Gear scaling mechanism in PVP

[Deleted]

Please take away balanced pvp, I want to farm hours,weeks,month to get to this place.
I don't enjoy the pvp part of the game, but if I can get better just by farming, I atleast can enjoy that.

what the ....

[Loxotron]

Wow has pretty outdated and shallow combat system that's why you can't run in 100 percent competitive enviroment and that's why WoW shouldn't even try to be close to cybersport. Any player that choses a competitve enviroment will stick to already existing competitve games like CS, Quake, Starcraft, Overwatch, Lol, dota but not to WoW.
That's why WoW should be MMORPG at first place and can sacrifice balance and fair playground even on arena just to be good at being RPG! Developers meanwhile has made everything to do opposite in latest expansions which moved the game to absolute bottom... their only saviors are art developers and just a well known brand/lore and lack of other decent MMORPG on market (i dont count Korean one's as decent).

Conclusion: It is pretty close to impossible to make major changes to revert the damage nowdays since shareholders/owners won't allow developers to make game less accessible for people who has no time/will/dedication, since they are their core paying audience.
Sad to see it but as soon as company become huge and set a foot into the stock market nobody cares for product quality but only for the income and stock prices.
I don't think blizzard will ever create good niche product that they have done before being bought by Activision.
I can take a guess that marketing department is above the developers and dictating them which things will sell and which won't.

[wholol]

Wow has pretty outdated and shallow combat system that's why you can't run in 100 percent competitive enviroment and that's why WoW shouldn't even try to be close to cybersport. Any player that choses a competitve enviroment will stick to already existing competitve games like CS, Quake, Starcraft, Overwatch, Lol, dota but not to WoW.
That's why WoW should be MMORPG at first place and can sacrifice balance and fair playground even on arena just to be good at being RPG! Developers meanwhile has made everything to do opposite in latest expansions which moved the game to absolute bottom... their only saviors are art developers and just a well known brand/lore and lack of other decent MMORPG on market (i dont count Korean one's as decent).

Conclusion: It is pretty close to impossible to make major changes to revert the damage nowdays since shareholders/owners won't allow developers to make game less accessible for people who has no time/will/dedication, since they are their core paying audience.
Sad to see it but as soon as company become huge and set a foot into the stock market nobody cares for product quality but only for the income and stock prices.
I don't think blizzard will ever create good niche product that they have done before being bought by Activision.
I can take a guess that marketing department is above the developers and dictating them which things will sell and which won't.

I agree with this 100%, sad to see how blizzard has changed over the years.

[MrCool]

To people wondering more about the actual mechanics.

Well, I can't say for sure it is exactly this, but it should be fairly close to this:
The game divides the "base damage" your ability does against your own "base max health", and then multiplies this value by the "base max health" of the target. This is the real damage that is done to the target (before damage reduction such as armor, versatility and defensive CDs).
This formula is also consistent with the observed and tested fact that the scaling multiplier of A against B is the inverse of B against A.

There are still some foggy areas though (and only Blizz knows about it since they don't disclose how it exactly fucking works) :
- What is the exact definition of "base damage"? My personal assumption is that "base damage" is it the damage your spells would deal against yourself with 0% damage reduction and assuming 0% versatility
- What is the exact definition of "base max health"? It probably doesn't include temporary buffs or spec modifiers (such as food or Priest buff or Bear Form bonus or passive tank spec health increase). It probably includes natural health of your character as well as health from gear. It may also include other things that have nothing to do with health at all (in that case the term I used "base max health" is incorrect). It might also include a constant, possibly by level, so Blizzard can decide how "strong" the system is and maintain gaps of power between characters of different levels.

So, if it does work somewhat like I described, the main advantage you can get against an undergeared target is that you have numerically higher secondary stats (unless the scaling also incorporates them in the calculation of the "base max health" value.
It also useful to note that a higher geared player would get a disadvantage if he fights against the lower geared target with inactive azerite traits.
Finally, there's the question of your secondary stats distribution: is it optimized for your class?
Gems seem also another way to get an edge, unless they've also taken gems in account in scaling formula, which would make me believe there is really a fun police in this game, to go this far to "close" the gap of power in PVP...

One evident loophole that might be exploitable by lower geared players under some situations, is that consumables and trinkets with fixed damage will be relatively more powerful against higher geared players. Lower geared players will also be able to heal more easily with health potions. There is also the question of hybrid class healing: does max health scale faster than the ability of hybrids to heal themselves?
As you can see, scaling can potentially open a big can of worms.
And finally, "mathematifying" the game this much clearly hurts the combat mechanics clarity as well as the RPG aspect.
Is it worth it for "more fairness"? In instanced PVP maybe. For world PVP, well, world PVP is already very unfair, so... probably not.