[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you selectively ignore the End cost and toggle-stacking buffs to DA and Stone Armor, the new scaling Dam Resist for SR, and imminent changes to Defense scaling for all Defense sets for I7.
The Devs-only-nerf claim is patently untrue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many of those changes were necessary due to the GDN of i5 stacking with ED. Sets may not have performed at all had they not made them. There is a difference. When it comes to sets being more powerful/effective, the devs nerf to bring it in line with the rest, not buff everything else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Going to agree with that to a point. Several sets in the game underperformed in comparison to others when it came to scaling, and were also effected by the GDN and ED more than others. The i7 defense buff is a fix that should have come a long time ago.
However, having an EM blaster myself along with blasters using other secondaries, there's simply no comparison. Bringing other secondaries up to EM levels would make blasters ridiculously overpowered.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of those changes were necessary due to the GDN of i5 stacking with ED. Sets may not have performed at all had they not made them. There is a difference. When it comes to sets being more powerful/effective, the devs nerf to bring it in line with the rest, not buff everything else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Backpedalling and wholly disingenuous.
Your claim is that the Devs only nerf, never buff. Even when concurrent, that doesn't negate the point that a buff is made.
No offense, but those stacking buffs to DA and Stone are not inconsequential, and are not completely mitigated by either I5 or ED. Those changes help those sets relative to other comparable sets irrespective of other downtweaks that've been made.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't consider those buffs. The sets were broken, and they got fixed. That's not buffing, that's the devs pulling their heads out of their behinds.
~Gabriel
[ QUOTE ]
I don't consider those buffs. The sets were broken, and they got fixed. That's not buffing, that's the devs pulling their heads out of their behinds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Semantic.
A broken set is a matter of subjection. Plenty of players were using DA and SR, some begrudgingly, even as early as I1 and I2 to great effect.
[ QUOTE ]
Corruptors don't have more HP than Defenders....
[/ QUOTE ]
They do, albeit by a small margin (defenders/controllers/stalkers/doms have 692 hp in SC, while corruptors have 729). Ironically, they're the CoV AT with the 2nd highest amount of HP.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, it is becomming clearer and clearer that this game will be balanced around PvP come hell or high water, much to many peoples chagrin.
[/ QUOTE ]
If anything, I'd argue that the many problems with PvP balance, as generously, but hardly comprehensively, detailed in this thread are evidence that it works the other way around.
PvP balance suffers primarily because the game is mostly balanced around PvE.
[/ QUOTE ]
And never the twain should've met. But that's another story. 
Forsooth, while the game was born of PvE, it is being molded in the image of PvP now. While I agree that balancing is made harder by this fact, I still maintain that both segments of the game should not suffer changes for the sake of the newborn.
Sign It : http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
[ QUOTE ]
Forsooth, while the game was born of PvE, it is being molded in the image of PvP now. While I agree that balancing is made harder by this fact, I still maintain that both segments of the game should not suffer changes for the sake of the newborn.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen the rather extensive arguments that balance is turning PvP-centric. And I remain unconvinced.
This PvP-centric model of balance has been getting bandied about since I4, Regen hits, the changes to perma-38 Scrapper powers, right on through Suppression, Global Defense, and ED. And in each case, for all the evidence (mostly circumstantial and rhetorical) presented, I am unswayed that balance issues addressed in PvP are not representative of balance issues in PvE.
The are mitigating circumstances and context throughout, to be sure. And I defer the point that PvP may be used as a tool to reveal PvE imbalance, and thus correct it. I think that point is one that a lot of players and posters confuse for the PvP-centrism model.
I don't see any reason to rationally believe that balance is primarily focused on achieving PvP balance, at the cost of disrupting PvE balance. None. Anywhere in the game.
And replies'll get brought up, I'm sure -- but I'm going out to celebrate a friend's engagement, so they'll have to wait.
EDIT: Oh, and Happy Passover, all!
Well, we'll have to wait and see what issue 7 brings, won't we? I know my ice blaster has no mez resistance or ability to stun. But he does have a couple of holds....
"Most people that have no idea what they are doing have no idea that they don't know what they are doing." - John Cleese
@Ukase
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CoX will be a better place with EM adjusted.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would also be better if all Controler and defender toggles required per hit chances rather then being Automatic like so much of Rad is.
