A note on Rune of Protection changes

[Glacier Peak]

5 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

They can do whatever they want at the end of the day, but if you expect people to just lie down and go "oh ok, we're nerfing something that doesn't seem that OP for no reason, neat. I'll just ignore all the flaws with the reasoning provided!" without protest, you should know better.

 

The lack of any baseline or information that lead up to guiding this decision makes it seem to an onlooker that the reasoning is incredibly arbitrary. Even in this post meant to clarify the issue, it is incredibly vague.

We are in agreement on your first point, again it was just my subjective opinion. As for your second point, that is also fair to me for folks to want to seek clarification for a change - but, I personally don't need it to test a power. 

[ScarySai]

Well of course you don't need it to test the power, you test the power then offer the feedback. I tested the change, I offered my feedback. My stance isn't one founded on reading the patch notes and whining, it's from testing the change and coming to the conclusion that it effectively kills the value of the power, for reasons stated in the previous thread.

 

I like Powerhouse, I like Jimmy. That doesn't mean I praise everything they do and say, they're sometimes wrong. Here, they are wrong.

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by ScarySai

[Saikochoro]

Thank you for providing the actual reasoning behind the rune of protection nerf. I appreciate the answer even though I wholly disagree with the answer.

 

I also want to echo the question: why even include this nerf in a testing/feedback phase? Based on your answers, it very much seems you had no intention on going back on the decision as you are of the opinion that rune was overpowered. It is completely fine to nerf something and have no intention of going back on the decision based on feedback. It’s your game.

 

However, it would have just been better to include it separately and state clearly that it was being adjusted because the dev team felt it was overpowered and that the decision is final. You still would have gotten backlash, but at least it would reflect the apparent decision making behind it.

 

Now that we know the answer, it might be best to indicate in the feedback threads (if you haven’t already) that the rune change is closed to feedback/discussion. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Saikochoro

[PirateCrew]

Positive: The real reasons are revealed, so even this delayed update deserves a thank you from us all, for resolving confusion.

Negative: Prior silence plus this note gives no indication that the slightest alteration to the plan will occur as a result of feedback.  This feels like a fine way to demotivate qualitative testing and discussion.  How am I to know which elements of an update are worthy of full feedback?  Could save us this apparent hassle by marking non-negotiable changes, up front, so that "feedback" on them is renamed to "bug reports only".  Or am I supposed to still hold out hope that a compromise is possible?

 

A "small team" just doesn't have time to fix many things that I might actually want fixed (e.g. certain excessively crashy armor T9s, enemy groups with excessive mez / very limited ways to counter it) - yet.  Fair.  But why should anyone suddenly have time to start breaking one halfway-decent workaround?  There was a good recent decision, where a change was slowed until a full solution could be implemented. Ye Olde Favoritte, /enterbasefrompasscode.  That approach seemed to work far better than what's happening here - why abandon good practices?

 

Even if RoP is the most unacceptably overpowered thing (and I do find this hard to believe, absent power selection data)...

And it cannot be tolerated (as is) until some future revamp (could give hints about it to amooth things over)...

Why not at least accept suggestions for an alternate nerf to RoP that preserves its 90 duration?

Could get some good will simply by list parameters and % reductions that would be acceptable, or present a few options to see what players would prefer.

 

The current approach leaves me with trepidation over "ok, so what *else* is gonna get the stick, long before any decent fix is available?"  A sour taste on what should otherwise be a well-received game update...and future ones, too.

[arcane]

It seems a bit silly to imply the devs should’ve put a glass case and caution tape around the RoP patch note just because a dozen forum users haven’t internalized that their feedback doesn’t equate to law.

[Mezmera]

19 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Well of course you don't need it to test the power, you test the power then offer the feedback. I tested the change, I offered my feedback. My stance isn't one founded on reading the patch notes and whining, it's from testing the change and coming to the conclusion that it effectively kills the value of the power, for reasons stated in the previous thread.

