test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
REMINDER - 32-bit Windows OS Support will end this Thursday, July 18!

Official M16: General Feedback

1212224262760

Comments

  • dread4moordread4moor Posts: 977Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps. The reason being: it gives them 2 complete "classes", instead of only 1. In order for dps/dps specs to have both paths do something distinct and different, it usually means differentiating between AoE and single target, or the likes. In other words, 1 of the paths fundamentally has a weakness that the other role can fill, thus to play the class properly you are reliant on changing loadouts. In contrast, the dps/support, being good at both in a single loadout means their dps spec is objectively "better" then a dps/dps, which can only dps.

    I think a dps/support should only have an AoE dps or only have a single target dps loadout, it should not be able to do both. This way it is as good as a dps in 1 type of combat, but then falls flat otherwise. This makes its roles equal to that of a dps/dps. That, or it should be able to do both at 80-90% of the effectiveness of a dps/dps, but, by design, they should be imo a worse dps then a pure dps, there is always a tradeoff for having 2 roles.

    What is the point of being a specialist dps if a support with a dps spec can do the same thing as you and do something else.

    An interesting idea. But in that DPS/DPS vs DPS/Support scenario, why would any party in LFG ever want less then DPS/DPS?
    DPS/Support will always be sporadically efficient, unreliable, intermittently useful... right?
    Assuming we can "break roles" in private Q. And speaking of that...

    asterdahl said:

    I mentioned this on the fighter thread, but having given it a bit more thought I'm wondering...

    To clarify, for example a wizard can switch from Arcanist to Thaumaturge or Thaumaturge to Arcanist during a dungeon, but a Cleric cannot swap between Devout and Arbiter in a dungeon? Also, does this apply to random queues only or also premades?

    There needs clarity over whether it is "Role" or "Paragon" that cannot be switched.
    However, I hope that if the no swapping rule applies at all, it applies in both random and premade.

    ETA:
    I can't be the only one who has encountered the GF in a random queue who says something like; "sry nt DPS TNK bld lolz"
    Imagine that situation with four classes.
    Mordy, in fairness to the dev team, I think @asterdahl was pretty clear on that point:
    "asterdahl said:
    To be clear, you'll still be able to change loadouts, but the loadout must match the role you queued as. (Loadouts now clearly have the role marked on them in your loadout list as as well.)"


    Role.
    For better or worse, the devs intend you to change only to the same role.

    Is that good or bad? I dunno yet.
    Will contemplate over second breakfast.
    image
    Confused Took.
    Yeah, I get it.
    It's just that in his reply asterdahl alternated between "Role" and "Paragon" in his explanation.
    I assume as you do that it is by ROLE.

    And I promise I'm not trying to be a HAMSTER about this.

    But... stating something clearly and it meaning exactly what they say hasn't been an entirely reliable assumption so far in this overhaul.
    I also assumed that a "+5% bonus by default" to a given chance was a +5% bonus by default to a given chance, not a 2500 pt bonus to one of the initial stats before the chance is actually figured, and rounded up to zero. Cos while they might sound the same, they are two VERY different things, (some oddly Orwellian use of the term "synonymous" not withstanding.)

    I don't tend to use memes to make a point, but there have often been instances in the roll out of this overhaul where I have felt tempted to post a fairly well known Inigo Montoya meme...

    Hence my request for clarification.
    I guess I extrapolated more meaning from asterdahl's statement then he actually said.

    Suggest that role restrictions only apply to random Q content.
    Private Q should be free to make any composition and change paragon/role inside at campfires without restriction.


    JrUzbQw.jpg?1
    I am Took.
    "Full plate and packing steel" in NW since 2013.
  • nabidi2nabidi2 Posts: 10Member Arc User

    asterdahl said:

    marnival said:



    Many tnx for the answer @asterdahl many /hugs.

    Best

    You're welcome! Alright, let me try to address your original concern and questions about build diversity.

    First of all, yes, we absolutely did simplify build diversity at the base class level. Both by isolating more powers to the paragon paths, and by reducing the number of feat choices.



