I run a pretty close to bis dps geared conq spec gf (4k ilvl) and i top or come close to the top of most edemo runs.
The GF dps you see in that video and others is from the broken interaction of ITF and DC buffs. Not only that but due to the GF always having ITF and the DC buffs allows its other encounters along with the burst of AoD to maximise the dps time on the mobs (which in most 3k+ runs lasts 1 rotation), (i have seen this interaction along with non augment companions and r12 bondings can spike my power over 100k which when used with AoD will cause those 11mil crits). A GWF using IBS can make more dps if it is in group and is smart and stays in range of the GF/DC buff.
A second point is that in that video in particular you have a dps GF being buffed by a DC and a 2nd GF so it is not having to waste an encounter slot on ITF itself, further inflating its dps up, and is not something you would normally see unless you ran a double GF party.
Once ITF is balanced, and the broken DC powers fixed the GF will not be at the top of those dps charts regardless of any other changes that happen to the class.
A smarter approach would have been to fix this issue first then looked into balancing the class tbh.
However on those runs or any other 3.5k+ groups I run, I will be consistently out dps'd by a GWF of 3.5k+ or higher, as long as they know how to play and take advantage of the ITF and DC buff. on anything other than single target such as during CN etc any of the other DPS classes of equivalent Ilvl will beat my dps. I think you need to be sure your anecdotal evidence is comparing oranges to oranges.
Ultimately, a conq spec dps geared GF is a bad tank.. But Yes at 3.5k+ it can tank everything in the game adequately save orcus without having to slot in some non dps orientated class features. The fact that the pve balance in this game is poor and that runs can be done with a 3k+ ilvl group regardless of healer or tank is a different and more complex issue.
A GF specced and geared like a striker class is equivalent to a striker class, and should be treated as such IMHO, in fact i would like to see more sustained/aoe dps in the conq tree at the expense of defensive capability to further accentuate and differentiate that path (changing the capstone reckless attacker to be dependent linearly on the stamina bar eg full stamina = full bonus damage somewhat like a gwf could be cool).
@metalldjt I say thank you for the additional context. That is even more interesting than before.
What I think about it in general is the following:
From a game system perspective, they need to institute severe diminishing returns on every stat and put flat, small stacking bonuses on every ability for EVERY class to try to normalize things and get the outliers under control.
From a business perspective that will never happen because they have made the game into one supported by whales and "hard core" players who have invested large amounts of money and time into taking advantage on an inherently broken system. And if they make the whales and hard core players too angry the game will collapse economically. So what will happen is after this particular game of whack-a-mole is finished, a new one will open up on the remaining classes with the same arguments taking place there just as they have in the past for GWFs, CWs, TRs, HRs and...probably very soon given the proposed changes....SWs.
@metalldjt I say thank you for the additional context. That is even more interesting than before.
What I think about it in general is the following:
From a game system perspective, they need to institute severe diminishing returns on every stat and put flat, small stacking bonuses on every ability for EVERY class to try to normalize things and get the outliers under control.
From a business perspective that will never happen because they have made the game into one supported by whales and "hard core" players who have invested large amounts of money and time into taking advantage on an inherently broken system. And if they make the whales and hard core players too angry the game will collapse economically. So what will happen is after this particular game of whack-a-mole is finished, a new one will open up on the remaining classes with the same arguments taking place there just as they have in the past for GWFs, CWs, TRs, HRs and...probably very soon given the proposed changes....SWs.
I run a pretty close to bis dps geared conq spec gf (4k ilvl) and i top or come close to the top of most edemo runs.
The GF dps you see in that video and others is from the broken interaction of ITF and DC buffs. Not only that but due to the GF always having ITF and the DC buffs allows its other encounters along with the burst of AoD to maximise the dps time on the mobs (which in most 3k+ runs lasts 1 rotation), (i have seen this interaction along with non augment companions and r12 bondings can spike my power over 100k which when used with AoD will cause those 11mil crits). A GWF using IBS can make more dps if it is in group and is smart and stays in range of the GF/DC buff.