[/ QUOTE ]
All toggle debuffs are like that. Toggle debuffs are trivially easy to break though, since you can just move 300 ft and they drop.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the exception of Snowstorm. An automatic, almost universially unresisted debuff to speed and flight. If you aren't a SJ user, this power is pretty ugly. Note that this is not a request for nerfage (there are lots of ugly powers); I'm just pointing it out as an obvious outlier.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, it makes it harder to move, thats the whole point of Snow Storm. I would think TP users could escape just as handily as SJ users though. Unlike most toggle debuffs, Snowstorm doesnt reduce either enemy accuracy or damage, so I think its balanced compared to the others. Snowstorm doesnt effect the enemies ability to use a mez effect on the person running the power either.
Heroes
Dysmal
Lumynous
Sam Steele
Pluck
Wile
Slagheap
Pressure Wave
Rhiannon Bel
Verified
Stellaric
Syd Mallorn
Villains
Jotunheim Skald
Saer Maen
Jen Corbae
Illuminance
Venator Arawn
Taiga Dryad
Tarranos
SS, SJ and Teleport all effectively counter Snow Storm. It is far from being the ultimate movement debuff.
[ QUOTE ]
I've seen the rather extensive arguments that balance is turning PvP-centric. And I remain unconvinced.
[/ QUOTE ]
We're playing a superhero game. We have super-powers. If the devs wake up some morning and decide that any one of our super-powers is unbalanced, they'd be right. Of course they're unbalanced - they're super-powers! When you get right down to it what we end up doing after level 30 is totally abusive. We plow through those Invincible missions like they weren't even there, and it's so easy that most of us are more concerned about speed than anything else. THAT'S unbalanced. The entire PvE game's unbalanced. The definition of PvE balance is so subjective that we can't possibly argue that any of our powers aren't unbalanced. But that doesn't mean that those balance issues should necessarily be addressed. A lot of the fun of the PvE game arises from the balance of power being shifted in our favor. If we were on an equal footing with the mobs, life would be very, very boring.
I find denials that changes were predicated on PvP issues very disingenuous. I know, I know, correlation does not imply causation. But look at the facts. Every single item that came to light during Arena testing has been addressed. Many of those same issues had been around since launch, but only received attention after the Arena was introduced. Coincidence? Better yet, look at powers that are unbalanced in PvE but aren't in PvP. Fulcrum Shift. Amazingly unbalanced in PvE, but totally worthless in PvP. Has it received attention? Of course not. Will it? Of course not.
It was all too coincidental. I've never overlooked what was lying right in front of me.
~Gabriel
[ QUOTE ]
We're playing a superhero game. We have super-powers. If the devs wake up some morning and decide that any one of our super-powers is unbalanced, they'd be right. Of course they're unbalanced - they're super-powers!
[/ QUOTE ]
Rhetoric.
They're balanced in relation to each other and against mobs, not against some imagined "girlslap" ability of civilian NPCs or somesuch.
[ QUOTE ]
When you get right down to it what we end up doing after level 30 is totally abusive. We plow through those Invincible missions like they weren't even there, and it's so easy that most of us are more concerned about speed than anything else. THAT'S unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mostly true, but also rhetoric.
Not all ATs and powersets are equal performers in different circumstances. Many Defenders and Blasters may still find much mid-to-late game content still soloable, but probably not as easily as other ATs, speaking in the most general terms.
[ QUOTE ]
The entire PvE game's unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rhetoric.
[ QUOTE ]
The definition of PvE balance is so subjective that we can't possibly argue that any of our powers aren't unbalanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the PvE game has quantifiable metrics from datamining. Even if we don't have access to them, that doesn't negate their existence, or the knowledge that the Devs take into account these metrics.
While we can only conjecture as to what metrics they look at, we can make some reasonable guesses as to what they are -- such as mean levelling rate. Given that much of the PvE game is team-oriented, many of the differentials one can imagine for solo-performance seem like they'd readily even out on a team. Irrespective of that, outliers of over- or underperformance may likely still contribute to imbalance, even on teams.
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of the fun of the PvE game arises from the balance of power being shifted in our favor. If we were on an equal footing with the mobs, life would be very, very boring.
[/ QUOTE ]
Weren't you just arguing for the converse model, that we're overpowered, compared to mobs in PvE? I'm now confused.
[ QUOTE ]
It was all too coincidental. I've never overlooked what was lying right in front of me.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I indicate above, no small problem with that argument for PvP-centric balance is that it requires no small feat of inductive, rather than deductive reasoning -- and is dependent on entirely teleologic assumptions.
