JR_Returns wrote: »

notimetocare wrote: »

Short version: You are an idiot
Long version: Balance is far from easy, new classes and skill lines often release overpowered because introducing entirely new skills into a game is not easy.

Templar nerfs come specifically from the fact that if they remained as they are now, nothing would ever be as valuable. Pre-nerf, If you wanted a main healer it was Templar. Nothing else, ever, for any good reason. Repentence, spears, a no-aim power heal. Templars needed pulled down a good peg. The changes my be overkill, but from what I have seen of people actually playing on the beta, it seems like Templars are still doing just fine, they just arent default number one.

One of my favorite developer statements comes from Overwatch's Jeff Kaplan, cant find the full quote atm, too lazy, but basically it outlines how hard it is to use a small sample size to balance anything. Internal testing, even the closed beta, it isnt enough to really see what is going to be broken. They had issues in Overwatch which has far less skills per hero than characters have in really any MMORPG. Trust me, you do not have a single idea what you are talking about if you think imbalance is a marketing ploy used by mmo companies.

One other important thing to note, it is always better to error on the side of making something new overpowered. YOu get much better data on what needs changed when something is overkill. More people play it, more people abuse it, more people complain. When something is weak, it doesnt get played and it takes longer ot get useful data.

I take your point, however I don't agree that the original poster is a idiot. ZOS have proved over the years that they are incapable of balancing the game, so making thing even more complicated by adding another class is an act of lunacy that can only be explained by marketing pressure or total incompetence and for all their faults I don't believe that they are incompetent..

Azurulia wrote: »

...is actually pretty obvious if you think about it for a moment.

It's a marketing strategy.

How many times in how many games do you recall a new class, role, etc. being very overpowered when introduced, only to be nerfed into the ground/brought down in scale to other things after a month or so?

The Warden is very similar to the Templar in the aspect that it has a healing tree and good utility. So, from a purely marketing standpoint, wouldn't it be in your best interst to make the templar appear less powerful/not as good as the Warden to increase the odds that players will purchase what is required to play it? After the initial hype and "flavor of the month" appeal is over and te initial "gold rush" to aquire the Warden starts to fade, you tune down their power to bring them more inline with the rest of the classes. After ample time has passed, you then buff templars back to roughly where they were before, as their no longer a obstacle to potential sales.

Because at the end of the day, you are a business where the bottom line is king. (So long as the means to that end aren't 'too' damaging)

So I ask again. How many times in how many games do you recall a new class, role, etc. being very overpowered when introduced, only to be nerfed into the ground/brought down in scale to other things after a month or so?

Every one of them.