A second point is that in that video in particular you have a dps GF being buffed by a DC and a 2nd GF so it is not having to waste an encounter slot on ITF itself, further inflating its dps up, and is not something you would normally see unless you ran a double GF party.
Once ITF is balanced, and the broken DC powers fixed the GF will not be at the top of those dps charts regardless of any other changes that happen to the class.
A smarter approach would have been to fix this issue first then looked into balancing the class tbh.
However on those runs or any other 3.5k+ groups I run, I will be consistently out dps'd by a GWF of 3.5k+ or higher, as long as they know how to play and take advantage of the ITF and DC buff. on anything other than single target such as during CN etc any of the other DPS classes of equivalent Ilvl will beat my dps. I think you need to be sure your anecdotal evidence is comparing oranges to oranges.
Ultimately, a conq spec dps geared GF is a bad tank.. But Yes at 3.5k+ it can tank everything in the game adequately save orcus without having to slot in some non dps orientated class features. The fact that the pve balance in this game is poor and that runs can be done with a 3k+ ilvl group regardless of healer or tank is a different and more complex issue.
A GF specced and geared like a striker class is equivalent to a striker class, and should be treated as such IMHO, in fact i would like to see more sustained/aoe dps in the conq tree at the expense of defensive capability to further accentuate and differentiate that path (changing the capstone reckless attacker to be dependent linearly on the stamina bar eg full stamina = full bonus damage somewhat like a gwf could be cool).
Bug [Not sure, but would be nice if @amenar can explain this better to us]: Commander's Strike proccing only once.
From your description, it sounds like it is working as intended. The tooltip states (italics for emphasis):
"For the next 5 seconds, the next Encounter attack each ally makes against a Marked foe deals bonus damage."
This means each member of your team has 5 seconds to use an Encounter power on any Marked target, and if they do, that next Encounter power deals bonus damage. Their "charge" of Commander's Strike is used up, and further Encounter powers will behave like normal until Commander's Strike is used again.
On other topics - thanks again for all of the feedback everyone. There are some great ideas in here, many which align with our plans, but not all of those plans will be enacted this module. We have longer term plans to help with some of the larger disparities between specs (both Paragon Path, and Feat tree), but they're bigger than what will go into this module. While I can certainly understand that fixing everything right now would be preferable, the reality is that changes are going to be somewhat incremental.
For this module, the intent is to move things in the right direction, not arrive at "all better now."
Bug [Not sure, but would be nice if @amenar can explain this better to us]: Commander's Strike proccing only once.
From your description, it sounds like it is working as intended. The tooltip states (italics for emphasis):
"For the next 5 seconds, the next Encounter attack each ally makes against a Marked foe deals bonus damage."
This means each member of your team has 5 seconds to use an Encounter power on any Marked target, and if they do, that next Encounter power deals bonus damage. Their "charge" of Commander's Strike is used up, and further Encounter powers will behave like normal until Commander's Strike is used again.
On other topics - thanks again for all of the feedback everyone. There are some great ideas in here, many which align with our plans, but not all of those plans will be enacted this module. We have longer term plans to help with some of the larger disparities between specs (both Paragon Path, and Feat tree), but they're bigger than what will go into this module. While I can certainly understand that fixing everything right now would be preferable, the reality is that changes are going to be somewhat incremental.
For this module, the intent is to move things in the right direction, not arrive at "all better now."
Appreciate the feedback. However, @amenar Isn't the focus on this whole moduale in "class balance terms" meant to be about the GF, SW, and HR? Like is this whole mod going to be about moving things around and changing and or buffing the classes?
but here is where you are wrong, the GF should never be a striker, and shouldn't be allowed to do that, his role is of a Defender/Controller so just let him focus only on those 2 roles and leave Striker/Leader to other classes, if you are tired to play a class as it should be, roll another one, but for me it looks like a whim that community asks for GF to deal damage, to have group buffs etc. This needs to stop.
If the game actually rewarded you for being a "defender/controller" that would be fine. But it doesn't. This is why Control Wizards by and large go for damage and/or buffs despite being called a "Controller/Striker" class (in supposed order of priority).
