test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Official Feedback Thread: M12 Armor Pen and Damage Vulnerability Debuff Changes

124

Comments

  • gabrieldourdengabrieldourden Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,212 Arc User
    > @beckylunatic said:
    > The proposed cap for debuffs seems definitely too high for me, still favouring too much certain party combinations. I would prefer a solution where all debuffs stack and the cap is +200% (hard cap), how you get there is up to you. Same for buffs, all stack with a hard cap applied across the board.
    >
    > That introduces the same problem as when they were redoing weapon enchants and proposed to change PF and Frost from uncapped to capped debuffs. It wasn't difficult for certain class combinations to hit the cap innately, so anything that can't go over that cap loses value.
    >
    > I don't think this suggestion would accomplish what you're hoping for.

    That's exactly the idea. One good and focused debuffer should be enough to hit the cap so that the rest of the party can focus on something else, and same for buffs. ATM stacking debuffs/buffs has a better return than everything else to a degree that you want 3 or 4 buffer/debuffers...
    Le-Shan: HR level 80 (main)
    Born of Black Wind: SW Level 80
  • rapo973rapo973 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 831 Arc User
    edited June 2017
    I fully agree that the discussion about the DC is not very helpful.
    What I really miss is a comfortable way to measure and test the buff/debuff capabilities. Today it's a time consuming activity which require effort and a bit of creativity: I want to thank all the players who spend time on it sharing their knowledge. The same knowledge that @rgutscheradev wants to have access in this thread.
    Consistency and the test weapon are the first steps in the right direction, but i think that the combat log should be enriched as well: currently we are forced to read the effect to speculate about the cause of it and then run experiments or collect extra data to validate the assumption (in particular when something doesn't work as expected) . I remember @thefabricant when he reported a headache when he tried to explore the old SW's TT behavior. Generally speaking it's often easy to test a single effect, but how the effects interact in a real game play situation can be hard.
    @rgutscheradev aims to improve the readability of the buff/debuff: a little help also for us would be appreciated and I hope that it's feasible.

    Oltreverso guild leader
    Maga Othelma - DC | Svalvolo - SW | Dente Avvelenato- GWF
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User
    edited June 2017

    dupeks said:

    Have you had a chance to take a look at any of the inconsistent behaviors in my earlier reply (the big wall of text, but with bullet points)? Or is that being relegated to a back burner for now...

    Yes, I took a look, but I'm afraid that's going to have to wait for now. (It's super-helpful having the list to refer to, though, so thank you for that!)

    Keep in mind that revamping all buffs is a much bigger project than the damage vulnerability debuffs revamp.

    It involves a *lot* more powers first of all. I just checked, and the damage vulnerability changes involved changing about 100 files (about half of that is powers, and about half is class files, where these particular diminishing return formulas live). An overall buff stacking revamp would be at least 10x that.

    The other thing to keep in mind is that damage vulnerability already had a cap. So the change was "just" changing one kind of cap for another, and bringing in a few miscellaneous uncapped powers into the fold. Adding a cap or diminishing returns where there was none before would change things a lot. So there isn't an obvious "this will just make things better and cleaner, but keep everyone's power levels roughly the same" solution. There will, of necessity, be massive buffing and nerfing all over the place with a change like that. So we shouldn't push it out in a rush.

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. But it's definitely a project that's big enough that it will need some serious time scheduled to get it done, and right now there are other things ahead of it in the queue. I do still want to do it, though!
    @rgutscheradev how I would rework buffs is as follows:

    (1+Personal Buffs)*(1+Party Buffs)*(1+Party Item Buffs)*(1+Personal Item Buffs)

    Where Personal buffs are things like feats and class features, maybe, for the sake of balance all of these could also be left multiplicative (since it could drastically change class balance making a change like this) but in the long term it would be the route I would take.

    Party buffs would be things like Break the Spirit and Hallowed ground. The values on these buffs would then have to be tweaked in some ways.

    Party Item buffs are things like the stronghold weapon set and the sigil of the nine, not many things fall into this category, but it can exist in case more are added.

    Personal Item Buffs would be things like the Wheel of Elements and the Tome of Ascendance. I would then rework the wheel to actually be a buff, rather than an additional hit.

    This would help balance in some ways, but if a change like this is made it should be dome carefully with careful consideration for new values for powers etc.

    Making a couple of DC feats stop stacking isn't going to nuke the synergy between a group with one AC/DC and one DO/DC anyway, and you can still do things with two DCs like one empowered BtS and one empowered FF.

    Seems like off-topic rabble-rousing.

    IF you put 2 clerics make the intomitable strike to have almost no cooldown you have right is not so important.
    @mamalion1234 I don't even see how this whole thing about hastening light matters anyhow, as a DO DC, I don't even use it in a 2 dc party...
    flat cooldown reductions affects the party overall perfomance. IF you have and 2nd cleric becomes a spamming fest of encounters . Astral shields intomitables spam ( encounters high cooldown) guardians focused on power critical and not recovery they spam into the fray killing the purpose of timing the powers. As do i use insight and hastening light for me and the team you have a better class feat that u use and why?
    Divine Fortune and Terrifying Insight for higher uptime on BtS. AC DC is already using Hastening Light and a GWF still needs to self buff for IBS to deal any damage. As amazing as a rotation consisting solely of IBS sounds, it will do less than a well balanced rotation.
    AS do i dont have problem to build divinity without the divine forturne and have 100% uptime bts maybe something in your build.
    I Will stop this conversation here if you want we can discuss this to another thread my point was about buffs shouldnt able to stack from same classes and the necessity to have 2 of the same class for the maximum perfomance.
    I am quite happy with my build the way it is tyvm and I still don't see how reducing the cooldown of ibs marginally once every 15 seconds is that great on a DpS DO loadout.
    rapo973 said:

