Thanks for quoting me Davngr, but my response there wasn't actually a comment on class balance ~ ok, I guess it was sarcastic in nature, but don't let that fool you.
It's funny because it's true. Both predators can parse higher than I can. I have lost parses to every dps class with the exception of rogues (we don't have a swash and brigands are bad). Some happen more often than others, and I probably win the majority. Is it because of my class? Maybe. Is it more likely because of my group setup since this game is all about how well you are buffed? Yes.
We're not comparing apples with oranges though. We need to compare like for like. If you can tell me that if you have the same standard of buffs as an equivalent geared T1 dps (assassin, ranger, wizard, warlock) and you deal less dps than them, then I'll concede defeat. But my experience, playing in groups so I have the same buffs as a BL, I generally struggle to outparse them (assuming similar gear). Now, this would again be ok if all you were was just a T1 dps (ie you only had feral stance), but you don't. You have arguably some of the best utility for a scout too. You're versatile, and as such there should be a penalty on your dps to reflect that versatility. It's why I believe rangers should be undisputed top of the T1 dps, as we bring nothing else to the group, regardless of whether they need it or not. No utility and versatility = higher dps.
Its not a question of possibility but frequency. Just because its possible to beat beastlords on the parse doesn't mean everything is fine. Its how often it occurs and under what circumstances that matter. And yes if lack of utility meant a class does more DPS, rangers would be destroying the parse by a far margin.
And it does, it's obvious. Even if we ignore the non DPS classes (which obviously take dps penalties in order to do their main role), the T2 dps classes bring other things to the group / raid that as a result has meant they don't generate T1 dps. Their penalty for their utility/versatility. A BL on the other hand, can choose to be the most desirable T2 scout or the most desirable T1 scout (ie highest dps), and switch between them based on raid/group requirements. Seems fair to me.
BL's are fine the way they are. clearly this class was developed later in the game and tapered to be what every class should have been. instead of two rouges it should have been one rouge with two spec's or instead of two preds it should have been one pred with two spec's and so the list goes on but that's not possible at this point i guess and nerfing bl's will do nothing other than hurt your raid force. i'm happy with my single facet dps class, the only thing i ask is that i'm able to reliably compete with a BL on damage.
Just because BL's have the option of being a utility class or DPS class doesn't mean their DPS should be nerfed. If you could be both utility AND dps at the same time then I would agree with you. Sony developed the class to be able to swap roles like that. Don't be mad because you can't do the same. Also don't scream for nerfs just because you feel short changed. If anything ask the Devs to add more flavor to your own classes. I stay Feral 100% of the time in raids and groups. The only time I use Spirit stance is the occasional solo fight. You want to nerf BL's damage just because they CAN be a utility? Good logic.
Again, with that logic if the other DPS classes could change to a stance that makes them top performing healers you would have to defend that as well. "Well they can't do it at the same time so really its not unbalanced." But if you would see that as unbalanced then guess what? So is BL's having a utility stance. All for it. Unfortunately I seriously doubt they will be adding secondary stances to all the other classes any time soon.
We all know that just about any Ranger, Assassin or Wizard can easily out parse any BL on single target ranged fights, which constitute most boss mobs that actually matter. If you're counting encounter trash in any of this then you'd need to include the Reckless Crusaders in your Nerf calls becasue they are beating everyone. Nobody cares about trash except to stroke you parse.
Exactly, and BL's take a DPS penalty for using utility, making them T2 DPS. Which has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people that you can't have both DPS and Utility at the same time. The fact that the class can swap between T1 DPS with NO utility, or T2 DPS WITH Utility is a moot point. Some might see it as unfair, but BLs who play as T1 DPS, don't flip stances every fight, and BLs who play utility don't flip stances every fight. I completely agree that if you could have T1 DPS with "all that uility" then nerf the crap out of it, it's unbalanced. As to "fair" that's how the class was designed. I would be completely on-board if, Rangers for example, could stance swap to a full blown healer, but they would need to have Healer DPS while in that stance, and no access to that utility while in their DPS stance, which is how BL are now. The fact that BLs are higher T2 DPS while in their utility stance could be argued as unfair, and I would agree with some adjustment to bring them in line with Bards. There is a trade-off, you just don't see it (or refuse to).
So what's penalty do they suffer for having two useful stances while others don't? Or the compensation/bonus for other classes only having 1 useful stance? No its not. It means they are at least close to being 2 different classes while others are restricted to one. FYI even in feral they beat out other top DPS classes in utility, so 'no utility' is just flat out wrong.
