--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's start with where I think you guys got this right. More HAM and less armor more or less balances out. If you're going to leave the fire DOTs in, the added HAM is helpful (preventing the ATST from perma-dying from a single DOT attack). Removing the ATST from non-factional PvE is also good IMO - I was a big proponent of this because it is way off balance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the key issue here is that right now AT-ST's are Faction Mission PvE only after this and Fire DoT's make PvP usage pretty harsh. I accept that. I do not accept that they are useless however. I'm involved in a fair amount of PvP on both sides of the war and when Im Rebel, I wince when I see them and when Im an Imp, Im sure glad they are on my side.
Going forward, DoT's are being balanced along with the rest of the combat system and after all of the combat changes are made, Faction Point costs will be reduced and brought into line with everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one place where I think you guys have gotten it glaringly wrong: tying the number of controllable faction pets to whether or not the player is a CH. They're Creature Handlers, not Creature and NPC Handlers, and yet by allowing a CH to control additional faction pets they are transformed into a Creature and NPC Handler. The correct metric to tie the number of controllable faction pets to is faction rank, period. Anything else just doesn't make sense. If you're going to call upon "Starwarsy" reasons for removing the AT-ST from PvE (which again, I am fine with), then certainly having a player's wild animal handling abilities tied to their ability to order NPCs and machines around doesn't make sense, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct. The metric for an AT-ST is one. It was unclear at the time and I did a bunch of research today and verified it before we go to live with the changes. One AT-ST per Imperial player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope someone that tools this game sits and reads all these posts cause I just spent 3 hours doing it myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im staying involved in this because I know its an important issue. The biggest problem with this discussion at the moment is because most people havent experienced the changes and ongoing combat changes are going to be occuring over the next few publishes. This isn't the end of the line.
I promise I will keep Jester and everyone in the loop and FWIW, The Empire is getting a big boost very soon.
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Assistant Community Relations Manager
Let's start with where I think you guys got this right. More HAM and less armor more or less balances out. If you're going to leave the fire DOTs in, the added HAM is helpful (preventing the ATST from perma-dying from a single DOT attack). Removing the ATST from non-factional PvE is also good IMO - I was a big proponent of this because it is way off balance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the key issue here is that right now AT-ST's are Faction Mission PvE only after this and Fire DoT's make PvP usage pretty harsh. I accept that. I do not accept that they are useless however. I'm involved in a fair amount of PvP on both sides of the war and when Im Rebel, I wince when I see them and when Im an Imp, Im sure glad they are on my side.
Going forward, DoT's are being balanced along with the rest of the combat system and after all of the combat changes are made, Faction Point costs will be reduced and brought into line with everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one place where I think you guys have gotten it glaringly wrong: tying the number of controllable faction pets to whether or not the player is a CH. They're Creature Handlers, not Creature and NPC Handlers, and yet by allowing a CH to control additional faction pets they are transformed into a Creature and NPC Handler. The correct metric to tie the number of controllable faction pets to is faction rank, period. Anything else just doesn't make sense. If you're going to call upon "Starwarsy" reasons for removing the AT-ST from PvE (which again, I am fine with), then certainly having a player's wild animal handling abilities tied to their ability to order NPCs and machines around doesn't make sense, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct. The metric for an AT-ST is one. It was unclear at the time and I did a bunch of research today and verified it before we go to live with the changes. One AT-ST per Imperial player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope someone that tools this game sits and reads all these posts cause I just spent 3 hours doing it myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im staying involved in this because I know its an important issue. The biggest problem with this discussion at the moment is because most people havent experienced the changes and ongoing combat changes are going to be occuring over the next few publishes. This isn't the end of the line.
I promise I will keep Jester and everyone in the loop and FWIW, The Empire is getting a big boost very soon.
Kurt "Thunderheart" Stangl
Assistant Community Relations Manager