    I fully agree that the discussion about the DC is not very helpful.
    What I really miss is a comfortable way to measure and test the buff/debuff capabilities. Today it's a time consuming activity which require effort and a bit of creativity: I want to thank all the players who spend time on it sharing their knowledge. The same knowledge that @rgutscheradev wants to have access in this thread.
    Consistency and the test weapon are the first steps in the right direction, but i think that the combat log should be enriched as well: currently we are forced to read the effect to speculate about the cause of it and then run experiments or collect extra data to validate the assumption (in particular when something doesn't work as expected) . I remember @thefabricant when he reported a headache when he tried to explore the old SW's TT behavior. Generally speaking it's often easy to test a single effect, but how the effects interact in a real game play situation can be hard.
    @rgutscheradev aims to improve the readability of the buff/debuff: a little help also for us would be appreciated and I hope that it's feasible.

    What would be great is if we had, somewhere in the game, an in game "library" so to speak that explained every skill etcs intended mechanics, but I think that is well out of the scope of what the devs can do currently.
    Post edited by thefabricant on
  • rapo973rapo973 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 831 Arc User
    edited June 2017


    What would be great is if we had, somewhere in the game, an in game "library" so to speak that explained every skill etcs intended mechanics, but I think that is well out of the scope of what the devs can do currently.

    A rich documentation always helps to validate, but the I still have a problem when I have to read the data.
    I can read on ACT the base damage, damage, crit, CA, effectiveness and the difference between values and records: sometimes it's enough to understand the basic behavior, sometimes it's not - at least for me.
    The main problem is that all the effects are often consolidated into a single parameter and then you have to do some reverse engeneering to understand the components and how they interact.
    For example after a dungeon run, I can read the sources where the action points come from, but I cannot read the same for the debuffs, I cannot read immediately where they come from and their single values.
    That's why we're forced to inspect them one by one and slowly, by combining them, understand if they stack, if they are capped, uncapped, multiplicative between each others or additive, up to the point where you have a good model. The model is validated by number check and ideally by documentation, but I believe that it should be validated by some " game authority" to be complete.

    I don't have a complete understanding of the proposed change because I don't read the complete description of the model behind which comes to the final question: if I play with an experienced endgame group that know all the interactions, already capable of providing +280% average effectiveness today, do I have to invest mln ADs in a new item giving me -for example- +5% debuff?
    Yes, no, in which context?, yes if, no but...


    Oltreverso guild leader
    Maga Othelma - DC | Svalvolo - SW | Dente Avvelenato- GWF
  • aasuraasur Member Posts: 66 Arc User


    Thanks for the reminder! I grabbed the 3 powers michela123 mentioned (Dreadtheft, Quarry, and Ambush) and updated them. If anyone knows of any others, please say so!

    I also updated the various powers that were being reduced by level 73 enemies and made it so that reduction didn't happen. In general, level 73 enemies *should* be reducing what you do, but for things that give you % damage, it's silly, since the base damage is already being reduced.

    These fixes won't be in tomorrow's preview build, but they should be in the next build after that.

    Super cool, love the engagement level, thank you!

  • dupeksdupeks Member Posts: 1,789 Arc User
    edited June 2017
    rapo973 said:

    I don't have a complete understanding of the proposed change because I don't read the complete description of the model behind which comes to the final question: if I play with an experienced endgame group that know all the interactions, already capable of providing +280% average effectiveness today, do I have to invest mln ADs in a new item giving me -for example- +5% debuff?
    Yes, no, in which context?, yes if, no but...

    I would absolutely love an in-game mechanics library. I'm not sure if something like that is even possible, but maybe they can get an intern to write an internal game file parser in Python or something that can auto-generate nerdy detailed documentation. Wishful thinking haha.

    Here's a summary of the proposed changes:

    What is intended in the new system is a +300% (quadruple base damage) cap, and everything should live under this cap.

    Rgutscheradev has been using +% numbers rather than ACT effectiveness % when describing the changes, which is a little different than some forum-dwellers are used to. So know that the +300% above is the same as 400% effectiveness in ACT. Using this +% terminology, the old debuff cap was +100% (200% effectiveness).

    But you'll never reach the new +300% cap, because it's really an asymptote with a steeply diminishing return curve to approach it. Janne posted an interactive link with the curve:

    https://www.desmos.com/calculator/k6dbonvo5y

    Borrowing that equation, I sampled some points so that you can get an idea of how steep the diminishing returns are:

    At +50% additive debuff -> +47.4% diminished actual
    At +100% additive debuff -> +92.5% diminished actual
    At +150% additive debuff ->+129.5% diminished actual
    At +200% additive debuff -> +158.3% diminished actual
    At +250% additive debuff -> +180.4% diminished actual
    At +300% additive debuff -> +197.7% diminished actual
    At +350% additive debuff -> +211.3% diminished actual
    At +400% additive debuff -> +222.3% diminished actual
    At +450% additive debuff -> +231.2% diminished actual
    At +500% additive debuff -> +238.5% diminished actual

    So generally speaking:
    Everything above ~+200% is diminished by more than half (x0.5 effective)
    Everything above ~+300% is diminished by more than two thirds (x0.33 effective).
    Everything above ~+400% is diminished by more than four fifths (x0.2 effective)
    And it continues to become more punitive as you go higher.

    Going back to your originally question. How is it going to change your party that can usually get around 280% ACT effectiveness (+180% using the +% terminology)? After the changes, you'd have to hit +250% additive debuff for it to apply ~+180% diminished actual.