Again, your argument of coincidence is still perfectly in-line with PvP simply revealing balance issues that apply to PvE, which the Devs have acknowledged.
the reason PvP is blamed all the time for changes is because PvP is truly the only time balancing is all that neccesary.
If my friend has a character that never dies and can one shot anything, and my character struggles, it doesn't matter as long as I enjoy my character and he enjoys his. If I don't want to team with characters I feel are too powerful, then I won't. This is pretty much what I did before everything got nerfed, and to be honest, I was happier before the changes. I had a fire/fire blaster and a regen scrapper, and regen got nerfed. It didn't really make my fire/fire blaster seem all that much more fun though, so I don't really see the point in the balance for the PvE game beyond psychopaths whining that their own characters are too powerful and evidentally can't be bothered to build their character in a way that is challenging for them.
In short, PvP made the changes neccesary in order for PvP to work at all, whereas PvE really didn't really need changes in order to work.
[ QUOTE ]
the reason PvP is blamed all the time for changes is because PvP is truly the only time balancing is all that neccesary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quoted for Truth.
You will never see a mob posting on these forums that XYZ Archetype needs to be nerfed because they always pwn them twice as hard as ABC Archetype.
Changes to the PvE game are largely due to exploits of Statesman's "Risk vs. Reward" theory. Otherwise, there is no need.
For PvP, players demand a balance be struck with regard to how fair it is to fight another player.
To me, this only underscores why powers should work different in PvE than in PvP.
Flamer : Can you give an example of a power that was changes in recent memory that doesn't tie back to PvP in anyway?
Sign It : http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
[ QUOTE ]
the reason PvP is blamed all the time for changes is because PvP is truly the only time balancing is all that neccesary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Untrue.
PvP may necessitate balance more, but we've entertained rather convincing arguments, hearkening back as far as Beta for PvE balance. It goes something like this: if a given powerset or AT outperforms others to a degree sufficient to abrogate the help of other ATs, then why team? Why even have any toons of any other powerset? If all you need is a Tank Mage (or whatever) to complete the overwhelming bulk of content in the game, then why have anything but a Tank Mage? In that scenario, there's no reason to team, no reason to not have a non-Tank Mage build, and we're virtually an FPS which we happen to share with other players.
[ QUOTE ]
It didn't really make my fire/fire blaster seem all that much more fun though, so I don't really see the point in the balance for the PvE game beyond psychopaths whining that their own characters are too powerful and evidentally can't be bothered to build their character in a way that is challenging for them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Changing Regen wasn't meant to improve your Blaster -- if that was the end, then your Blaster would've been changed. Game changes to one powerset don't change the absolute value of other powersets, they change their relative value.
[ QUOTE ]
In short, PvP made the changes neccesary in order for PvP to work at all, whereas PvE really didn't really need changes in order to work.
[/ QUOTE ]
See my discussion of inductive versus deductive logic above. In short, you presume that PvE balance is immaterial, and neither I, nor apparently the Devs, see it that way.
Remember that we've been seeing balance changes as far back as pre-I1, long before PvP was introduced. If your argument were true, and PvE balance is immaterial, then by extension, broken Smoke Grenade should've never been changed.
[ QUOTE ]
Changes to the PvE game are largely due to exploits of Statesman's "Risk vs. Reward" theory. Otherwise, there is no need.
[/ QUOTE ]
Risk versus Reward is a fundamental tenet of the balance principle in this game -- I don't see how you can separate them.
[ QUOTE ]
To me, this only underscores why powers should work different in PvE than in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
They do. Well, some at least. Hold suppression, Blaster irresistible damage, and the upcoming fix to PvP Gauntlet are all indicators that it is possible to code PvP independently of PvE. The argument that PvP drives unwarranted PvE changes is substantially hurt by this point; if a power needs a PvP change that isn't at least partly warranted in PvE, the capacity exists to do so.
[ QUOTE ]
Flamer : Can you give an example of a power that was changes in recent memory that doesn't tie back to PvP in anyway?
[/ QUOTE ]
All powers tie back to PvP in some way; that's how powers and powersets work. Even despite differential coding, even the powers that have been unchanged since Launch operate in both PvP and PvE. Despite the Devs' ability to alternatively code between PvP and PvE, the performance of powers in both domains is inextricably linked.