    Second, we wanted to reduce the number of wrong choices you could make when building your character. When compared with other MMOs where any attempt is made to balance classes, you still have a tremendous amount of freedom when building your character, in the form of boons, companions, mounts, insignias, gems, and equipment. There are opportunities to fail there, but we didn't think it was a great experience to fail before you even leave your character sheet.

    I understand some players enjoy an underdog build. I have seen the argument that players who are in favor of less chances for players to fail; and thus an increase in the effectiveness of the average player in random content, are elitist. I would challenge this notion a bit. A system whereby it is possible to have a build that is superior in orders of magnitude when compared with another is a system which fosters and appeals to true elitism much more. Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time.

    This is the problem many of us are trying to explain. Because you have, as you said, "we absolutely did simplify build diversity" that means that very quickly all players will be playing a pretty much the same cookie cutter build out of the gate. Because there will be a single or sometimes two "best builds" that will get sorted out very quickly because with less choices the process or elimination will sort that out fast. Really fast. The only thing left will be sorting out companions because BiS will be obvious and because there is even less choice with enchants and companion gear now even that will get sorted super fast as well. Less is not more no matter how you try to sell it.

    How is that fun? This is in no way in the spirit of D&D. (And I have been playing since the early 80's/late 70s). D&D has always been about building our characters from scratch and being able to be different (for better or worse) than the next person and having the freedom to build them as varied as possible. If we follow this logic the next step is pre-made characters because, since we might make "the wrong choices" (as you pointed out). So, just don't allow us to pick anything other than gear, companions and enchants because this feels like where it's going.

    I just get this feeling that 2 months or less after mod 16 launch everyone will have the same builds for all classes and we all will just be clones of each other.

    And with cooldowns nerfed so bad most solo content will be reduced to people standing around doing at wills over and over and over waiting around for encounters that may not ever come in time to help them with the mobs and much less bosses they are currently fighting. And in group combat, spamming at wills over and over again, with a clone after clone of the same build everyone else will be playing will put people to sleep. (BTW this will be every single battle in the entire game now because of scaling.)

    Don't get me wrong, I really hope I am wrong about this but just feels like your dumbing things down too much. And let me be clear, I am not complaining about dealing with the power creep or the buff/debuff situation or trying to make roles more meaningful again. Those are all freaking great! I am so on board with that. I really am! I love that there is a new level cap! But when you had a a system like NW where there really was so much choice and variety of how you could build your character and now sort of confine it to fewer (actually much fewer) choices it doesn't feel right. But, I am hoping you prove me wrong. I really am.


    They would be still choices, as narrowed as it is, there would be still choices:



    nothing is being dumbed down, all i see is SMARTING it, so that everyone will be OVERALL better.

    why would anyone try to spin this? removing "bad" choices is the very definition of dumbing down. just because everyone has less chance to fall with training wheels doesn't mean i can have fun riding with them.

    not trying to be negative all the time. just throwing a hail mary, trying to save the only game i love(d) playing. so if nothing else thanks to anyone who's been involved in whats gone live so far.
  • kangkeokkangkeok Posts: 1,052Member Arc User

    An interesting idea. But in that DPS/DPS vs DPS/Support scenario, why would any party in LFG ever want less then DPS/DPS?
    DPS/Support will always be sporadically efficient, unreliable, intermittently useful... right?
    Assuming we can "break roles" in private Q. And speaking of that...


    Looking at mod16 changes, tank and heals are pretty much needed for group survivability.
  • giz#2086 giz Posts: 69Member Arc User

    giz#2086 said:

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps. The reason being: it gives them 2 complete "classes", instead of only 1. In order for dps/dps specs to have both paths do something distinct and different, it usually means differentiating between AoE and single target, or the likes. In other words, 1 of the paths fundamentally has a weakness that the other role can fill, thus to play the class properly you are reliant on changing loadouts. In contrast, the dps/support, being good at both in a single loadout means their dps spec is objectively "better" then a dps/dps, which can only dps.