    But remember that now theoretically debuffs will no longer be penalized to 75% effectiveness on mobs 3 lvls above you (lvl 73 mobs in most end-game dungeons). In addition, you now can use a bigger selection of buffs/debuffs to get there, since there is no longer the +100% (200% ACT effectiveness) hard cap for a majority of debuffs.

    So before, to get to 280% effectiveness (+180%) you needed to have 200% capped * 40% uncapped (either through sword trio comps, dancing shield, or maybe WEs).

    Now, to get to 280% effectiveness (+180%) you need to have +250% additive debuffs from any source (or what would have resulted in 350% ACT effectiveness, if not for the 200% cap and cap vs. uncapped multiplicative math).

    I'd speculate that's probably a bit of a nerf to the high-end, and a bit of a boost to the low-end. But it's also hard to say without more real testing with end-game groups (and it's been tough for me to get folks to run FBI / MSP on preview). Might not really get a feel for it until it goes live.

    I'd also speculate that group content will get a bit of a boost, just because it's usually trivial to cap in 10+ content now, and there's a big likelihood for rainbow comps that can apply a broad variety of currently capped debuffs.

    Parties that were running full uncapped compositions will probably see their effectiveness go down unless they reshuffle their debuffs.
  • muckingfuppetmuckingfuppet Member Posts: 207 Arc User
    i just want my feytouched to work fully when i group up with someone else that's using a feytouched, all weapon enchants should stack
  • treesclimbertreesclimber Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,161 Arc User
    @rgutscheradev while trying the effectivness of GF debuffs i found 2 things and one needs to be fixed urgently before it reaches dragon:

    1. The powers Line breaker assault, Terrifying impact and the feat Terrifying menace together with anvil of doom don't activate crushing pin power however they are control powers.

    2. Second thing, i spent feats this way:
    http://nwcalc.com/index.html#/gf?b=1oa5:k6rwk5:8dep:5tb7d,13io505:1000000:1000000:1zu050v&h=0&p=ivn&o=0
    after putting the 5 points into Terrifying menace i slotted trampen the fallen class feature, marked the target and used knee breaker encounter on him, for each tick of knee breaker trampen the fallen ticked about 10 times, so in non crits knee breaker is doing about 3 times more damage than the expected.

  • mamalion1234mamalion1234 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,415 Arc User
    dupeks said:

    rapo973 said:

    I don't have a complete understanding of the proposed change because I don't read the complete description of the model behind which comes to the final question: if I play with an experienced endgame group that know all the interactions, already capable of providing +280% average effectiveness today, do I have to invest mln ADs in a new item giving me -for example- +5% debuff?
    Yes, no, in which context?, yes if, no but...

    I would absolutely love an in-game mechanics library. I'm not sure if something like that is even possible, but maybe they can get an intern to write an internal game file parser in Python or something that can auto-generate nerdy detailed documentation. Wishful thinking haha.

    Here's a summary of the proposed changes:

    What is intended in the new system is a +300% (quadruple base damage) cap, and everything should live under this cap.

    Rgutscheradev has been using +% numbers rather than ACT effectiveness % when describing the changes, which is a little different than some forum-dwellers are used to. So know that the +300% above is the same as 400% effectiveness in ACT. Using this +% terminology, the old debuff cap was +100% (200% effectiveness).

    But you'll never reach the new +300% cap, because it's really an asymptote with a steeply diminishing return curve to approach it. Janne posted an interactive link with the curve:

    https://www.desmos.com/calculator/k6dbonvo5y

    Borrowing that equation, I sampled some points so that you can get an idea of how steep the diminishing returns are:

    At +50% additive debuff -> +47.4% diminished actual
    At +100% additive debuff -> +92.5% diminished actual
    At +150% additive debuff ->+129.5% diminished actual
    At +200% additive debuff -> +158.3% diminished actual
    At +250% additive debuff -> +180.4% diminished actual
    At +300% additive debuff -> +197.7% diminished actual
    At +350% additive debuff -> +211.3% diminished actual
    At +400% additive debuff -> +222.3% diminished actual
    At +450% additive debuff -> +231.2% diminished actual
    At +500% additive debuff -> +238.5% diminished actual

    So generally speaking:
    Everything above ~+200% is diminished by more than half (x0.5 effective)
    Everything above ~+300% is diminished by more than two thirds (x0.33 effective).
    Everything above ~+400% is diminished by more than four fifths (x0.2 effective)
    And it continues to become more punitive as you go higher.

    Going back to your originally question. How is it going to change your party that can usually get around 280% ACT effectiveness (+180% using the +% terminology)? After the changes, you'd have to hit +250% additive debuff for it to apply ~+180% diminished actual.

    But remember that now theoretically debuffs will no longer be penalized to 75% effectiveness on mobs 3 lvls above you (lvl 73 mobs in most end-game dungeons). In addition, you now can use a bigger selection of buffs/debuffs to get there, since there is no longer the +100% (200% ACT effectiveness) hard cap for a majority of debuffs.

    So before, to get to 280% effectiveness (+180%) you needed to have 200% capped * 40% uncapped (either through sword trio comps, dancing shield, or maybe WEs).

    Now, to get to 280% effectiveness (+180%) you need to have +250% additive debuffs from any source (or what would have resulted in 350% ACT effectiveness, if not for the 200% cap and cap vs. uncapped multiplicative math).

    I'd speculate that's probably a bit of a nerf to the high-end, and a bit of a boost to the low-end. But it's also hard to say without more real testing with end-game groups (and it's been tough for me to get folks to run FBI / MSP on preview). Might not really get a feel for it until it goes live.