Powers that players eschewed for the longest time prior to PvP, like Whirlwind, suddenly gained popularity in PvE, as well.
If anything, WW is a prime example of a power that had gone unnoticed in PvE for the longest time -- it took PvP to reveal that the power was not working as intended, and that's true for its performance in PvE as well as PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Changes to the PvE game are largely due to exploits of Statesman's "Risk vs. Reward" theory. Otherwise, there is no need.
[/ QUOTE ]
Risk versus Reward is a fundamental tenet of the balance principle in this game -- I don't see how you can separate them.
[ QUOTE ]
To me, this only underscores why powers should work different in PvE than in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
They do. Well, some at least. Hold suppression, Blaster irresistible damage, and the upcoming fix to PvP Gauntlet are all indicators that it is possible to code PvP independently of PvE. The argument that PvP drives unwarranted PvE changes is substantially hurt by this point; if a power needs a PvP change that isn't at least partly warranted in PvE, the capacity exists to do so.
[ QUOTE ]
Flamer : Can you give an example of a power that was changes in recent memory that doesn't tie back to PvP in anyway?
[/ QUOTE ]
All powers tie back to PvP in some way; that's how powers and powersets work. Even despite differential coding, even the powers that have been unchanged since Launch operate in both PvP and PvE. Despite the Devs' ability to alternatively code between PvP and PvE, the performance of powers in both domains is inextricably linked.
Powers that players eschewed for the longest time prior to PvP, like Whirlwind, suddenly gained popularity in PvE, as well.
If anything, WW is a prime example of a power that had gone unnoticed in PvE for the longest time -- it took PvP to reveal that the power was not working as intended, and that's true for its performance in PvE as well as PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it is merely an illusion of perception that these powers are not "Working as intended" after so long of them functioning without changes. At what point in the evolution of the game, even the evolution of the powers themselves, does one accurately say "This power is being used in a manner that was not intended". I think the question can still be framed in many ways that could be clearer from Development, such as : "Not working as intended for PvP and/or PvE", "Not working as originally intended" and "Not working as intended anymore".
Taking the Whirlwind example : I have known many people who had Whirlwind prior to Issue 5, I even have it on one of my concept toons. While it was regarded as a 'Lame' power before, it's uses in PvP underscored it's actual usefulness in PvE. Let's look at why it became more popular post Issue 5. It was a form of Damage Mitigation that wasn't needed before ED and Issue 5. After those changes were implemented, other 'Controls' were much more sought after, Whirlwind being one of them. So, not only is there balancing for PvP purposes and exploits, but I also see the nerfing of Whirlwind as a follow up and clean up of powers that were overly effective at Damage Mitigation post Issue 5 and ED.
Sign It : http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
Team vs. Team a defender's just this massive agro-magnet.
"If you were running a Storm/Psi, by comparison, I find it likely you'd be singing a different tune." -- Flaming1
Storm? Prob'ly. But FF, Empathy and Trick Arrow are in the same boat as Dark.
In this game, a /NRG blapper can consistently knock out a brute in two seconds flat, every time.
"Preposterous, you're exagerating immensely." -- Bluntzman
"I'm afraid I have to concur with Bluntzman -- I'm not sure I've seen an Eng Blapper two-shot a Brute, at least not without Insps or Con/Def buffs/debuffs helping." -- Flaming1
I said two -seconds- guys, not two shots. And I stand by it. Energy blapper hits Aim, BU and superspeeds in with his first shot queued up, gets a second one in while his opponent fights to get a target lock... three seconds on the outside unless the brute tries to run.
[ QUOTE ]
In this game, a /NRG blapper can consistently knock out a brute in two seconds flat, every time.
"Preposterous, you're exagerating immensely." -- Bluntzman
"I'm afraid I have to concur with Bluntzman -- I'm not sure I've seen an Eng Blapper two-shot a Brute, at least not without Insps or Con/Def buffs/debuffs helping." -- Flaming1
I said two -seconds- guys, not two shots. And I stand by it. Energy blapper hits Aim, BU and superspeeds in with his first shot queued up, gets a second one in while his opponent fights to get a target lock... three seconds on the outside unless the brute tries to run.
[/ QUOTE ]
Considering that the animations on every blaster secondary is 1 second or more, it was definately more than two seconds since a blaster is not going to two shot a brute with Aim and Build-up with two attacks in two seconds. 3 seconds would be a bare minimum if they were buffed out to the damage cap. Since most blasters are not at the damage cap, it is probably closer to 5 seconds.