    I think a dps/support should only have an AoE dps or only have a single target dps loadout, it should not be able to do both. This way it is as good as a dps in 1 type of combat, but then falls flat otherwise. This makes its roles equal to that of a dps/dps. That, or it should be able to do both at 80-90% of the effectiveness of a dps/dps, but, by design, they should be imo a worse dps then a pure dps, there is always a tradeoff for having 2 roles.

    What is the point of being a specialist dps if a support with a dps spec can do the same thing as you and do something else.

    The thing is...people like me who made a Warlock to be a DPS, and now devs changed our role to a healer spec (something that i don't want to be a healer with my warlock and nobody asked us) We want to be an effective DPS class with our DPS path, not a worse DPS because devs wanted to make a healer path for us, i think it's the same with Barbarians, nobody made a Barb to be a tank and worse DPS than a TR, HR, CW. For this reason i'm against our role changes. Like i said in the Warlock feedback: When i made my SW its description said "You want to deal damage" not heal your allies.
    Well lemme put it this way.

    Wizard is DPS (Area)/DPS (Single)

    Warlock will be Healer/DPS (Single) basically.
    Not all Warlocks want to be Healer-Not all Barbarians want to be tank....if we have a DPS path we want to be equally effective as DPS/DPS classes. because it's a ninja nerf for us to be less effective as DPS for our support role, makes no sense for players that chose the class for DPS and now devs changed our role without sense.
  • adinosiiadinosii Posts: 3,814Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps.

    The problem with that idea is that it would make the DPS part of the "hybrid" class utterly pointless in the first place. Why would anyone want to bring one along, instead of a "real" DPS?

    I'm OK with it being more, well, "narrow", but it has to be comparable to the "pure" DPS classes for it to have a reason to exist in the first place.
    Make NWO great again, please....
  • thefabricantthefabricant Posts: 4,685Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    edited March 9
    adinosii said:

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps.

    The problem with that idea is that it would make the DPS part of the "hybrid" class utterly pointless in the first place. Why would anyone want to bring one along, instead of a "real" DPS?

    I'm OK with it being more, well, "narrow", but it has to be comparable to the "pure" DPS classes for it to have a reason to exist in the first place.
    And if it is as good as a pure dps a pure dps has no reason to exist in the first place. Having a tank that can change to a less good dps if needed is more likely to happen then having a pure dps in a group in a world where a tank/dps hybrid can do as much dps then a pure dps. In a world where a pure dps does as much damage as a tank/dps, the pure dps is simply half a class.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Posts: 4,685Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    edited March 9

    adinosii said:

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps.

    The problem with that idea is that it would make the DPS part of the "hybrid" class utterly pointless in the first place. Why would anyone want to bring one along, instead of a "real" DPS?

    I'm OK with it being more, well, "narrow", but it has to be comparable to the "pure" DPS classes for it to have a reason to exist in the first place.
    And if it is as good as a pure dps a pure dps has no reason to exist in the first place. Having a tank that can change to a less good dps if needed is more likely to happen then having a pure dps in a group in a world where a tank/dps hybrid can do as much dps then a pure dps.
    Because playstyle preferences aren't a thing, I guess?

    If you like the way Warlock or Barbarian plays, and don't like the way Rogue plays, for example, I don't think there should be an explicit developer goal to punish you for that preference, and that's exactly what you are asking for.
    Yes, I am. I am a firm believer in choice and consequence. I would also deliberately have bad feats, which add flavor, for those who like such things were I designing a game and there are very successful games that do just this. In fact there was a very long speech given by 1 of the developers at Blizzard about this. But I would not have cut down the feats and powers system anyhow, if it were possible, I would have made it much more complicated. I don't believe in catering to casuals at all. The community can do that itself, through guides that break down complicated systems for them.
  • theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Posts: 1,861Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    giz#2086 said:

    giz#2086 said:

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps. The reason being: it gives them 2 complete "classes", instead of only 1. In order for dps/dps specs to have both paths do something distinct and different, it usually means differentiating between AoE and single target, or the likes. In other words, 1 of the paths fundamentally has a weakness that the other role can fill, thus to play the class properly you are reliant on changing loadouts. In contrast, the dps/support, being good at both in a single loadout means their dps spec is objectively "better" then a dps/dps, which can only dps.

