE except speed of run and consistency of run?
    You've already established that you discount all the other variables. Assuming you have players with equal skill, with equal gear, with optimal rolls, with excellent ping times, doing all their mechanics perfectly... then, okay, DPS. But a single-minded focus on this metric can mislead people, causing them to get tunnel vision on the metric and not consider the big picture. For example, not dodging avoidable mechanics because it would disrupt their rotation. Not considering imbalance in gear between tank, healer, and DPS players. If you're truly at the top of your game, playing in a static doing the hardest content, you've already accounted for all other variables. But it's not as though they don't exist; they're just assumed.

    Again, I know you think this is immaterial to the technical argument you want to have about class balance by the raw numbers. But the amount of players who are really at that level of gameplay is actually quite small. Most of the arguments on the forum about class balance are not able to discount all these many other factors.

    xEmptiness wrote: »
    Secondly, if you missed the alternative, the possibility of balancing the talent system individually so each class has equally powerful talents had been brought up. This is the second option, but AFAIK, BHS had shown no evidence they are actively pursuing this either. Why do you think I wrote X > 0 in the example given above? Because if X = 0 then it would be possible for Y and X + Y to be simultaneously 0, bypassing this issue.
    But this is exactly why worrying about talents is not our problem.

    BHS says that they balance the game without talents, which either means they are saying that a) the game with talents is not balanced, or b) the game with talents has an alternate balance that cancels itself out. So if our game is not balanced, talents has nothing to do with it -- according to them. So any arguments we put forward as players can't be like "hey, you're a lying sack of [filtered], so let me tell you what you need to do". We need to play in their court.

    It may help to keep in mind where I'm coming from in this conversation (and in general on the forum). What I care about is formulating an argument I can raise to EME about what the problems are in such a way that will be seen as objective so that it can be escalated and passed along. All the posturing and accusations and speculation and whatever are interesting, but pointless. EME and BHS will definitely just ignore it all. You may argue that they'll ignore everything anyway, and that may be so, but I have to try. So that's why it's useless to say "our game will never be balanced unless you get rid of talents"; that's up to them to decide. What we can say is "this class is underperforming and we think it needs that to fix it". That's objective feedback that can be passed up the chain. Whether they act on it or not... who knows.
  • What in the world is going on in this thread? O_o
  • miraglyth wrote: »
    What in the world is going on in this thread? O_o

    A long and arguably-pointless discussion about semantics, mostly. lol
  • yimeyime ✭✭
    xEmptiness wrote: »

    Also you're the first person who's ever told me lancers are "easy to use" compared to brawlers.

    but lancers are easy to use compared to brawlers. :/
  • edited March 2017
    xEmptiness wrote: »
    The only concern that needs to be passed on is that talents are currently imbalanced, and more thinking needs to be done in regards to:
    1. NA/other regions getting talents
    2. BHS rebalancing efforts on talents

    Giving feedback on which class is weak/strong while the talent system is in such a mess as it is now is curing the symptom, not the cause.

    Then, I can pretty much guarantee this feedback will never be listened to. They will say, as they've always said: "we balance this game without considering talents, as that is the game that is distributed worldwide. The talent system will never leave Korea." Whatever you think about the veracity of their response, the argument is dead in the water. No matter how right you think you are about the cause, you have to focus on the symptom ("tell me where it hurts") and let them figure it out. Everything is political.
  • SylvietteSylviette ✭✭✭
    Guys, this is turning into a fight of conflicting PERSONAL opinions. There's no point arguing about what's the meaning of balance or what not, since even the very definition of balance is different from genre to genre, from time to time. If we're to talk about idea for perfect MMO we should get a new topic rather than hijacking this one. And if we're to come up with a suggestion for BHS, let's keep the "why you should listen to me" part short and simple.
Sign In or Register to comment.