PvE DPS Balance Initiative: Scaling and Midrange

I don't think that is "all they will care about" but it could help with a caveat. You can't always gauge boss-by-boss if one player is more objective oriented/unlucky with mechanics (for example Corruption in Bombshell Paradox).

It would be a good tool but like any tool it needs to be used appropriately. The common player still won't use it properly (and in context).

I gotta be honest. I never truly understood how those charts were collected or trusted their relevancy. Unless the methodology was broken down in detail, I never really will.

Evidently, it just kept track of the highest damage output across all servers for each powerset. They were able to separate by WM and non-WM, but couldn't discriminate hybrid play. It was basically worthless for balancing purposes, after that was pointed out to them.

I agree, I've been a proponent for this change for quite some time. Right now, all dps-es who are competitive and/or are scorecard chasers "waste" their trinkets, SC's and even supplies on trash mobs. One could argue that some SC's are meant for clearing adds, but that's besides the point. It only inflates your score damage, but in no way it helps the raid group do a better job because trash mobs present no danger, except in maybe some rare occasions like SM and where a boss spawns mobs.

Before the unification of the loadouts for single and aoe damage, most powersets had a single and aoe rotation, and it took some thinking to use the right powers in the right situation, so killing adds and getting ahead on the scorecard was, for the lack of better word, skillful because if someone was using a single target loadout on adds and buffed himself with trinkets/supplies he wouldn't gain much. Right now, this skill is non existent, so it would make more sense for the scorecard to only track sub/boss damage.

I understood WHAT they said they were collecting. I have no insight into HOW they were collecting it. I'll never trust those old charts because I have no insight into what variables they include versus excluded. With transparency, we've identified major balance/scaling inconsistencies with how they approached the baseline methodology. Without details and with judging the balance results at the time, I'm going to automatically assume major inconsistencies with the other methodology.

Agree. Never liked the approach. Liked it even less, when they revealed some of the details.

Same! When the details of their testing started trickling through I gradually went from "it might not look so bad after all" to "how could they even think this would get them accurate results"... then the Tunso Testing guide popped up and I knew why they never got balance right.