    I think a dps/support should only have an AoE dps or only have a single target dps loadout, it should not be able to do both. This way it is as good as a dps in 1 type of combat, but then falls flat otherwise. This makes its roles equal to that of a dps/dps. That, or it should be able to do both at 80-90% of the effectiveness of a dps/dps, but, by design, they should be imo a worse dps then a pure dps, there is always a tradeoff for having 2 roles.

    What is the point of being a specialist dps if a support with a dps spec can do the same thing as you and do something else.

    The thing is...people like me who made a Warlock to be a DPS, and now devs changed our role to a healer spec (something that i don't want to be a healer with my warlock and nobody asked us) We want to be an effective DPS class with our DPS path, not a worse DPS because devs wanted to make a healer path for us, i think it's the same with Barbarians, nobody made a Barb to be a tank and worse DPS than a TR, HR, CW. For this reason i'm against our role changes. Like i said in the Warlock feedback: When i made my SW its description said "You want to deal damage" not heal your allies.
    Well lemme put it this way.

    Wizard is DPS (Area)/DPS (Single)

    Warlock will be Healer/DPS (Single) basically.
    Not all Warlocks want to be Healer-Not all Barbarians want to be tank....if we have a DPS path we want to be equally effective as DPS/DPS classes. because it's a ninja nerf for us to be less effective as DPS for our support role, makes no sense for players that chose the class for DPS and now devs changed our role without sense.
    No one-well, okay, I'm not-saying that you should be unable to DPS. But in the way a DPS/DPS class is a more *versatile* DPS character, because they can do DPS in different ways, you won't have that versatility. But your DPS path itself will be as good as the versatile DPS' individual path.
  • skuallpwskuallpw Posts: 35Member Arc User
    edited March 10
    all dps should be equal (GL with that tho) , and all the DPS paths should be usefull on AOE / single target , period

    it was a huge issue on other mmorpgs , a spec was good on single and meh on aoe , while hybrids had good single and aoe because it was the only dps spec.

    the only thing DPS/DPS have going in for it is that if they nerf a path u can go and play the other one.

  • fenrir4lifefenrir4life Posts: 295Member Arc User

    adinosii said:

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps.

    The problem with that idea is that it would make the DPS part of the "hybrid" class utterly pointless in the first place. Why would anyone want to bring one along, instead of a "real" DPS?

    I'm OK with it being more, well, "narrow", but it has to be comparable to the "pure" DPS classes for it to have a reason to exist in the first place.
    And if it is as good as a pure dps a pure dps has no reason to exist in the first place. Having a tank that can change to a less good dps if needed is more likely to happen then having a pure dps in a group in a world where a tank/dps hybrid can do as much dps then a pure dps.
    Because playstyle preferences aren't a thing, I guess?

    If you like the way Warlock or Barbarian plays, and don't like the way Rogue plays, for example, I don't think there should be an explicit developer goal to punish you for that preference, and that's exactly what you are asking for.
    Yes, I am. I am a firm believer in choice and consequence. I would also deliberately have bad feats, which add flavor, for those who like such things were I designing a game and there are very successful games that do just this. In fact there was a very long speech given by 1 of the developers at Blizzard about this. But I would not have cut down the feats and powers system anyhow, if it were possible, I would have made it much more complicated. I don't believe in catering to casuals at all. The community can do that itself, through guides that break down complicated systems for them.
    You want trap feats.

    In a game where you spend real money to respec.

    I think we're done, here. This isn't a matter of communication; the things we want out of the game are incompatible.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Posts: 4,685Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    edited March 10




    You want trap feats.

    In a game where you spend real money to respec.

    I think we're done, here. This isn't a matter of communication; the things we want out of the game are incompatible.