 

I like Powerhouse, I like Jimmy. That doesn't mean I praise everything they do and say, they're sometimes wrong. Here, they are wrong.

 

 

Yeah there's so much win in what they've been doing with revamping travels and power sets but then you get the random thing with random logic that just takes the air out of everything else that's been upgraded.  Like lets nerf TW scrappers since they're an outlier and highly selected but then when you point at fire blasters then it's like "say huh?"  For what it's worth I didn't have much of a dog in that fight but I could always make a TW scrapper and from what I assume the change didn't turn out all that bad. 

 

I'm of the mind of if I have access to play it just like anyone else why should I mind that a TW scrapper or RoP user is having their fun, but we're not going to hold the same standards towards things like crashless nukes?

Edited March 30, 2021 by Mezmera

[Glacier Peak]

16 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Well of course you don't need it to test the power, you test the power then offer the feedback. I tested the change, I offered my feedback. My stance isn't one founded on reading the patch notes and whining, it's from testing the change and coming to the conclusion that it effectively kills the value of the power, for reasons stated in the previous thread.

 

I like Powerhouse, I like Jimmy. That doesn't mean I praise everything they do and say, they're sometimes wrong. Here, they are wrong.

 

Absolutely agree, patch note quarter-backing likely isn't as useful as the testing that we have done and data that we have collected.

[Jimmy]

45 minutes ago, Mezmera said:

That first point is pretty much the crux of any argument I'd have which I think most are seeing as an issue as well.  We'll see how flight is as a travel with the revamp but still flight is a pretty undesirable travel of the bunch except for thematic reasons and then the first power is pretty much a dead power I'd slot that preventative medicine proc into.  

This right here is very important. You're correct that this is the argument many opponents of this change are making.

 

But this argument also requires that requires you to admit RoP is overtuned, and that it deserves to be overtuned because of its lacklustre prerequisites. And that right there is the part we disagree with. It shouldn't be balanced around carrying three power picks.

 

This is one of the first things I mentioned to Powerhouse after seeing this change, but I quickly realised the problem wasn't RoP being nerfed, it's the other powers which need to be buffed. Again, this is just my opinion and not a confirmation of out plans, but the rest of the pool really does need some love.

 

1 hour ago, Blackbird71 said:

Can you present numbers on how many characters (and of which ATs) used RoP to back up the claim that it was over-performing?

A power doesn't need to be highly picked in order for it to be deemed as overperforming. I explain this clearly in my post: A single power should not be able to bridge a gap that results in entire parts of the game being obviated. Again, as covered in my post, mez in general is a systems-level discussion. Not something to be determined or solved by a single power.

Rune of Protection is - again, as explained in my post - now more useful for low-mid range builds in situationally dealing with crowd control and dangerous situations. This adjustment is being overlooked due to the impact this change has on absolutely maxed out high-end builds, which isn't surprising given that more casual players are much less likely to frequent this forum.

 

29 minutes ago, Doomrider said:

However, the team is asking for feedback. I would like to think that would include feedback of all kinds, be it criticism or praise, rigorous testing or just insight/ opinion.
At the end of day, if the team decided to pack it in, that is their decision and we would all lose our ability to play on these servers and that would be the end of it.
In the meantime, if feedback is going to be asked for, it is my belief it should be honest and respectful but most importantly, without filter. Otherwise what is the point? 

 

I agree with this, but let's try to maintain the topic for a little longer before derailing. We're only on page 2!

[arcane]

I just want to say that I overall reject the argument that a power is underpowered if it is not taken as often as Hasten/CJ/Weave/Maneuvers because I think that’s a spurious correlation that has more to do with players in this game deciding that +def and +recharge are the most valuable metrics than it has to do with the other options necessarily being bad at what they do.

[siolfir]

6 minutes ago, arcane said:

It seems a bit silly to imply the devs should’ve put a glass case and caution tape around the RoP patch note just because a dozen forum users haven’t internalized that their feedback doesn’t equate to law.

