Quote Originally Posted by MightyMicah View Post
I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Allowing class specific set bonuses could add the exact factor that we need. Namely, the ability to compensate whatever the specific class is lacking statistically speaking. For example, if a bird is lacking damage at a specific level, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus. This would allow the bird to gain the damage it needs, without causing other classes who equip the set to have over powered damage output. Or if a bear lacks dodge at a specific range, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus that would only benefit the bear. That way birds couldn't obtain too much dodge by using the set.
This seems like way too convoluted of a solution for an issue that's hardly even there. Your examples don't seem to apply. At what range do bears have a lack of dodge? As most know it wouldn't benefit any higher level bears due to the dodge cap. Can you give any real world examples? What class at what level range would this benefit? And why would these class-specific set bonuses in your specific example be worth the effort rather than making changes to the class itself, or the gear at that respective level in your example? Again, you're just giving hollow instances, give some that this could realistically apply to.

"That way birds couldn't obtain too much dodge by using the set." Again, poor example, because dodge cap. I could maybe see your point if things like warbirds were running rampant and at risk of dominating PvP, but they're not, so your example isn't applicable in either regard. As I said, a vast majority of characters use the gear originally designed for their class, and the ones that don't are mostly a non-issue. We don't need to hinder them, nor do we need to add precautions to prevent them from becoming more viable. Giving incentives to use the stat-correlating set of each class wouldn't do anything in terms of balance aside from making every build more cookie cutter than it already is. Which I guess is a form of balance, but not a good one.

You mentioned level 55 (specifically, you said 50-60), but I think it's a shame that you missed my point. I only brought up level 55 because raid roach was the first set that popped into my head. I actually agree with you that level 50-60 is very well balanced. Ideally balanced, I'd even say. (Not perfect, of course.)
Again, if this doesn't apply to 50-60, then can you give a specific, real world example?

Finally, you mentioned lower levels not really having sets so my idea, provided it worked, would only benefit higher levels. I'd say you're thinking inside the box. The lower levels have most of the building blocks for sets, and even a few sets at a couple levels (25, 35) Would it really be that hard to add a piece or two to different levels, or even just rename a few items to complete the set? I don't think that's too far of a stretch if we're already reworking set bonuses in the first place.
What do you mean by "rename a few items to complete a set?" Are you suggesting adding/changing items/sets, adding more sets to lower levels, and overhauling the current sets (SSC and Swamp) at lower levels, all while making them balanced? Because that's a ton of work that would also bring in a new slate of problems to solve.

But going back to my main point, do you see how class specific bonuses could fill in the gaps, statistically speaking, for whatever the class is lacking? I think this could be especially potent at the lower levels. I'm not saying we go crazy with it or anything. Balance should always be done in small doses first.
Not really, because I think any "filling in the gaps" could be done just as, if not more easily through other means. Maybe this would be a more precise strategy if given the proper resources, but that's not really a luxury at hand right now. Your solution isn't a low-effort alternative by any means. If enough effort could be put into adding several unique set bonuses, for specific class and gear combinations, across multiple level ranges, adding/changing lower level sets, all while tuning them properly to balance their respective levels, well, then I think the game would already be balanced through more practical methods.

Besides, Cinco has shown before changes can be made to precise level ranges (such as changing damage output by 20% for levels 61-70), which I'm sure could be applied exclusively to classes. Which also seems much simpler than altering unique set bonuses.

Cinco also doesn't do small doses. He's more of a double fister than a wine spritzer.

I'll throw in one more thought, and then I'd love to hear your response if you have the time. This doesn't even necessarily have to mean that a class can only get a bonus for their stat-related set. It could mean that a bear equips a dex set, int set, or str set, at his level and gets an entirely different set bonus from say a bird, or a mage who equip the same set. Does that make more sense?
It makes sense, yes, but it's incredibly impractical. Like I said above, that is a ton of work to implement. You're also overlooking that these set bonuses would need specific numbers and values attached to them that would need to be balanced across their level ranges.

Again, if you're just talking the stat-related sets for each class, I strongly disagree and see it as futile in terms of balancing, and would really just kill any diversity that remains. If you're talking unique bonuses for each set when equipped on each class like you mentioned here, well, that's just asking for a lot. But that's the thing, you're (seemingly) suggesting both, which makes it hard to argue since you don't seem to know exactly what your idea is aside from a brief paragrap. If you really think this suggestion is "a large key to balancing every level in PL PvP", then I'd encourage you to pin down which idea you're suggesting, give practical applications of it with real numbers and values, and why it'd be a good solution. As it stands this is pretty vague and sounds like a ton of work you'd be asking of Cinco with not a lot of direction. There have been dozens of long-winded threads going in-depth about how to fix PvP balancing. Some have done "much of the work", which really means much of the brainstorming and no heavy-lifting. The reason those ideas haven't been properly executed and implemented is because they require more manpower and resources than one man can provide.