Face it, the majority of the content (all the zone dailies for instance) in this game is geared towards DPS classes. It is, quite simply, not rewarding to play a tank or a healer unless you have a dedicated group you run with and they most certainly don't need you unless they are doing the hard content (read not the dailies)...and sometimes not even then. And then, when the group is done, the DPS classes all get to go off and farm whatever at a high rate of efficiency while the healers and tanks get to....what? Switch to alts? Grind it out at half the pace? Screw that.
So, before "fixing" the GF such that it fits whatever the ultimate vision of the game is supposed to be and letting them suffer until it is fixed...which will be never....there is nothing wrong with them having a reasonable (if not exceptional) DPS tree.
TL;DR Fix the game so it rewards the style of play you want the GFs (and other non-dps classes) to have first then move the GFs (and other non-dps classes) to that style, not the other way around.
0
lantern22Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,111Arc User
If the game actually rewarded you for being a "defender/controller" that would be fine. But it doesn't.
and tanks get to....what? Switch to alts? Grind it out at half the pace? **** that
+1 to this
Agreed here, being a true tank (Protector) is really not needed. When we add the fact that doing any solo play with no DPS GF is a pain in the rear it makes the game no fun - no fun = no thank you!
Let's keep the personal stuff to a minimum, thanks.
Post edited by kreatyve on
Nancy - Dragonborn, SM Guardian Fighter A proud member of "mythical horde of DPS GFs"
1). Is SW more dps or tank based? 2). Yes. I am panzer! 3). Get ACT if you want to celebrate your epeen. 4). Horniness will not stand between me and what I believe - "MM"
What i dont get at all from the GF lobby is a simple thing: Why they have a hard time to admit that the class is overperforming and that, for sake of the balance, a class exceeding multiple roles at once as GF class is right now is a BAD THING at all??
Since you've already used the word.
Each class has a lobby, no player want's it class to be nerfed to being useless. GF is OP at the moment mostly due to broken ITF and it's interactions with DC (mostly). This will be capped in mod 10 and rightly so. KC's damage will be reduced against players, right? (not that I care, but if I recall it was mentioned in the notes).
There is much more than a simple "this class is bad" buffs/debuffs all of these layed one on another creates huge imbalance. I do hope we will not see more of few sec's kills of the bosses in next mod.
Nancy - Dragonborn, SM Guardian Fighter A proud member of "mythical horde of DPS GFs"
1). Is SW more dps or tank based? 2). Yes. I am panzer! 3). Get ACT if you want to celebrate your epeen. 4). Horniness will not stand between me and what I believe - "MM"
Yeah, imo, the main issue w/ GFs atm is a more general issue w/ the game's buff/debuff system. Overall, its a bad idea to give any kit the ability to have +50-100% dmg buffs for a large portion of combat time. Those sort of boosts, if ever implemented to that magnitude, should be suited to really short durations on really long cds (which arguably don't really exist in NW's combat as is- save maybe artifact or mount stuff). Not really the GF player's fault for this, so they shouldn't really take any offense- just however first designed all these ridiculous stack-able bonuses didn't really have much foresight at all.
There needs to be a system to class balance, and I have seen some of this in the patch notes, but it should be comprehensive and all inclusive. In other words you cannot just fix the balance of power X or feat Y in a vacuum; you have to look at all similar feats/powers throughout the game.
How it should be done: Go through class by class, power and feat by power and feat and ask the following questions: For Classes, Paragon Paths, and Feat Specs the questions are: What is this Class/Spec’s role in the game? (Striker/Tank/Controller/Leader (Buff, Debuff, Healing)) Does this Class/Spec have a secondary role? Can this Class/Spec viably perform their primary and secondary roles in the game compared to the other Classes/Specs with similar roles? Is this Class/Spec being commonly used? What needs to change for this Class/Spec to be viable in its role? And for each question there is also an inherent Why/Why Not question attached. Goal: Every Class, Paragon Path, and Feat Spec should be able to perform its primary and secondary roles and/or bring some useful utility to group. Equally geared/skilled players should be able perform their assigned role on a competitive footing with other Classes/Specs in the same role. Adding a secondary role should not eliminate the ability to be competitive at their primary role.