It seems equally silly to state that it was a normalization rather than a specifically targeted nerf, which directly drove pages of debate and arguments in the feedback thread, most of which have been purged by GMs. It's certainly disingenuous, at the least. This thread addresses that. Either way, after repeated patch notes where the duration was not changed it was obvious the writing was on the wall and I gave up on providing feedback in that thread when it was clear that it was heard and dismissed.

 

I disagree with the reasoning, but there's no doubt that Rune stands out in pool powers by being something almost tempting enough to take. Of course, other powers stand out more with less opportunity cost (for me, at least) which is why I don't take it. As I said in the other thread, if the concern is the relative power compared to armor set tier 9s which have been complained about for over a decade, then I don't think that Rune is the problem.

[ScarySai]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

A power doesn't need to be highly picked in order for it to be deemed as overperforming.

 

Why are you still cherry picking? Few people have asked for data, because data and gameplay is what's important. Popularity metrics can lead to investigations, but don't matter by themselves.

 

Just like saying "I can fly when nobody is looking", people are a bit skeptical when you make a ridiculous claim that contradicts what they know without any evidence to show for it.

[Mezmera]

2 minutes ago, arcane said:

I just want to say that I overall reject the argument that a power is underpowered if it is not taken as often as Hasten/CJ/Weave/Maneuvers because I think that’s a spurious correlation that has more to do with players in this game deciding that +def and +recharge are the most valuable metrics than it has to do with the other options necessarily being bad at what they do.

 

High performance builds gravitate towards the most powerful pool picks available to them.  It's no accident you see Hasten/Tough/Weave/Leadership on most max build players.  I keep my options open with CJ but it's still pretty good.  I don't want hasten for free nor nerfed, I know it's good and gladly take it when I can.  Origin pools though should be a desirable 4th option since you are locked into only one.  

[ScarySai]

7 minutes ago, arcane said:

I just want to say that I overall reject the argument that a power is underpowered if it is not taken as often as Hasten/CJ/Weave/Maneuvers because I think that’s a spurious correlation

 

Well I hope you would, because that's a terrible argument. That's not why it's underpowered in this patch, it's underpowered based on it's own merits. It's just that now that sorcery is a dead pool pick, people are going to gravitate toward pools that aren't dead.

[arcane]

1 minute ago, Mezmera said:

 

High performance builds gravitate towards the most powerful pool picks available to them.  

Sure, but my point is that those powers are only considered high performing because they contain the two most popular bonuses in the game. It doesn’t really matter, for instance, how good Medicine is at healing, because the playerbase is too addicted to defense and recharge to notice. Just explaining how RoP could be simultaneously powerful and not super popular.

[Mezmera]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

This right here is very important. You're correct that this is the argument many opponents of this change are making.

 

But this argument also requires that requires you to admit RoP is overtuned, and that it deserves to be overtuned because of its lacklustre prerequisites. And that right there is the part we disagree with. It shouldn't be balanced around carrying three power picks.

 

This is one of the first things I mentioned to Powerhouse after seeing this change, but I quickly realised the problem wasn't RoP being nerfed, it's the other powers which need to be buffed. Again, this is just my opinion and not a confirmation of out plans, but the rest of the pool really does need some love.

 

Yes I pretty much said as much with my assessment of the Force of Will pool.  Unleash Potential feels just right at 60s and I'd feel disingenuous suggesting adding more uptime to it wouldn't skew it towards OP status.  On that same token in the FoW pool I can get a very usable debuff when slotted with the achilles proc and my favorite all around travel.   

[arcane]

2 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

 

Well I hope you would, because that's a terrible argument. That's not why it's underpowered in this patch, it's underpowered based on it's own merits. It's just that now that sorcery is a dead pool pick, people are going to gravitate toward pools that aren't dead.

That’s a plenty fair opinion. Just getting ahead of where I think the demands for usage data are headed. You may not be making that argument but others are certainly hinting at it at the least.

[siolfir]

9 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Why are you still cherry picking? Few people have asked for data, because data and gameplay is what's important. Popularity metrics can lead to investigations, but don't matter by themselves.