    I want a game where you must think about choices and there is a consequence for failure. Thinking is a skill too, not just how fast you can react to X animation. In fact I would argue not only is it a far more important skill, it is a far rarer skill. I don't get why games these days believe the only criteria they should judge people on is how fast they can react to something. Failure to make a correct choice of feats, powers and gear is failure on the "thinking" side of things.

    And as far as respecs costing money, they get handed out like candy at multiple events year round. My main character has over 3000 and my alts have over 200 each, respeccing costs nothing.
  • nebel#3551 nebel Posts: 1Member Arc User
    You just argued about playstyle preferences in the previous post and now you call subpar feats trap feats? I dont really get it
  • theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Posts: 1,861Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User




    You want trap feats.

    In a game where you spend real money to respec.

    I think we're done, here. This isn't a matter of communication; the things we want out of the game are incompatible.

    I want a game where you must think about choices and there is a consequence for failure. Thinking is a skill too, not just how fast you can react to X animation. In fact I would argue not only is it a far more important skill, it is a far rarer skill. I don't get why games these days believe the only criteria they should judge people on is how fast they can react to something. Failure to make a correct choice of feats, powers and gear is failure on the "thinking" side of things.

    And as far as respecs costing money, they get handed out like candy at multiple events year round. My main character has over 3000 and my alts have over 200 each, respeccing costs nothing.
    I mean, that's elitist thinking. Which is fine, just own it. I don't mind trap options in my games, but I think people complaining about their removal are missing the point.

    I will also say that the movement away from trap options is very much a D&D thing, as that was one of 5E's big ideological points, but I don't know if someone at WotC was like "Hey, you license our product you should do X" or someone had a bugaboo at Cryptic and was like "you know what's really working for 5th Edition D&D which is most certainly not an MMO? Removing trap options."

    You can make the case that what goes into making a good tabletop RPG is different from what makes a good MMO, and while trap options are bad in a TTRPG, they're good in an MMO. I'm not even saying you're wrong!

    But, like I said: if you're going to literally go with elitist thinking, best to just own it and say "yeah, I'm an elitist gatekeeper that wants some people to make dumb decisions because they either don't care or just aren't smart enough."
  • theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Posts: 1,861Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User

    You just argued about playstyle preferences in the previous post and now you call subpar feats trap feats? I dont really get it

    There's no contradiction if the person thinks trap feats are a good thing.
  • bpstuartbpstuart Posts: 140Member Arc User
    bug, new lightning iron golem explodes in AOE upon death, dodged away from the indicated radius from it but still had the stun effect applied and repeatedly reapplied for nearly a minute after creature had died.
    Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam
    I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
  • fenrir4lifefenrir4life Posts: 295Member Arc User




    You want trap feats.

    In a game where you spend real money to respec.

    I think we're done, here. This isn't a matter of communication; the things we want out of the game are incompatible.

    I want a game where you must think about choices and there is a consequence for failure. Thinking is a skill too, not just how fast you can react to X animation. In fact I would argue not only is it a far more important skill, it is a far rarer skill. I don't get why games these days believe the only criteria they should judge people on is how fast they can react to something. Failure to make a correct choice of feats, powers and gear is failure on the "thinking" side of things.

    And as far as respecs costing money, they get handed out like candy at multiple events year round. My main character has over 3000 and my alts have over 200 each, respeccing costs nothing.
    I mean, that's elitist thinking. Which is fine, just own it. I don't mind trap options in my games, but I think people complaining about their removal are missing the point.

    I will also say that the movement away from trap options is very much a D&D thing, as that was one of 5E's big ideological points, but I don't know if someone at WotC was like "Hey, you license our product you should do X" or someone had a bugaboo at Cryptic and was like "you know what's really working for 5th Edition D&D which is most certainly not an MMO? Removing trap options."

    You can make the case that what goes into making a good tabletop RPG is different from what makes a good MMO, and while trap options are bad in a TTRPG, they're good in an MMO. I'm not even saying you're wrong!

