Class Set Discussion/Pyrebrand

NuarBlack · October 3

Pyrebrand was added to the base game. That is all you need to know about why this happened so quick.

Wuuffyy · October 7

NuarBlack wrote: »

Pyrebrand was added to the base game. That is all you need to know about why this happened so quick.

Absolutely not an excuse. No-one and I mean no-one asked them to place the archives in the base-game to begin with. Beyond that, the 'sale' should be the second trial set; not the 'other' supplemental set (Pyrebrand).

Wuuffyy · October 10

Wuuffyy wrote: »

NuarBlack wrote: »

Pyrebrand was added to the base game. That is all you need to know about why this happened so quick.

Absolutely not an excuse. No-one and I mean no-one asked them to place the archives in the base-game to begin with. Beyond that, the 'sale' should be the second trial set; not the 'other' supplemental set (Pyrebrand).

feedback ignored, again (with no rebuttal, counter-argument from devs, or a 'we are watching this')

Leonis3491 · October 10

NuarBlack wrote: »

Pyrebrand was added to the base game. That is all you need to know about why this happened so quick.

I think it's not the problem.
Pyrebrand was just a little bit to strong. For exemple single target Zhaj'hassa 230k or Rakkat 185k. With almost 11% Pyrebrand vs 7% Relequeen.
105k on St Olms with 13% Pyrebrand vs 7% Relequeen.

But the nerf made was just to strong.
On Dummy actually the set allow only 3k dps more than Runecarver/vMA setup.
If it goes live like this Pyrebrand will be completly forsaken, although its a récent set.
A good solution would be to nerf the dot base damage for some 70% but keep the crit and allow the dot to stack 3 times and an additionnal "against monster" if set keep being to powerfull on Pvp.

Turtle_Bot · October 10

Wuuffyy wrote: »

Wuuffyy wrote: »

NuarBlack wrote: »

Pyrebrand was added to the base game. That is all you need to know about why this happened so quick.

Absolutely not an excuse. No-one and I mean no-one asked them to place the archives in the base-game to begin with. Beyond that, the 'sale' should be the second trial set; not the 'other' supplemental set (Pyrebrand).

feedback ignored, again (with no rebuttal, counter-argument from devs, or a 'we are watching this')

welcome to the IA class set lifecycle.

1. set is introduced
2. set is either broken or completely dead
3. 6 weeks of boatloads of detailed, data backed feedback is given on the sets, pointing out the precise issues
4. feedback is completely ignored or given some random tweak that makes zero sense
5. set goes live either broken or completely dead
6. broken set gets deleted the following patch, dead set never gets even a comment and is ignored for the rest of eternity
7. return to step 1. and repeat for the next round of class sets.

I honestly wish those pushing for pyrebrand to get a proper fix instead of the sledgehammer treatment the best of luck, sincerely someone whos multi-patch evidence based feedback on monolith of [snip] still hasn't received even a simple "we are looking at it" comment, let alone anything to make it actually usable, even for role play purposes.

NuarBlack · October 10

Wuuffyy wrote: »

NuarBlack wrote: »

Pyrebrand was added to the base game. That is all you need to know about why this happened so quick.

Absolutely not an excuse. No-one and I mean no-one asked them to place the archives in the base-game to begin with. Beyond that, the 'sale' should be the second trial set; not the 'other' supplemental set (Pyrebrand).

Wasn't saying it was an excuse. Just pointing out why it may have been a priority to "fix."

I personally would advocate for a less heavy handed approach to balancing it as well.