I'm going to defend him on this, at least: several posts in the other thread talked about how Rune provided the same mez protection and more resistance than Strength of Will, which has a crash - albeit by providing less S/L resistance and more to every other type. It did so for half the duration, mind, but did so with recharge that could be adjusted.

 

So, when compared to another power that I rarely take because it's bad even when it's in my secondary and costs nothing more than a single power pick it's better than Strength of Will.

 

Edit to add: when used as a mez protection power, compared to something like Indomitable Will in the APPs, it's weak; the recharge is much higher. Clarion covers the hole permanently at T3 and most people build for defense to not get hit by them in the first place, not to mention the support sets that have been getting mez protection for themselves, so the "squishies can get mez protection by themselves" argument seems a bit weak in my opinion given the other options available.

Edited March 30, 2021 by siolfir
more on the mez protection aspect

[ScarySai]

I'm not saying it's bad for him to address that point, but I don't like how he's not addressing the actual power and data arguments and just taking shots at the easy, fallacy ridden points that even I don't agree with, despite technically being on my side.

 

I was hoping for more of a discussion, I'd like to imagine the powers that be can be reasoned with even still, even if the change is set in stone, it's nice to clarify the issues for future reference.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by ScarySai
Reworded bad grammar.

[America's Angel]

Here's the beta server mitigation numbers for anyone curious. (On a level 50 blaster with no set bonuses/accolades.)

 

Unrelenting

With 3 IOs for healing, Unrelenting heals 1677.36 HP in 30s

...So it adds 27.96 HPS over 60s

 

Unleashed Potential

With 3 IOs for healing and 3 IOs for defense Unleashed Potential mitigates:

1897.8 damage mitigated vs 100 DPS over 60s

2886.2 damage mitigated vs 200 DPS over 60s

3894.6 damage mitigated vs 300 DPS over 60s

4893 damage mitigated  vs 400 DPs over 60s

5891 damage mitigated vs 500 DPS over 60s.

...So it adds 31.63-98.19 HPS over 60s

 

Rune of Protection
With 3 IOs for resistance, Rune of Protection mitigates:

1545 damage  vs 100 DPS over 60s

3090 damage vs 200 DPS over 60s

4635 damage vs 300 DPS over 60s

6180 damage vs 400 DPs over 60s

7725 damage vs 500 DPS over 60s

...So it adds 25.75-128.75 HPS over 60s

 

Conclusion - Rune is still significantly better than the other options.

 

**EDIT**

 

And here are the numbers on live. The gap is even more significant, and should go some way to explaining the change:

Unrelenting - 18.45 HPS over 90s

Unleashed Potential - 20.88-64.81 HPS over 90s

Rune of Protection - 25.75-128.75 HPS over 90s

Edited March 30, 2021 by America's Angel

[ForeverLaxx]

32 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

But this argument also requires you to admit RoP is overtuned, and that it deserves to be overtuned because of its lacklustre prerequisites

No, it doesn't. You're trying to boil down an argument into one you already think you've countered so you can disregard it. That's extremely disingenuous and dismissive for the sake of being so. Arcane Bolt and Spirit Ward are relatively weak, this is true, and only some characters get something for taking them (Controllers under Containment, mainly, and those who want a heal power for set bonuses). Mystic Flight is a wash as it's a travel power. Enflame could be interesting, but it's not, because the damage is low and makes things run away like old Burn used to.

 

All that leaves is Rune of Protection, a power that doesn't protect you as well as the "standard" Defense Cap builds and requires more investment to work properly. As has been stated multiple times, RoP is not overtuned. It has just enough benefit to be considered a side option to the standard if you don't mind being locked out of all other Origin pools and picking up at least 1 "useless" power along the way. Taking this pool tends to lock you out of going heavy Defense on top of that so it's not like RoP is there to offset high Defense builds without DDR from getting mopped by Cascade Failure or bad luck.