    But, like I said: if you're going to literally go with elitist thinking, best to just own it and say "yeah, I'm an elitist gatekeeper that wants some people to make dumb decisions because they either don't care or just aren't smart enough."
    I don't think there is any situation in which removing trap options is a good thing. I think it stems from a modern (incorrect) belief that it isn't ok for people to fail. It is something schools these days do wrong as well, they focus more on making sure that students get a specific mark, then that they actually learn the material and the whole point of the education goes flying out of the window. If someone's feelings got hurt because they failed at something it says more about them as a person then anything else, since it is perfectly fine to fail at something, you just need to try again.

    By the same token, games should not dumb themselves down just to avoid, "making someone upset because they failed to think things through properly." Communities are built up because people need things from other people. If games are so simple that nobody needs anything from anything else, then a community is unlikely to form. MMOs are intrinsically a community based game, they are marketed on the, "multiplayer" aspect, which implies there is an existing community. The great thing about communities is, there is always someone else you can get help from to do the thing you're not good at. If a game is complicated, then people can go ask the person who understands the system for help. This creates the foundation of a community, which helps with player retention. If everyone can do everything on their own, there is no need to form such communities and thus the foundation collapses.

    This is (imo) the fundamental issue with dumbing down online games, it removes reason for these communities to form in the name of not, "hurting people's feelings" and the net result is the communities crumble because they no longer have any reason to exist.

    It's not about dumbing it down. It's about good game design.

    When we talk about removing trap feats, we're not talking about "Oh these two choices have synergy and these two don't."

    We're talking about 3.0's Dirty Fighting. We're talking about Pathfinder's Prone Shooter. We're talking about abilities that, due to the order of under-tho-hood operations, just don't do as much as they're described to do. Stuff like that. We're talking about having three different stat choices for a given goal (offense or defense, let's say) that are presented as equal, but where one of those choices is materially better in a way that you need to have deeply researched to understand, or where one is useless but still presented as an equal option.

    We're talking about not having options that are just straight up bad. This can be done in two ways: pruning the bad options, or fixing them to be worthwhile. Most games iteration processes will feature a combination of those approaches, and that's fine.
  • mithrosnomoremithrosnomore Posts: 577Member Arc User



    And if it is as good as a pure dps a pure dps has no reason to exist in the first place. Having a tank that can change to a less good dps if needed is more likely to happen then having a pure dps in a group in a world where a tank/dps hybrid can do as much dps then a pure dps. In a world where a pure dps does as much damage as a tank/dps, the pure dps is simply half a class.

    But they can't.
    We already know that a character can not change roles in a group. If your Barbarian tank fails as a tank they can't just switch over to DPS while your DPSer switches over to tank.

    So what will happen is that people will kick the tank for being bad (and the reasons could be many... Bad day, inexperienced, poorly geared, whatever), leave the dungeon, and look for a new tank to try again.

    At most there will be cases where a dual-role character might already be in the party and then someone else comes along and they decide to switch out to the other role to help get things underway faster... A Warlock in the group as a DPSer, for example, might agree to switch to healer in order to let someone else in as a DPSer and get the show on the road.

    But I wouldn't expect them to be in too big a hurry to do so if they weren't at least familiar with the healing role.
    After all, now they are on the spot and it is they that would be kicked if the healing goes poorly.
  • dread4moordread4moor Posts: 977Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    kangkeok said:

    An interesting idea. But in that DPS/DPS vs DPS/Support scenario, why would any party in LFG ever want less then DPS/DPS?
    DPS/Support will always be sporadically efficient, unreliable, intermittently useful... right?
    Assuming we can "break roles" in private Q. And speaking of that...


    Looking at mod16 changes, tank and heals are pretty much needed for group survivability.
    Still an unemployment problem for DPS/Support.

    Again, talking about private Q/premade which [crossing fingers] should allow unlimited composition and role/paragon changes.