    I'd also speculate that group content will get a bit of a boost, just because it's usually trivial to cap in 10+ content now, and there's a big likelihood for rainbow comps that can apply a broad variety of currently capped debuffs.

    Parties that were running full uncapped compositions will probably see their effectiveness go down unless they reshuffle their debuffs.
    IS not easy to reach 300% not you will never reach it.
  • dupeksdupeks Member Posts: 1,789 Arc User
    edited June 2017

    IS not easy to reach 300% not you will never reach it.

    To clarify, the intended system would not allow you to reach the +300% cap (400% ACT effectiveness).

    If you have found some way to reach or surpass the cap, you should report it as a bug.

    For a ridiculous example, if you stacked +10,000% debuffs, the new diminishing returns mechanic would reduce that to ~+298.5% diminished actual.

    I think that the confusion might be coming from the way that rgutscheradev has been referring to +% numbers vs. the way many forum theorycrafters have traditionally discussed ACT effectiveness.

    The new cap is at +300% or 400% ACT effectiveness. But realistically, I don't think folks will be getting much above +240% (340% ACT effectiveness) because of how punitive the diminishing returns become past 500% additive (undiminished) debuff. At some point you'd just be better off switching to a damaging power instead.
  • mamalion1234mamalion1234 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,415 Arc User
    https://prnt.sc/fq9agr AND foes will have 8% damage resistance,
    @rgutscheradev it should say -8% damage resistance it debuffs enemies.
  • michela123michela123 Member Posts: 257 Arc User
    While the other debuffs have been updated with last patch, Token of Chromatic Storm is still 75% effective against level 73 enemies.
  • adinosiiadinosii Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,294 Arc User
    edited July 2017
    Regarding ArPen, it has been nice to be able to give a simple answer to new players regarding how much they need.

    For solo content, 50% RI is enough - for group content go for 60% RI if you are a DPSer.

    Simple, right?

    However, this changes a bit with mod 12, So, what do we tell people now? "stick with 50/60% until you reach Chult and then go for 75/85%) ?
    Hoping for improvements...
  • niadanniadan Member Posts: 1,635 Arc User
    edited July 2017
    Yes seems simple. Doesnt matter anyway if you have proper bondings and companion gear you more than likely will be capped even for chult.
  • naoqueroforumnaoqueroforum Member Posts: 225 Arc User
    Someone mentioned the old debuff from hadar's grasp and it brought back some memories. The fact that it was removed on the mod in which Makos died was very symbolic of the "death" of the warlock. Maybe with Makos returning now, that little debuff could come back.
    I worry about this power because of the reason given for its removal by the dev at the time: paraphrasing, "the debuff is pointless because everyone already gets enough armor pen to reach 60% resistance ignored." Was I so clueless at the time to not understand how the debuff worked or was someone on the dev team working to rebalance things without understanding the game mechanics? I'm hoping for the former.

    I know it's not the same dev and this one seems to be more well informed, but one of his posts leaves me a little worried: "Currently, the hardcap is at +200%, for a total of 300% damage, i.e. triple damage. So the new system will let you get (just shy of) quadruple damage (+300%)...".
    Isn't it currently +100% for a total of 200% effectiveness, i.e. double damage? If so, what will be the new value?
  • tcel#8876 tcel Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited July 2017
    My 2 cents, er maybe one cent...

    Having come from the EQ2 game a few years ago and by no means advocating that game mechanics be the same, what comes to mind for me when discussing class balance, buffs, and debuffs is the following.

    IMHO we are in this situation where we feel every class must have the ability to buff/debuff the mob. Classes having these abilities then has the side effect of most desired classes for which ever instance we are going against. One time its 'we want DCs' and the next time its OPs or a combo, etc. This then drives the discussions of nerfing my classes one time and raising it up the next to seek the holy grail of perfect class balance for all classes for all content - just not going to happen. Debuffs are nothing more than additions to buffs. Want to keep it simple, debuffs only affect the character that applying it. Debuffs are just more added to the buff for that character. All this business of highest rank of whatever goes away, calculations become easier, faster and in parallel.

    I know this will upset a lot of people, but...I don't care :smile:
    If you want to simplify it more, get class balance under control and get better party synergy with all classes in demand, remove
    party level buffing/debuffing from all classes except one, scale back the self healing via lifesteal and get healers actually doing what they should be doing which is healing, tanks tanking and DPS causing damage. Give more aggro control to the tanks so they can actually tank and reduce the DPS. If you want debuff, change the healer so it is either a healer or a defiler. If each DPS has their own buffing, then the defiler paragon would do the debuffing. This means debuffing on equipment, WE, etc would need to be defiler class only. DPS buffing items would be DPS classes only, and have aggro control, and DR items to tank classes only. If in a party have the tank have a feat that draws aggro from others. This would foster parties to form.

    There is at least one big issue with this (besides the time and resources for changes...) and I know others will call out more, but this would mean it is harder to solo and generally most solo as new players, most solo to get quests done for getting boons, etc. The added benefit besides what I mentioned above is that People would join guilds in order to get that better party grouping...In EQ2 thats what we had to do, it brought those solo players into the fold, they excelled faster, etc. If you ever go this route, change the raid/multi-party grouping such that the queue leader can move characters between groups so they can be balanced (think tiamat where its mass chaos with characters running all over the place). There appears to be random on how groups are formed and the Q lead just calls out by Q group where to go hoping they do. If the groups could be organised and would need to be based on what I mentioned above, people would need to stay together with their party for healing, etc. Follow this up with more raids like a Prince of Hell, etc. whatever you want for large battles. freeform only goes so far...think FBI with 10, 15, 20 person raids where it scales or even older content (depending on how it was developed..)



    https://discord.gg/YXFTZ4v7vz
    Come join us on our Knights Radiant Info Discord Server!
    There's information on how to join us, our alliance, and helping your guild.

