Thread: The potential problem with low level Roulettes in 6.0

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

Everyone loves shortcuts, but ultimately the devs aren't there to not develop a game. Just because making changes will take work doesn't mean those changes aren't feasible.

The thing is, time is their mortal enemy. So regardless of the feasibility of things, they have quotas to meet and they will do that which they perceive will help the health of the game more and weigh the development costs & time spent vs projected gains. They're developing the game all the time, just not in the way you want.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

So they should never do anything? Absolute statements aren't true by default. Attempting to change the level sync system isn't doomed before it begins.

Of course it's not. But again, they've made it clear time and again that they desire balance in their level sync system, and so they're not going to do anything until they have a system that works exactly the way they want while making sure there's no issues, weighing all the cons & pros, all the things that would need balancing, create expected deadlines & time spent vs projected gain numbers. If I, a simple player that has only taken a couple courses on rudimentary software design because she was bored outside her normal courses in university, can point out all the glaring flaws and the sheer amount of things they'd need to modify/change/edit/add/remove/etc in your system just to make it work compared to their current extremely simple system, their actual experienced game designers will have long since either tossed it out, or be looking elsewhere for a simpler idea.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

When it comes to player skills, I'm not seeing the difference between sync methods. Good players are going do more damage no matter what. That won't change with the sync system unless it removes the player from the process entirely, which defeats the point of the game. If you're worried that unexpected consequences will arise that will somehow let synced jobs with high level skills completely outpace lower level job, that's what and planning and testing are for. The new sync system doesn't even have to introduced directly into the dungeons, it could be added first as an unsync option intended for PF instead where players would be able to use it and attempt to break it in order to assist the devs in tuning the system. When everything is worked out in the end, add it as a DF option that works with roulettes.

Except that simply divides the queues; which need I remind you, are designed to fill parties as fast as possible; another reason why it'd never see DF use without being mandatory. And I seriously doubt they'd ever do such a giant overhaul in the first place just to make it a PF only option. As far as the first bit, again; I'm simply pointing out every possibility, which by their job, a game design has to account for. There's a reason the #1 rule in software design is "plan assuming your end user will do anything and everything to break you system, whether through ingenuity or ignorance." Without taking in EVERY factor, EVERY possible outcome, any system they implement will just as easily crash down on them.

At least in their current system, High level player's skill is kept in check by the limited toolkits.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

Right, which is what I would expect when we're not dealing with tight balancing tolerances. Just shave off a nice round number because going up to 15% or down to 5% wouldn't make a noticeable difference. The same goes with the idea of scaling damage.

Which again, comes back to the MNK scenario; Given that jobs learn different parts of their toolkit at drastically different levels, you're essentially asking for them to go through every job at every level to determine what part of their toolkit they have access to, and then hit them with % reduction based on that. Since -20% on a BRD, who barely gets anything pre-50 will be vastly different than applying that same -20% to a SAM who gets a lot of powerful potency attacks at the same level.

If your solution can't be solved with a universal multiplier for every job at every level to create the same balance as currently, it's already less precise and far more complicated than what they have now.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

At the lowest levels, like 20 or less, it's no more than a GLA could do. Mobs are that weak. HG would start to become significant somewhere in the 30-50 range (obviously not after 50 since it's a 50 skill), but what exactly are you worried about? Parties will kick and hope for a replacement for the most scarce role in the game with the correct skills to show up? Unlikely. Right now DPS is at the biggest risk for that since they are fast to replace and can have a wide range of DPS outputs due to AoE skill levels and it still doesn't happen. HG isn't going to make dungeons take half as much time to clear. Come to think of it how many tanks even use it regularly as a CD in DF? Some people won't touch it unless the healer is dead.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

I'm trying to think of dungeons where I don't just pull everything. It's not a long list. HG would just be another cooldown. I suppose if you planned out your dungeon pull with your party you could optimize the run a bit but that's probably not going to happen in DF.

Go pull every pack up to the first boss of Tam-Tara with 5 completely random healers without dying once, take vids, compare that to pulling 5 packs in Mt Gulg and then tell me it's "no more than a GLD could do." Or every single mob up to the first boss of Halatali with the same requirements.
Also people kick for even less reasons than that. I've seen tanks get kicked for single pulling, you really think people aren't above the possibility of kicking for a better tank? Plus, unless you're queuing in off hours, tanks/healers almost always get insta-refreshed anyway. (I've personally never waited longer than 20s for a tank to come in during the couple of times a tank was kicked in my party.)

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

All of this isn't even taking into account the possibility of balancing HG below level 50, like the previously mentioned reduction to 50% mitigation. Nor does it take into account that there are other mitigation tools. 10 seconds doesn't necessarily cover an entire pull and if the tank is weaker outside of the 10 seconds of invincibility, then it's not clear that there is an advantage gained.

Originally Posted by MariaArvana

When you have to go and either nullify half of a job's kit to make its HPS/MPs equal, or add in 50 different traits just to maintain balance, you've long since gone into the 'why are we even doing this when simpler options exist' territory.

^

Also, You chain CDs. Once the tank leaves Hallowed, he should have a 30% rolling on up so that he stays buff and not just instantly drop dead or becoming weaker. 10s of 0 damage is a huge advantage gained, because it gives the healer 100% uptime during the 10s; 10s of knowing that whatever the healer does, you will not drop dead.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

What is the baseline we're comparing to though? It's not a healer spending 100% up time healer, or at least it doesn't have to be. AST from Sastash can heal while keeping 100% DPS uptime theoretically. Realistically it will take some damage mitigation on the part of the tank, but that mitigation doesn't have to be 100%. If pulls are long SCH might pull ahead due to fairly healing. It's really only WHM that causes issues because you have to choose between healing or attacking at low level. But again no one is kicking WHM's so it doesn't seem like this is any kind of real problem.