 

What we're telling you is that a niche power that sometimes performs almost to the level of the standard Weave + Maneuvers + Defense Bonus IOs when it's not on cooldown doesn't need to be nerfed because it's not strong enough to be nerfed. All you're accomplishing is the removal of what little "high end" build diversity we have and pushing people into sticking with the High Recharge + High Defense standard that's already heavily encouraged by the game's own combat design.

 

EDIT:

To the "better than armor T9" crowd, the armor T9s have almost universally been bad ever since the ability to perma them was removed and the sets they're part of don't need what they offer to do their jobs. This became even more true due to IO bonuses. Being better than a T9 (and only sometimes, at that) is more on the head of the T9s being bad than Rune being "good".

Edited March 30, 2021 by ForeverLaxx

[esotericist]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

This right here is very important. You're correct that this is the argument many opponents of this change are making.

 

But this argument also requires that requires you to admit RoP is overtuned, and that it deserves to be overtuned because of its lacklustre prerequisites. And that right there is the part we disagree with. It shouldn't be balanced around carrying three power picks.

 

 

i feel this is a gross mischaracterization of the dominant argument.

 

the argument as i was presenting and understood from others was not "it has to be amazing to offset what else you have to take", but "it's not amazing, and look at what else we're saddled with while we're taking it"

 

i don't take rune of protection because it's 'overtuned'. i take it because it provides a utility i cannot otherwise get. it also provides a utility whose impact is not directly comparable to the other analogous powers, so its uptime isn't even remotely an apples to apples comparison.

 

12 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Rune of Protection is - again, as explained in my post - now more useful for low-mid range builds in situationally dealing with crowd control and dangerous situations. This adjustment is being overlooked due to the impact this change has on absolutely maxed out high-end builds, which isn't surprising given that more casual players are much less likely to frequent this forum.

 

 

the only reason i considered the power at all usable is that it had a meaningful availability ratio. why is adjusting the intensity of the power not an option? this is the same trap that makes T9 powers terrible, and i don't think we want the origin pool powers to fall into it. please let a power that provides an interesting benefit be available more often than "sometimes i guess?"

 

i'm not prepared to believe that the uptime percentage of the power alone is what makes it 'overtuned', and i have to echo others in wanting to know by what metrics this determination is being reached.

to be clear: i like rune of protection because it helps reduce the probability that a bunch of my toggles get shut off because i got hit by a stray low magnitude mez. it doesn't keep me from getting mezzed if i get focused on by a bunch of enemies with mez at once, and it certainly won't save me from high threat crowd control enemies, but it keeps me from having to frantically re-apply my toggles as often. the power by no means obviates the inevitability that this will occur, but it substantially reduces the frequency of it. and the damage resistance is pretty much incidental as far as i'm concerned. given that, wouldn't bringing back the magnitude so isn't equal to melee AT mez protection make more sense?

 

reducing the duration by such a savage degree renders this "basically break free plus an orange insp, except taking a power pick instead of the far less painful inspiration tray slots". and at that point in the evaluation, it doesn't even matter that the prereqs kinda suck, they'd have to be themselves not just acceptable, but above average to make this interesting enough to pursue.

[Mezmera]

Sorry @Jimmy it's like chum in the water but you all can take it.  It's better to air this as it is anyways since it looks like this is the feedback you're needing mostly. 

 

Just remember everyone here cares about the game or they wouldn't be voicing their opinions.  

[Kanil]

43 minutes ago, arcane said:

That’s a plenty fair opinion. Just getting ahead of where I think the demands for usage data are headed. You may not be making that argument but others are certainly hinting at it at the least.

i'm saying 'if they say it's the default pick for builds to invalidate parts of the game in terms of build variety eradication and what's been observed', show me the receipts - my stance is the same as lax's in terms of how the change doesn't really positively affect things in increasing diversity or power pick variety or build variety. if they can show 'hey, every build takes this because it's good' then sure, that tracks with the logic. 