    Order of Knights Radiant - GH 20 - Helm of the Alliance
    Alliance Leader: Tamia@jadeofkatan
  • fogcrowfogcrow Member Posts: 82 Arc User
    dupeks said:

    rapo973 said:

    I don't have a complete understanding of the proposed change because I don't read the complete description of the model behind which comes to the final question: if I play with an experienced endgame group that know all the interactions, already capable of providing +280% average effectiveness today, do I have to invest mln ADs in a new item giving me -for example- +5% debuff?
    Yes, no, in which context?, yes if, no but...

    I would absolutely love an in-game mechanics library. I'm not sure if something like that is even possible, but maybe they can get an intern to write an internal game file parser in Python or something that can auto-generate nerdy detailed documentation. Wishful thinking haha.

    Here's a summary of the proposed changes:

    What is intended in the new system is a +300% (quadruple base damage) cap, and everything should live under this cap.

    Rgutscheradev has been using +% numbers rather than ACT effectiveness % when describing the changes, which is a little different than some forum-dwellers are used to. So know that the +300% above is the same as 400% effectiveness in ACT. Using this +% terminology, the old debuff cap was +100% (200% effectiveness).

    But you'll never reach the new +300% cap, because it's really an asymptote with a steeply diminishing return curve to approach it. Janne posted an interactive link with the curve:

    https://www.desmos.com/calculator/k6dbonvo5y

    Borrowing that equation, I sampled some points so that you can get an idea of how steep the diminishing returns are:

    At +50% additive debuff -> +47.4% diminished actual
    At +100% additive debuff -> +92.5% diminished actual
    At +150% additive debuff ->+129.5% diminished actual
    At +200% additive debuff -> +158.3% diminished actual
    At +250% additive debuff -> +180.4% diminished actual
    At +300% additive debuff -> +197.7% diminished actual
    At +350% additive debuff -> +211.3% diminished actual
    At +400% additive debuff -> +222.3% diminished actual
    At +450% additive debuff -> +231.2% diminished actual
    At +500% additive debuff -> +238.5% diminished actual

    So generally speaking:
    Everything above ~+200% is diminished by more than half (x0.5 effective)
    Everything above ~+300% is diminished by more than two thirds (x0.33 effective).
    Everything above ~+400% is diminished by more than four fifths (x0.2 effective)
    And it continues to become more punitive as you go higher.

    Going back to your originally question. How is it going to change your party that can usually get around 280% ACT effectiveness (+180% using the +% terminology)? After the changes, you'd have to hit +250% additive debuff for it to apply ~+180% diminished actual.

    But remember that now theoretically debuffs will no longer be penalized to 75% effectiveness on mobs 3 lvls above you (lvl 73 mobs in most end-game dungeons). In addition, you now can use a bigger selection of buffs/debuffs to get there, since there is no longer the +100% (200% ACT effectiveness) hard cap for a majority of debuffs.

    So before, to get to 280% effectiveness (+180%) you needed to have 200% capped * 40% uncapped (either through sword trio comps, dancing shield, or maybe WEs).

    Now, to get to 280% effectiveness (+180%) you need to have +250% additive debuffs from any source (or what would have resulted in 350% ACT effectiveness, if not for the 200% cap and cap vs. uncapped multiplicative math).

    I'd speculate that's probably a bit of a nerf to the high-end, and a bit of a boost to the low-end. But it's also hard to say without more real testing with end-game groups (and it's been tough for me to get folks to run FBI / MSP on preview). Might not really get a feel for it until it goes live.

    I'd also speculate that group content will get a bit of a boost, just because it's usually trivial to cap in 10+ content now, and there's a big likelihood for rainbow comps that can apply a broad variety of currently capped debuffs.

    Parties that were running full uncapped compositions will probably see their effectiveness go down unless they reshuffle their debuffs.
    I´d speculate the incoming changes are a notable nerf all across the board. Currently on live, theres a small interval(until we hit the cap) where capped debuffs(assuming the absence of uncapped ones) deliver the numbers they promise(if the tooltip gives a number to begin with xD). With the incoming changes it will always be less, and by a notable amount starting with the first debuff applied, and growing depending on circumstances...not good if we want a system easier to understand. I´d prefer a hardcap at +200% or +250%.

    While the lifiting of the 75% effectivness penalty on lvl 73 mobs is appreciated for claritys sake, player powers already aren´t subjekt to it on live, so it helps only with items low end groups usually don´t use.


  • gabrieldourdengabrieldourden Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,212 Arc User
    tcel#8876 said:

    My 2 cents, er maybe one cent...

    I know this will upset a lot of people, but...I don't care :smile:
    If you want to simplify it more, get class balance under control and get better party synergy with all classes in demand, remove party level buffing/debuffing from all classes except one, scale back the self healing via lifesteal and get healers actually doing what they should be doing which is healing, tanks tanking and DPS causing damage. Give more aggro control to the tanks so they can actually tank and reduce the DPS. If you want debuff, change the healer so it is either a healer or a defiler. If each DPS has their own buffing, then the defiler paragon would do the debuffing. This means debuffing on equipment, WE, etc would need to be defiler class only. DPS buffing items would be DPS classes only, and have aggro control, and DR items to tank classes only. If in a party have the tank have a feat that draws aggro from others. This would foster parties to form.

