Nerfs are synonymous with MMOs, true, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's always an effective balancing method.
Balancing is the smoothing of over/under/unexpected performance regarding newly introduced element into an, otherwise, stable environment. However, impactful changes (both nerfs and buffs) of long-standing elements will have the opposite effect, especially during a time when many new elements are introduced.
Using the proposed changes to the Bloodspawn Monster-set as an example, this item-set has been a well accepted, functioning element in the game for a long time. Thus, if changes must be made (and I don't believe it should), it shouldn't be at a time when an entire chapter of "new" is about to be introduced. To gauge the added-value of change to a well-established element, that change should be isolated for a time when performance and feedback can be independent. Furthermore, ZoS will receive much more effective feedback from the player-base if testers can focus on new things, rather than the upheaval caused by nerfs and buffs.
I strongly recommend holding off on some of the changes to existing assets and mechanics, and I believe the game will experience much smoother release cycles if it differentiated between new element balancing and existing performance adjustments.
Nerfs are synonymous with MMOs, true, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's always an effective balancing method.
Balancing is the smoothing of over/under/unexpected performance regarding newly introduced element into an, otherwise, stable environment. However, impactful changes (both nerfs and buffs) of long-standing elements will have the opposite effect, especially during a time when many new elements are introduced.
Using the proposed changes to the Bloodspawn Monster-set as an example, this item-set has been a well accepted, functioning element in the game for a long time. Thus, if changes must be made (and I don't believe it should), it shouldn't be at a time when an entire chapter of "new" is about to be introduced. To gauge the added-value of change to a well-established element, that change should be isolated for a time when performance and feedback can be independent. Furthermore, ZoS will receive much more effective feedback from the player-base if testers can focus on new things, rather than the upheaval caused by nerfs and buffs.
I strongly recommend holding off on some of the changes to existing assets and mechanics, and I believe the game will experience much smoother release cycles if it differentiated between new element balancing and existing performance adjustments.
Actually when it comes to balance all factors should be considered, as opposed to just one thing or the other in isolation.
Bloodspawn is a great set in isolation, but when you start comparing to other choices(in pvp ofc), there really arent very many alternatives, if any.
Most damage procsets have some kind of delay, ulitity based ones usually too gimmicky etc.
Bloodspawn on live, basically passively rewards you for taking damage , one of the easiest proc conditions to meet.
For the last few years now, at least for stamina, when making a build and looking at what monster set to run, i always went back to BS, its no fuss, easy proc, great value, dont have to think about it, its just there.
The nerf hurts, sure, but it may force us to consider other options, which is imho a good thing.
TLDR: When looking at BS nerf, you have consider all the other monster sets, and then you will realise it was well deserved, maybe to not this extent, though.
Still quite a few weeks of PTS to go, so it might some of its power back, we will see, too early to tell.