 

so far the presented defense is 'it's overpowered because there's no reason not to pick it' and 'it invalidates intended designs'. the former should theoretically have data in the sense of hard numbers that can be used to evaluate how much value folks put into that, even if it's a dumb strawman to equate it in a 1:1 fashion in terms of judgement of power. 'is it disruptive to build diversity in the playerbase?' - it's something that is observable with data.  the second point is a bit strange since as stated above, you can pretty much can just take clarion and party hardy even as a casual player in the sense of disengaging with the mez mechanics as stated reasoning wise.

 

findin' unique and weird combinations of things that are powerful in a way where you can break limits and just go 'damn that's sick' seems like a thing to encourage rather than forcing folks into the def/rech single build hole since that's what more or less works - you want to have those "spice" picks that let folks rock and roll in a way that inspires other players, y'know?  origin pools seem liked they're designed to be those "spice" picks since you can only have one at a time and they're thematic with "big" effects in the t5s especially. why not have a reason to bust out of the shell besides 'haha i know it sucks buuuut'?

 

also since im bothering to post more than a little bit in a dev thread here's the obligatory demand for toggle full auto

 

edit:

also the effort of readin through these threads with idiots like me postin it up combined with the effort to nerf the power in the first place seems like such a hassle, lol

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Kanil

[BRADICAL]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

A power doesn't need to be highly picked in order for it to be deemed as overperforming. I explain this clearly in my post: A single power should not be able to bridge a gap that results in entire parts of the game being obviated. Again, as covered in my post, mez in general is a systems-level discussion. Not something to be determined or solved by a single power.

But in the absence of any discussion related to it, RoP absolutely is the band-aid solution for that problem and it's inequitable to dismiss the underlying concerns because the one solution builders have right now is considered to be overperforming relative to its cousins. Compared side-by-side to certain things (armor t9s, most notably) it is remarkably powerful, but it's also worth noting that the t9 powers in armor sets are largely redundant in terms of the survivability they offer to those archetypes, just like RoP is redundant to them.

RoP is an optional choice for squishy archetypes otherwise lacking in consistent mez protection uptime, and it seems like the design intent here is that it shouldn't be possible, or should at least be even more annoying to maintain that uptime than it already is. I definitely don't agree with that particular sentiment. RoP is an option that requires a significant investment both in a build and, assuming you're rotating defensive cooldowns, in actual gameplay. There is very little tangible reward for this when you compare the results like-for-like to a tanker, who has all of this stuff handed to them as part of their kit, except that there are at least some paths to build towards the squishier archetypes being able to comfortably hold their own in a situation where the game mechanics are otherwise stacked against them.

This change will force some uncomfortable choices on people at the very least, like picking up Indomitable Will on controllers in spite of the set otherwise being pretty awful. For other archetypes who leveraged the uptime on actual survivability, it will just make them less fun to play, and encourage awkward solutions like running defense amps or carrying a tray full of break frees instead. It seems inelegant and needlessly punishing to the builds that already have to overcompensate for their defenses, and driven by a remote comparison to powers that are themselves flawed.

[aethereal]

42 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

This right here is very important. You're correct that this is the argument many opponents of this change are making.

 

But this argument also requires that requires you to admit RoP is overtuned, and that it deserves to be overtuned because of its lacklustre prerequisites. And that right there is the part we disagree with. It shouldn't be balanced around carrying three power picks.

 

That makes sense.  But, vice-versa, it seems like you're tacitly acknowledging that right now, RoP does carry three power picks.

 

If the RoP nerf came alongside a revamp to the Sorcery power pool, and you could make the case that nerfed RoP was carrying its weight as a T3 power that has good, solid T1 and T2 choices leading up to it that it doesn't need to carry, that's one thing.  But if you're saying, "RoP is now balanced if you imagine a world in which the T1 and T2 sorcery powers were good," aren't you admitting that now in the real world RoP is bad?  Not balanced, but bad.

 

Pools have to balance as a whole.  Of course the presence of Hasten, or, to a lesser extent, Combat Jumping, or the manifold defense choices in Stealth play into the balance of each power in those pools.