Having to listen to people who haven't played the class ***** and moan about how OP they are because they're "Two classes in one" isn't enough of a penalty? Trust me, it's more of a penalty than you think. (I jest) There doesn't need to be a penalty. They are EITHER T1 DPS OR T2 DPS with Utility. The fact that they can change stances has nothing to do with being over powered. Fighters can change stances to flip between DPS and Tank. I'd also be fine if we couldn't flip stances mid fight, but the fact that there are 2 ways to play the class has nothing to do with balance. And what is that exactly? The only DPS class that zero "utility" as you put it is Rangers, and I agree they need something. Assassins have massive debuffs, Wizards have power feeding, and group damage procs, conjurors have pets and increased survivability. Warlocks have some of the best AE damage in the game. I guess you could say Rangers can still be 80-90% effective at max range with increased armor as their trade-off for not having useful buffs/debuffs. What utility is it that BL provide in Feral stance outside of one group buff and some debuffs that other T1 DPS (outside of Rangers) have as well?
I'm not calling for nerfs, I'm just stating why I think BLs are OP. You can fix things different ways rather than nerfing, but nerfing is an option. And I'm aware you can't have both stances at the same time, which is why I started using the word "versitile" or "versatility" when relating to penalties rather than "utility". A reckless crusader can only top the dps parse on mass AE fights. A swashbuckler can do the same. They will never, ever consistently beat even a T2 dps class on a regular basis, let alone a T1 class. BLs on the other hand, do beat all other classes regularly in the parse. Pro BL supporters seem to ignore that I keep saying that BLs versatility should mean they're not quite as good as a pure class. I've said before, you're the most desirable T1 class in one stance and the most desirable T2 class in another. Rogues and summoners can't switch stances, sacrifice their utility in exchange for extra dps. Predators can't change stance and reduce their dps in favour of some utility. As a ranger, my stance change adds about 50-100 in my defence skills and reduces my dps, but I can't tank any better. Perhaps the best way forward is to revamp the secondary/useless stances for scouts to allow them the "versatility" that BLs have.
I'm not saying you're calling for nerfs, what I'm saying is that a BL in Feral Stance is pure DPS, akin to a pred, or sorc. There is no utility in that stance that is any different from that of a Sorc, or Assassin (notice I left rangers out there). Therefore, they should be ON PAR with those classes in that stance. Yes, if they are constantly out-parsing with ease and without fail there is a problem, but they are not. People fight for that number 1 spot, which they should. Competition helps everyone improve. Is it slightly over-tuned right now? Quite possibly, and mostly due to proc effects from pets doubling up their damage as others have stated in this thread. That needs to be fixed. But saying they should not be T1 DPS or even compete for that spot simply because they have the OPTION to sacrifice DPS for utility is quite frankly, ignorant.
Please explain why it's ignorant. A rogue can't fight for the top spot, yet a BL can outparse a rogue in either stance. A crusader in reckless can't fight for top spot on most encounters, they do reasonable but not top. That's how a BL should be, reasonable but not top. Your versatility is a benefit others do not have. Others can't choose what they do and still struggle to compete with you. Being the best at two things, regardless of the fact you can't be the best at two things at the same time, is overpowered. You can be really good at two things, but not top of everything you choose to do, when no one else has that choice.
Rogues still have access to their utility while doing T2 DPS - And as I've stated their DPS should be toned down in Utility stance to be on par with Rogues and Bards Crusaders still have heavy armor (Granted they take a serious mit hit) and access to ALL of their utility (Lay on hands, rescue, Rez, FD, etc etc) BL do not I've said it before and I'll say it again. WHY would anyone take sub-par DPS and sub-par utility over another class that can do those things better just because they MIGHT flip flop between the two. If BL were just average at everything there would be no use for them. If I were a raid leader, I would never put a BL in a place over a dedicated bard, chanter, or healer unless I had a gap to fill. What they bring to the group in Spiritual stance cannot compete with these classes outside of DPS. If BL were not T1 DPS in Feral stance they'd be a waste of a slot because they bring NOTHING to the table in DPS stance aside from DPS.
BUT THEY DO! They bring that OPTION. The VERSATILITY to switch stance for a particular fight if the healer keeps dieing or whatever! A predator or wizard can't do that. I'm not saying that in feral stance they shouldn't be T1 dps. What I'm saying is they shouldn't consistently be the TOP T1 DPS. The pure classes should be that tiny bit above them. I'm repeating myself so much, as are you. Lets just agree to disagree.
I rolled an Assassin to dps, not to regen power or any of that other ****. Please do not advocate for my class to have utility. If you're mad that Beastlords can potentially fill more roles than you can, make a Bard your raid alt, or roll a Beastlord. Otherwise, please kindly go away.