    Meta would then be Tanky DPS (Dreadnaught actually tanks better then Vanguard and does decent DPS), SW (haven't played on preview but reportedly heals as well as Devout Cleric and brings DPS)...
    and 3 DPS/DPS.
    All other DPS/Support would be far inferior in those 3 slots.
    JrUzbQw.jpg?1
    I am Took.
    "Full plate and packing steel" in NW since 2013.
  • theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Posts: 1,861Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    mcfob said:

    For me, a huge part of the game I enjoy is the building of a toon with a ton of feats and powers and boons and abilities to choose from and test and try out and respec. I do not like games where you get a premade character. However, I would be ok with people who don't like building toons having the option to just take a premade toon. Why not just offer that rather than get rid of all the options for those of us who do enjoy puzzling over builds?

    It really sounds like you wanna play a tabletop RPG. Have you considered playing oldschool tabletop RPGs?
  • kangkeokkangkeok Posts: 1,052Member Arc User

    kangkeok said:

    An interesting idea. But in that DPS/DPS vs DPS/Support scenario, why would any party in LFG ever want less then DPS/DPS?
    DPS/Support will always be sporadically efficient, unreliable, intermittently useful... right?
    Assuming we can "break roles" in private Q. And speaking of that...


    Looking at mod16 changes, tank and heals are pretty much needed for group survivability.
    Still an unemployment problem for DPS/Support.

    Again, talking about private Q/premade which [crossing fingers] should allow unlimited composition and role/paragon changes.

    Meta would then be Tanky DPS (Dreadnaught actually tanks better then Vanguard and does decent DPS), SW (haven't played on preview but reportedly heals as well as Devout Cleric and brings DPS)...
    and 3 DPS/DPS.
    All other DPS/Support would be far inferior in those 3 slots.
    In my opinion, minor discrepancy are forgivable as long as gear level could out weight it. Although if u want to really curb the unemployment between class and build, the community need to learn more acceptance towards each other flaw. The best fun is always to share the fun. No matter how hard the developer try to balance the class out and get everyone into the game, as long as the community keeps nitpicking over a slightest difference, its gonna be a tiring journey for everybody.
  • vorphiedvorphied Posts: 1,743Member Arc User
    mcfob said:

    For me, a huge part of the game I enjoy is the building of a toon with a ton of feats and powers and boons and abilities to choose from and test and try out and respec. I do not like games where you get a premade character. However, I would be ok with people who don't like building toons having the option to just take a premade toon. Why not just offer that rather than get rid of all the options for those of us who do enjoy puzzling over builds?

    Again, the biggest problem is that there is very minimal "puzzling over" builds without successfully increasing the complexity of the game design in a meaningful way.

    It would be ideal to have a number of interesting and potentially high-performing (or at least superior in a desired niche) builds for each class, but considering that Cryptic's resources aren't infinite, what we have dealt with for years is a system that is, at its core, not significantly more diverse than what is now presented in M16; it just presented the illusion of complexity by having a large number icons to click, many of which had no measurable impact on gameplay. While I might miss a tiny handful of those options for one reason or another, I'm pretty sure that part of what bogs down Cryptic's ability to respond to various bugs and issues affecting gameplay is the ridiculous number of feats and how they interact with various powers and with each other.

    Once you realize how ineffectual most of the pre-M16 feats are, you don't feel quite so bad about the smaller plate of options. The fun of experimentation only lasts until you've actually tried a few of the available options and note that only a few feat paths actually do much of anything to change how you play, much less in a way that is more fun and/or effective.

    Sacrilege - Warlock
    Contagion - Cleric
    Testament - Wizard
    Pestilence - Ranger
    Dominion - Paladin

    NIGHTSWATCH
    The Forgotten Company Alliance
  • kangkeokkangkeok Posts: 1,052Member Arc User
    Cosmetic bug. Unable to use Wrapped bronze knife as HR offhand cosmetic transmutation. In live server too.
  • svtorres1975#8635 svtorres1975 Posts: 1Member Arc User
    My il 17.6k+ TR went through Castle Never last night and found that they had made many improvements over the day before the patch. The only problem we had as a group was the area Charging the Death Sphere before Orcus which was incredibly difficult. The death Sphere Charge built up 3 times as could only kill a couple the zombies headed for the center. I am sure this is a bug. I see there are many problems with the item level scaling that need addressed to make it viable.
  • pteriaspterias Posts: 661Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User

    Quick question.