From my own experience playing on both sides of the equation, it really usually is 5 seconds for one of the sides to fall. It may be the brute, it may be the blaster. Why the hell would a brute run? He'll only die tired if he does that. Although, avoiding the blaster while he is buffed with Aim and Build-up is a smart idea, but once they are there in melee begging to be smashed, smash em and be done with it.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it is merely an illusion of perception that these powers are not "Working as intended" after so long of them functioning without changes. At what point in the evolution of the game, even the evolution of the powers themselves, does one accurately say "This power is being used in a manner that was not intended". I think the question can still be framed in many ways that could be clearer from Development, such as : "Not working as intended for PvP and/or PvE", "Not working as originally intended" and "Not working as intended anymore".
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the Devs can never be too articulate in describing the hows and whys. But that's not their primary job; it's making those decisions, even when they're not explained to our satisfaction.
In the end, I fear we're getting down to the rather troublesome morass of parsing away Dev semantics, rather than intent.
[ QUOTE ]
Taking the Whirlwind example : I have known many people who had Whirlwind prior to Issue 5, I even have it on one of my concept toons. While it was regarded as a 'Lame' power before, it's uses in PvP underscored it's actual usefulness in PvE. Let's look at why it became more popular post Issue 5. It was a form of Damage Mitigation that wasn't needed before ED and Issue 5. After those changes were implemented, other 'Controls' were much more sought after, Whirlwind being one of them. So, not only is there balancing for PvP purposes and exploits, but I also see the nerfing of Whirlwind as a follow up and clean up of powers that were overly effective at Damage Mitigation post Issue 5 and ED.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd seen WW prior to the Arena, too. But far, far less.
I don't dispute your point (and was kind of waiting for it to get brought up), that the unintended unrooting functionality of WW was always there, even before PvP. I'd argue in response that the datamining that reveals such issues are a two-way street. My point is more that overrepresentation of that power among the playerbase is both the ends and means of balance.
1) Overrepresentation itself is a metric, a tool that may flag certain powers and/or powersets as overperforming. One could make such an argument for the I1-era City of Blasters fix for Smoke Grenade. Similarly, the proliferation of WW among PvP players didn't create the problem; in this scenario, it's a symptom of it.
2) PvP didn't create the problem with WW either, it's one reason it's proliferated so widely among the playerbase. That unintended unrooting functionality of WW affects PvE, as well as PvP. I'd argue that PvP not only revealed the utility of WW to the playerbase by virtue of PvP, but through that, to the Devs.
I think you clue in to the underlying point, that balance itself is adaptive. The playerbase will seek out maximally performing builds or playstyles, if those builds and playstyles legitimately outperform others to the point of exclusion, then it's the Devs' turn to adapt to the playerbase.
[ QUOTE ]
Storm? Prob'ly. But FF, Empathy and Trick Arrow are in the same boat as Dark.
[/ QUOTE ]
In terms of being aggro-attractors, yes. As I reminded upthread, part of that attractiveness is two-fold -- Defenders may be squishy themselves, but the potential benefit to their teammates by virtue of buffing or debuffing also makes them a great threat.
[ QUOTE ]
I said two -seconds- guys, not two shots. And I stand by it. Energy blapper hits Aim, BU and superspeeds in with his first shot queued up, gets a second one in while his opponent fights to get a target lock... three seconds on the outside unless the brute tries to run.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your correction actually makes your claim even more specious, considering that the activation time for Total Focus is three seconds. The only way this model works is if you're also presuming that said Blaster will be capable of one-shotting said Brute with Total Focus.
[ QUOTE ]
My point is more that overrepresentation of that power among the playerbase is both the ends and means of balance.
1) Overrepresentation itself is a metric, a tool that may flag certain powers and/or powersets as overperforming. One could make such an argument for the I1-era City of Blasters fix for Smoke Grenade. Similarly, the proliferation of WW among PvP players didn't create the problem; in this scenario, it's a symptom of it.
[...]
I think you clue in to the underlying point, that balance itself is adaptive. The playerbase will seek out maximally performing builds or playstyles, if those builds and playstyles legitimately outperform others to the point of exclusion, then it's the Devs' turn to adapt to the playerbase.