    I'm 100% with you.
    Le-Shan: HR level 80 (main)
    Born of Black Wind: SW Level 80
  • adinosiiadinosii Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,294 Arc User
    Implementing something like the suggestion in the previous comment would probably cause half of the players to leave in disgust.

    Not going to happen.
    Hoping for improvements...
  • tcel#8876 tcel Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    adinosii said:

    Implementing something like the suggestion in the previous comment would probably cause half of the players to leave in disgust.

    Not going to happen.

    Never expected it would change and you are correct, but what is discussed is and always will be the cat chasing its tail. Just like the diminishing returns as one approaches 300% (I am not even going to comment on why anything should go over 100% other than remembering my football coach yelling at us to give 110%...) so will be diminishing returns on class balance, buffing, debuffing, etc. This is nothing against the devs, it's the way the system first started and expanded since based on requirements, resources and time pressure. Knowing this I am well aware a change like this would be expensive to implement and would cause different issues, and you named one of them, some people would leave. People come and go all the time. Keep in mind one comment that was made which is how unintuitive the system is for new players. I hear players complaining all the time in the forums and people I run with just how tired they are of yesterday their character was BIS and today because of some update for rebalancing is in 3rd place or how they worked hard to get their ME to rank 12 just to find out that it's no longer viable. More and more I see these people give up and leave. People will cry the sky is falling all the time with every change, yes there is going to always be fallout but if in the end which ever system you come up with better not be a continuation of oh we need to rebalance this or adjust that for it sounds like Groundhog Day (the movie).

    EQ2 runs into this from time to time when they introduce a new class. They want it to be played, workout the bugs, etc. so they make it BIS. Everyone jumps on it and they get what they need then the nerf comes for it and it settles in. People bark and complain and some go back to their previous mains while others stay with it; its all part of the cycle. But the point here was there wasn't constant rebalancing across the classes (reminds me of the EQ I had for an old sound system but in this case each channel on the EQ is a class bouncing up and down). They may have did a small tweak here and there is some class power of one negatively or positively impacted another class in some unanticipated way, but that was rare because classes had their specific skills which did not directly impact others.

    Back to normal channel of buffing/debuffing, and giving over 200% - we must have been slackers before.

    Peace Out!

    https://discord.gg/YXFTZ4v7vz
    Come join us on our Knights Radiant Info Discord Server!
    There's information on how to join us, our alliance, and helping your guild.

    Order of Knights Radiant - GH 20 - Helm of the Alliance
    Alliance Leader: Tamia@jadeofkatan
  • muckingfuppetmuckingfuppet Member Posts: 207 Arc User
    > @tcel#8876 said:
    > My 2 cents, er maybe one cent...
    >
    > Having come from the EQ2 game a few years ago and by no means advocating that game mechanics be the same, what comes to mind for me when discussing class balance, buffs, and debuffs is the following.
    >
    > IMHO we are in this situation where we feel every class must have the ability to buff/debuff the mob. Classes having these abilities then has the side effect of most desired classes for which ever instance we are going against. One time its 'we want DCs' and the next time its OPs or a combo, etc. This then drives the discussions of nerfing my classes one time and raising it up the next to seek the holy grail of perfect class balance for all classes for all content - just not going to happen. Debuffs are nothing more than additions to buffs. Want to keep it simple, debuffs only affect the character that applying it. Debuffs are just more added to the buff for that character. All this business of highest rank of whatever goes away, calculations become easier, faster and in parallel.
    >
    > I know this will upset a lot of people, but...I don't care :smile:
    > If you want to simplify it more, get class balance under control and get better party synergy with all classes in demand, remove
    > party level buffing/debuffing from all classes except one, scale back the self healing via lifesteal and get healers actually doing what they should be doing which is healing, tanks tanking and DPS causing damage. Give more aggro control to the tanks so they can actually tank and reduce the DPS. If you want debuff, change the healer so it is either a healer or a defiler. If each DPS has their own buffing, then the defiler paragon would do the debuffing. This means debuffing on equipment, WE, etc would need to be defiler class only. DPS buffing items would be DPS classes only, and have aggro control, and DR items to tank classes only. If in a party have the tank have a feat that draws aggro from others. This would foster parties to form.
    >
    > There is at least one big issue with this (besides the time and resources for changes...) and I know others will call out more, but this would mean it is harder to solo and generally most solo as new players, most solo to get quests done for getting boons, etc. The added benefit besides what I mentioned above is that People would join guilds in order to get that better party grouping...In EQ2 thats what we had to do, it brought those solo players into the fold, they excelled faster, etc. If you ever go this route, change the raid/multi-party grouping such that the queue leader can move characters between groups so they can be balanced (think tiamat where its mass chaos with characters running all over the place). There appears to be random on how groups are formed and the Q lead just calls out by Q group where to go hoping they do. If the groups could be organised and would need to be based on what I mentioned above, people would need to stay together with their party for healing, etc. Follow this up with more raids like a Prince of Hell, etc. whatever you want for large battles. freeform only goes so far...think FBI with 10, 15, 20 person raids where it scales or even older content (depending on how it was developed..)

    agree 100% make healers heal and tanks tank, by all means make them do some damage but it's just stupid at the moment with gf being the top dps in the game and dc not far behind, what's the point in having classes if this is the case
  • darthtzarrdarthtzarr Member Posts: 1,003 Arc User

    I hope buffs are going to be dealt with soon. Debuffs are a problem, but buffs are even worse. We have bosses in the game that last a matter of seconds, this is unrealistic and makes the game boring. An end-game dungeon should feel like end-game. Stats need a rework, we need a new cap increase, and we need the missing dungeons back as actually hard dungeon crawls that require skill instead of just cheese.