    (My very old PC has had a hissy fit. Something about getting too hot... might be best if I pay attention this time...)

    Could someone do me a huge favour and have a look on preview and let me know what the new Mount Bonuses are on the Barovia Mounts; "Swarm" and "Mistform"?
    I'm struggling to find compiled data on the overhaul, (People seem to prefer to create annoying Youtube videos about the End of The World...) which is a pain in the HAMSTER when I can't get on... (Yes... YES... I know... I could have done some myself when I HAD access, but I'm a dumbass OK...)

    Thanks in advance.

    I have them equipped, but don't have the raw items directly and can't find them in collections. It looks like the Life Steal Severity bonuses in my mount bonus list have been converted to Critical Resistance though. The main Life Steal stat on other items also looks like it's been converted to Crit Resist.

    Everywhere I've looked, it looks like LS/LSS has turned into Crit Resist, and Recovery has turned into Accuracy.
  • dread4moordread4moor Posts: 977Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    > @theycallmetomu said:
    > For me, a huge part of the game I enjoy is the building of a toon with a ton of feats and powers and boons and abilities to choose from and test and try out and respec. I do not like games where you get a premade character. However, I would be ok with people who don't like building toons having the option to just take a premade toon. Why not just offer that rather than get rid of all the options for those of us who do enjoy puzzling over builds?
    >
    > It really sounds like you wanna play a tabletop RPG. Have you considered playing oldschool tabletop RPGs?

    I get Mcfob's point.
    NW was marketed as customizable action MMORPG.
    Losing that customization is pretty dramatic change for some.
    JrUzbQw.jpg?1
    I am Took.
    "Full plate and packing steel" in NW since 2013.
  • fenrir4lifefenrir4life Posts: 295Member Arc User

    So, I hopped back on live for a bit to level a character I'd basically abandoned years ago... and I gotta say, the flow of combat feels a lot better on live; at-wills make up a significant portion of your damage, and you can use them to clear flocks of chaff (imps, redcaps, quicklings, cultists, whatever), saving your Encounters for the bigger guys.

    That feels... right. I never felt like I was waiting for something to come off cooldown, and I was able to be more strategic with my encounters because I hadn't gotten so fed up just waiting for them that I felt like I had to use them right away, like any delay in using them was basically wasted time.

    This was on a GF, for reference. Weapon Master's Strike and Crushing Surge, and they felt like an actual part of a fighting style, rather than just something to click while waiting to do real damage.
  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Posts: 3,199Member Arc User

    adinosii said:

    I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps.

    The problem with that idea is that it would make the DPS part of the "hybrid" class utterly pointless in the first place. Why would anyone want to bring one along, instead of a "real" DPS?

    I'm OK with it being more, well, "narrow", but it has to be comparable to the "pure" DPS classes for it to have a reason to exist in the first place.
    And if it is as good as a pure dps a pure dps has no reason to exist in the first place. Having a tank that can change to a less good dps if needed is more likely to happen then having a pure dps in a group in a world where a tank/dps hybrid can do as much dps then a pure dps. In a world where a pure dps does as much damage as a tank/dps, the pure dps is simply half a class.
    I'd like to see them just give the pure dps classes better options on load outs. why should we be ok with having to have a aoe and a single target load out. make every paragon have a decent option to do both on one load out. with a couple different playstyles.

    to those who now have healer or tank in their class.. really it is an advantage. there are times you are going to have a better chance of getting into a dungeon with your second role than you would as a dps. tanks and healers are probably going to be in real short supply. meaning you'll get in to any run you want quickly whereas the pure dps classes are going to be begging unless they're the best of the best. (and even then) at least that's how my memory has it of what it looked like before the support class meta was in full swing.
    xbox guild

    Main toons
    Tiberius Rex SW Combat hr 17.4k
    Rincewind CW 18k


    PC imaginary friends special events only

Sign In or Register to comment.