[/ QUOTE ]
I continue to find it amusing that various powers get nerfed or shown up for nerfing due to their prevalence, and yet Stamina remains...
Sadly, old buddy, that's.. something I'm agreeing with you wholeheartedly on. Stamina pretty much breaks every rule known to man with not only the "native > pool" rule, but the "Not everyone should have this" rule.
Perma-Hasten got the axe, thank God - hopefully something'll be done about Stamina.
Dawncaller - The Circle of Dawn
Too many blasted alts to list, but all on Virtue.
[ QUOTE ]
I continue to find it amusing that various powers get nerfed or shown up for nerfing due to their prevalence, and yet Stamina remains...
[/ QUOTE ]
Part of the problem with the extensive discussion that we've had with that particular power is the fact that it's relatively powerset-neutral. There are some powersets and ATs than ca do great without -- Kinetics, MMs, what-have-you. But undoubtedly, all can benefit from it at some point.
In some models, the asymmetry of the effect of ED on Stam, compared to the global End cost reduction accompanying ED wound up being a small, but not insignificant net minus.
The other side-effect of ED being that it's now more reasonable to slot End Reducers in many powers, than prior to ED.
[ QUOTE ]
If all you need is a Tank Mage (or whatever) to complete the overwhelming bulk of content in the game, then why have anything but a Tank Mage?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because I don't think it's fun, obviously. I don't play single player games with God Mode on the whole time, why would I play an MMO the same way?
[ QUOTE ]
In that scenario, there's no reason to team, no reason to not have a non-Tank Mage build
[/ QUOTE ]
No reasons at all besides finding it more fun than playing a tank mage, yes. Back before the nerfs, people were playing things besides tanks and regen scrappers despite their notoriously easy playstyle. Sometimes I felt like playing regen, but most of the time I felt like playing a defender. I felt like I had an awesome character despite not being able to herd half a map of enemies and burning them all to death. But I'm not the type of person to really care what other people can do with their characters unless I am on a team with them.
[ QUOTE ]
Changing Regen wasn't meant to improve your Blaster -- if that was the end, then your Blaster would've been changed. Game changes to one powerset don't change the absolute value of other powersets, they change their relative value.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know it wasn't meant to improve my blaster. But changing my relative value to another AT didn't really seem to make the game better for me PvE-wise.
[ QUOTE ]
See my discussion of inductive versus deductive logic above. In short, you presume that PvE balance is immaterial, and neither I, nor apparently the Devs, see it that way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know the devs don't see it that way. I just disagree with them. The statement is true regardless of what the devs want the game to be like.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember that we've been seeing balance changes as far back as pre-I1, long before PvP was introduced. If your argument were true, and PvE balance is immaterial, then by extension, broken Smoke Grenade should've never been changed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fixing a bugged power seems a bit different to me than nerfing a power because people figured out how to use it effectively, but I understand what you are saying.
I stand by my original statement. Balancing PvE isn't really neccesary because anyone can play any powerset they feel like. No one has anything that anyone else playing the game can't have. The only problem with overpowered things are people that complain about the game being too easy for them, which is easily solvable by removing powers from your tray until the game is challenging again. No onet needs the devs to change their powers to get a challenge out of the game. The only problem that could ever come of it is if the devs tried to balance future content around overpowered characters, thus screwing everyone that has a balanced character.
All of this goes out the window with PvP though. All of a sudden these "god-like" characters become a problem for me when I cannot possibly kill them. Letting unbalanced characters run around in PvP zones would pretty much lock-out that content for anyone with a character that can actually die, so you can either play one too and enjoy new stuff, or play the way you want to and miss out on what is quickly becoming a big part of the game. PvP made balance truly neccesary. That is why people blame it for nerfs. It's true powers would be nerfed regardless of PvP, but it would not truly be neccesary for people to enjoy the game still.
[ QUOTE ]
Many of those changes were necessary due to the GDN of i5 stacking with ED. Sets may not have performed at all had they not made them. There is a difference. When it comes to sets being more powerful/effective, the devs nerf to bring it in line with the rest, not buff everything else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Backpedalling and wholly disingenuous.
Your claim is that the Devs only nerf, never buff. Even when concurrent, that doesn't negate the point that a buff is made.
No offense, but those stacking buffs to DA and Stone are not inconsequential, and are not completely mitigated by either I5 or ED. Those changes help those sets relative to other comparable sets irrespective of other downtweaks that've been made.