The average mob does about ~28 damage in Sastasha out of a tank's ~450 health. In our current system (or about 84 damage per pack of 3), an AST can get that much uptime due to their OGCD alone and because most tanks don't pull much more than 2 packs in most cases. An AST isn't keeping anywhere close to 100% uptime in sastasha when the tank is losing 1/3rd-1/2 their health every GCD going past the 2-pack mark with their OGCD on a 30s timer.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

But this is just bypassing the entire solution. The point is to balance the two. Yes if you did nothing the level 80 skill would clearly be better, so you weaken them.

Which again, requires way more investment than you realize, as from a pure math standpoint, is extreme more effort than other solutions which require immensely less effort.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

Reprisal and Arm's Lengths are already "issues" in the current level sync so they don't count. Clemency is a DPS loss so you wouldn't want to use it anyway. That leaves 3 skills. Halve or third the mitigation values on them, problem solved. The PLD has lower mitigation for a longer duration. Overall they have about the same mitigation.

But a 20 GLD can't use either, so they do count against it, you can't simply ignore that mitigation difference when it is in fact a + to the PLD's toolkit. Clemency may be a DPS loss, but if it saves the pull, its a dps gain, hence why its a tool for the PLD. (Such as saving yourself on the Mt Gulg mega pulls if the healer falls behind a bit - staying alive and losing a GCD of damage is infinitely less valuable than staying alive to complete the mega pull which saves literal minutes.)

As for the last point, then, again: what is the point of halving/quartering/whatever these skills down and butchering them, when the whole purpose of your system is to allow 80's to use their full toolkits? If you have to edit and butcher skills just to give you system even the slimmest chance of maintaining balance, you're no longer playing the exact job you had at 80, merely a gutted version of it. I really can't explain this any clearer.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

If this was a problem WAR would have gained skills at 75 and not 76. As it stands now, the 75 dungeon syncs at 76 so 75 WAR's already compete with 76 WAR's under level sync. If that still bothers you, quarter the healing under level 76.

The major difference here being that a 75 & 76 WAR have access to 99% of the same toolkit as each other, so the disparity is far, FAR less than a 20 MRD who not only has 6 less CDs than a 76 WAR, but also 0 lifesteal. And I could repeat myself on the 2nd part, but really. Even if you were to quarter the healing of it, it's still > 0, meaning the 80 WAR would still have literally infinitely times higher HPS than a 20 MRD...or any <76 WAR in AOE, for that matter. Also again, having to butcher a job's identity just to give your system an even slim hope of being balanced.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

The devs weren't bothered by some parties having AoE and some not, so raid buffs are a non issue.

Because they never had to factor them in early dungeons when designing them? Literally the earliest non-trick attack Raid buffs are at 50 (Divination, Battle Voice). All of a sudden in your system though, you've got 80's hopping in with all their raid buffs. let me tell ya how fast you can annihilate packs with BV + Litany + Divination. In your system, they are now an issue that has to be factored in.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

I don't agree. Your points are built on chasing an extremely tight balance tolerance for no reason that I can see. Not many people care to optimize outside for Extreme and Savage for a good reason, that being it doesn't make much difference. Leveling content isn't tuned to be hard and as a result doesn't require extreme precision.

For no reason? Because its literally the design the devs have been wanting to achieve with their sync system. you can't get much tighter than "everyone has access to the same skills outside of some scenarios in the early levels, which only really apply to tanks because healer & dps role actions are just fluff and not giving extra power to the healer's healing or dps's damage." With their system, a Dev can reasonably know that a group in halatali isn't going to be super mitigating enemy damage, throwing out raid buffs or massive swathes of multiple AOE GCDs & OGCDs to melt packs, or commit 100% of their healing to regens & OGCDs. In their current system, player skill variance is the only thing they can't account for; an issue that is magnified and needs to be much more directly addressed in your theoretical system due to the plethora of unexpected variance it can cause.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

OK fair enough. But if there is some issue that makes the devs completely unwilling to look at the idea, there is no way of knowing without asking them. What you say, and what I say for that matter, is not indicative of what matters to the devs. You can speculate if you want, but that's pretty easy to dismiss.

Let me answer that for you. "Server Limitations." "next!" Yoshi-P has long since realized making promises in public often ends in backlash, so pretty much any feature they're not personally doing will be met with a PR-friendly/neutral response; hence why it's easy to use past development cycles and their general response to suggested things to quickly answer your own question.

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

I also don't mind you having an opinion different from mine, but I think it's reason for the reverse to be true. Changing level sync is one of the more important things the devs to spend time on in my opinion. Roulettes are part of the game and I'd also like a system that didn't just toss old content aside as the game ages.

You can have your opinions, but observations of their dev cycle and implementations give pretty good concrete facts about how likely a potential idea would be accepted. Just from my courses in software design and general observation, I'm giving an observed opinion based on those realistic facts. They have a very 'forward looking; only fix the old when necessary.' Approach to their game design.

It took them literally 6 years to fix ARR and they still have Hrothgar/Viera to deal with, along with designing all the usual content each patch, especially now with an impacted dev cycle due to COVID. The odds of them doing anything to the level syncing that isn't as simple as 'shift a single variable on the skills' is basically null.