    I think you forgot to mention "with rewards at the end"

    Signature [WIP] - tyvm John

  • adinosiiadinosii Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,294 Arc User
    edited July 2017

    I think you forgot to mention "with rewards at the end"

    That's the thing - rewards really have to be appropriate to challenge. Consider mSP for example. It actually has some challenging content (second boss in particular), but the final rewards generally suck. There is a chance of getting a Fartouched Residuum drop, but the chance is small.

    I am sure the devs have some data on how often the various dungeons are run, and I am fairly certain that mSP is run a lot less than FBI or mSVA, for example.

    The new dungeon in Chult seems to have some good rewards, but the drop rate is a big question...we'll see.
    Post edited by adinosii on
    Hoping for improvements...
  • darthtzarrdarthtzarr Member Posts: 1,003 Arc User
    adinosii said:

    I think you forgot to mention "with rewards at the end"

    That's the thing - rewards really have to be appropriate to challenge. Consider mSP for example. It actually has some challenging content (second boss in particular), but the final rewards generally suck. There is a chance of getting a Fartouched Residuum drop, but the chance is small.

    I am sure the devs have some data on how ofhen the various dungeons are run, and I am fairly certain that mSP is run a lot less than FBI or mSVA, for example.

    The new dungeon in Chult seems to have some good rewards, but the drop rate is a big question...we'll see.
    The question is almost always on the minimum rewards. For the new dungeon there will be the great pull for seals for primal gear (if they fix the stats), but after that it really depends if they stick rank 5 enchants in the chest again or not. I would even consider replacing all the rank 5s in the end chests with rank 7s and it would barely be comparable to other dungeons.

    Signature [WIP] - tyvm John

  • dupeksdupeks Member Posts: 1,789 Arc User
    adinosii said:

    I am sure the devs have some data on how ofhen the various dungeons are run, and I am fairly certain that mSP is run a lot less than FBI or mSVA, for example.

    Folks still run it quite a bit, mostly for the residium.

    But that's kind of besides the point. If 9/10 runs end in disappointment for the "toughest" dungeon in the game (or 2nd toughest, whatever) because the loot is far below even what drops in FBI, that's a problem.

    I like MSP, I run it for fun but I'm generally flummoxed at the end because the drops are jawdroppingly disappointing.
  • mamalion1234mamalion1234 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,415 Arc User

    > @tcel#8876 said:

    > My 2 cents, er maybe one cent...

    >

    > Having come from the EQ2 game a few years ago and by no means advocating that game mechanics be the same, what comes to mind for me when discussing class balance, buffs, and debuffs is the following.

    >

    > IMHO we are in this situation where we feel every class must have the ability to buff/debuff the mob. Classes having these abilities then has the side effect of most desired classes for which ever instance we are going against. One time its 'we want DCs' and the next time its OPs or a combo, etc. This then drives the discussions of nerfing my classes one time and raising it up the next to seek the holy grail of perfect class balance for all classes for all content - just not going to happen. Debuffs are nothing more than additions to buffs. Want to keep it simple, debuffs only affect the character that applying it. Debuffs are just more added to the buff for that character. All this business of highest rank of whatever goes away, calculations become easier, faster and in parallel.

    >

    > I know this will upset a lot of people, but...I don't care :smile:

    > If you want to simplify it more, get class balance under control and get better party synergy with all classes in demand, remove

    > party level buffing/debuffing from all classes except one, scale back the self healing via lifesteal and get healers actually doing what they should be doing which is healing, tanks tanking and DPS causing damage. Give more aggro control to the tanks so they can actually tank and reduce the DPS. If you want debuff, change the healer so it is either a healer or a defiler. If each DPS has their own buffing, then the defiler paragon would do the debuffing. This means debuffing on equipment, WE, etc would need to be defiler class only. DPS buffing items would be DPS classes only, and have aggro control, and DR items to tank classes only. If in a party have the tank have a feat that draws aggro from others. This would foster parties to form.

    >

    > There is at least one big issue with this (besides the time and resources for changes...) and I know others will call out more, but this would mean it is harder to solo and generally most solo as new players, most solo to get quests done for getting boons, etc. The added benefit besides what I mentioned above is that People would join guilds in order to get that better party grouping...In EQ2 thats what we had to do, it brought those solo players into the fold, they excelled faster, etc. If you ever go this route, change the raid/multi-party grouping such that the queue leader can move characters between groups so they can be balanced (think tiamat where its mass chaos with characters running all over the place). There appears to be random on how groups are formed and the Q lead just calls out by Q group where to go hoping they do. If the groups could be organised and would need to be based on what I mentioned above, people would need to stay together with their party for healing, etc. Follow this up with more raids like a Prince of Hell, etc. whatever you want for large battles. freeform only goes so far...think FBI with 10, 15, 20 person raids where it scales or even older content (depending on how it was developed..)



    agree 100% make healers heal and tanks tank, by all means make them do some damage but it's just stupid at the moment with gf being the top dps in the game and dc not far behind, what's the point in having classes if this is the case

    debuff only for the debuffer interesting and if i have from debuffing 50%+ increased damage vs a pure dps he will deal 50% lesser damage than me?
  • tcel#8876 tcel Member Posts: 10 Arc User

    > @tcel#8876 said:

    > My 2 cents, er maybe one cent...

    >

    > Having come from the EQ2 game a few years ago and by no means advocating that game mechanics be the same, what comes to mind for me when discussing class balance, buffs, and debuffs is the following.

    >

    > IMHO we are in this situation where we feel every class must have the ability to buff/debuff the mob. Classes having these abilities then has the side effect of most desired classes for which ever instance we are going against. One time its 'we want DCs' and the next time its OPs or a combo, etc. This then drives the discussions of nerfing my classes one time and raising it up the next to seek the holy grail of perfect class balance for all classes for all content - just not going to happen. Debuffs are nothing more than additions to buffs. Want to keep it simple, debuffs only affect the character that applying it. Debuffs are just more added to the buff for that character. All this business of highest rank of whatever goes away, calculations become easier, faster and in parallel.

    >

    > I know this will upset a lot of people, but...I don't care :smile:

    > If you want to simplify it more, get class balance under control and get better party synergy with all classes in demand, remove

    > party level buffing/debuffing from all classes except one, scale back the self healing via lifesteal and get healers actually doing what they should be doing which is healing, tanks tanking and DPS causing damage. Give more aggro control to the tanks so they can actually tank and reduce the DPS. If you want debuff, change the healer so it is either a healer or a defiler. If each DPS has their own buffing, then the defiler paragon would do the debuffing. This means debuffing on equipment, WE, etc would need to be defiler class only. DPS buffing items would be DPS classes only, and have aggro control, and DR items to tank classes only. If in a party have the tank have a feat that draws aggro from others. This would foster parties to form.

    >

    > There is at least one big issue with this (besides the time and resources for changes...) and I know others will call out more, but this would mean it is harder to solo and generally most solo as new players, most solo to get quests done for getting boons, etc. The added benefit besides what I mentioned above is that People would join guilds in order to get that better party grouping...In EQ2 thats what we had to do, it brought those solo players into the fold, they excelled faster, etc. If you ever go this route, change the raid/multi-party grouping such that the queue leader can move characters between groups so they can be balanced (think tiamat where its mass chaos with characters running all over the place). There appears to be random on how groups are formed and the Q lead just calls out by Q group where to go hoping they do. If the groups could be organised and would need to be based on what I mentioned above, people would need to stay together with their party for healing, etc. Follow this up with more raids like a Prince of Hell, etc. whatever you want for large battles. freeform only goes so far...think FBI with 10, 15, 20 person raids where it scales or even older content (depending on how it was developed..)



    agree 100% make healers heal and tanks tank, by all means make them do some damage but it's just stupid at the moment with gf being the top dps in the game and dc not far behind, what's the point in having classes if this is the case

    debuff only for the debuffer interesting and if i have from debuffing 50%+ increased damage vs a pure dps he will deal 50% lesser damage than me?
    No doubt that for PVP there will be issues with this, but here is the general idea. You have two players, one debuffer and one not. Debuffer has less DPS than a DPS class. Debuff class debuffs the DPS player. Debuffing the DPS player is essentially the same buffing my defenses, but anyways. This would be potentially a closer match because the DPS player is doing less dmg and the debuffer player is doing his DPS and both may be on equal ground. I have seen this in other MMO's where a debuffer could go toe to toe with say a tank or DPS bases class. Conversely a healer may be able to last and beat a DPS class. A tank class can stand up and tank against a DPS class because even though the DPS class is putting out a ton of damage, the tank has a lot of damage mitigation... Some of those fights would last a long time. Everyone balances out without all this buff/debuff issues with every class, power, feat, gear, etc., it boils down to skill as a player and who has better gear but still I have seen players with better gear get slapped by another with less gear, just better player or class matchup was not a good one. You no longer have PVPers seeking out the class that is considered the weakest and taking them out. That class may have been BIS yesterday but getting slapped today because an update changed buffs/debuffs, skills and class balancing which didn't balance everything...

    https://discord.gg/YXFTZ4v7vz
    Come join us on our Knights Radiant Info Discord Server!
    There's information on how to join us, our alliance, and helping your guild.

    Order of Knights Radiant - GH 20 - Helm of the Alliance
    Alliance Leader: Tamia@jadeofkatan
  • asterotgasterotg Member Posts: 1,742 Arc User
    Keep in mind, who should play this game. Who will bring the money. Not a bunch of BIS PvE players, but the crowd. New players spending some money, to get a head start or casual players trying to progress.

    If you build dungeons for 1% of the player base, you will exclude 99%. Yes, the number might be to high. I am in a R 20 guild with very steep recruitment rules. Even in our guild I would say, that maybe 5% can be considered BIS geared. Now, compared to the general player base this would result in a much lower number of BIS geared players. How many players have the most efficient build for their class, maybe 10-20%. How many players have the skill, to play at BIS level? How many players have the hardware and the internet connection, to play at peak level? If you want a dungeon, that is a challenge to everyone, you will exclude more then 99% of the players.

    That being said, they can either implement higher tiers for better geared players or let them test their skill, as it is, in speed runs.

    PS. Skill can compensate gear is an invalid argument. It can not, by definition. Some geared players have skill, if you want a difficult dungeon, it should be difficult for skilled players, who are geared. So skill alone should not be enough to succeed.
    Chars: CW, DC, GF, GWF, HR and TR.
  • naoqueroforumnaoqueroforum Member Posts: 225 Arc User
    edited July 2017
    Just came to my mind now. This will effectively be a little nerf to tyrannical curse again, since it counts as a debuff.

    The changes in piercing damage will also nerf murderous flames aoe, it won't be dealing 30% damage anymore as very rarely will the aoe targets be under the effect of the same debuffs as the main target. If you hit the main target at 200% effectiveness and the aoe target is at 100% effectiveness, MF will have half the effect it has in mod 11.

    I didn't finish the whole story line of mod 12, but I'm guesing Makos dies yet again.
Sign In or Register to comment.