This then leads to similar questions for Specific Powers and Feats: Is this power/feat being used? Does this power/feat help the character perform their role or provide useful utility to the character and/or party? How does this power/feat compare to other powers and feats options available to this class? How does this power/feat compare to other powers and feats options available to other classes? How can we change either the ability or the environment to make this option viable? And for each question there is also an inherent Why/Why Not question attached. Goal: There should be NO bad choices, every power, feat, or spec should useful in some way and comparable to other power & feat options within the class and comparable to similar powers and feat options of other classes WITHIN THEIR ROLE.
Example: Guardian Fighter Conqueror: Primary Role: Striker; Secondary Role: Tank: Is a Conqueror GF competitive with similar gear/skill level damage dealers? Can a Conqueror GF act as a tank if necessary (probably by changing power that lower damage unless he out gears the content)?
Protector: Primary Role: Tank; Second Role: Striker Does a Protector GF have the tools necessary to maintain aggro and mitigate group damage and otherwise enable his group to survive content? Does a Protector GF contribute a reasonable amount of damage while performing his Tank role?
Tactician: Primary Role: Leader (Buffer); Secondary Role: Tank Does a Tactician GF provide (Buffs, Debuffs, or Healing) on par with similar gear/skill level Leader Classes? Can a Tactician GF act as a tank if necessary?
There needs to be a system to class balance, and I have seen some of this in the patch notes, but it should be comprehensive and all inclusive. In other words you cannot just fix the balance of power X or feat Y in a vacuum; you have to look at all similar feats/powers throughout the game.
How it should be done: Go through class by class, power and feat by power and feat and ask the following questions: For Classes, Paragon Paths, and Feat Specs the questions are: What is this Class/Spec’s role in the game? (Striker/Tank/Controller/Leader (Buff, Debuff, Healing)) Does this Class/Spec have a secondary role? Can this Class/Spec viably perform their primary and secondary roles in the game compared to the other Classes/Specs with similar roles? Is this Class/Spec being commonly used? What needs to change for this Class/Spec to be viable in its role? And for each question there is also an inherent Why/Why Not question attached. Goal: Every Class, Paragon Path, and Feat Spec should be able to perform its primary and secondary roles and/or bring some useful utility to group. Equally geared/skilled players should be able perform their assigned role on a competitive footing with other Classes/Specs in the same role. Adding a secondary role should not eliminate the ability to be competitive at their primary role.
This then leads to similar questions for Specific Powers and Feats: Is this power/feat being used? Does this power/feat help the character perform their role or provide useful utility to the character and/or party? How does this power/feat compare to other powers and feats options available to this class? How does this power/feat compare to other powers and feats options available to other classes? How can we change either the ability or the environment to make this option viable? And for each question there is also an inherent Why/Why Not question attached. Goal: There should be NO bad choices, every power, feat, or spec should useful in some way and comparable to other power & feat options within the class and comparable to similar powers and feat options of other classes WITHIN THEIR ROLE.
Example: Guardian Fighter Conqueror: Primary Role: Striker; Secondary Role: Tank: Is a Conqueror GF competitive with similar gear/skill level damage dealers? Can a Conqueror GF act as a tank if necessary (probably by changing power that lower damage unless he out gears the content)?
Protector: Primary Role: Tank; Second Role: Striker Does a Protector GF have the tools necessary to maintain aggro and mitigate group damage and otherwise enable his group to survive content? Does a Protector GF contribute a reasonable amount of damage while performing his Tank role?
Tactician: Primary Role: Leader (Buffer); Secondary Role: Tank Does a Tactician GF provide (Buffs, Debuffs, or Healing) on par with similar gear/skill level Leader Classes? Can a Tactician GF act as a tank if necessary?
GF = defender/controller that´s what cryptic tells us
GWF = striker/(defender) <-- not since long
The reality shows that GF is in deed a defender/Controller and also has best abilies as striker and leader (ITF)...but that is not intended following that page, so either they balance some stuf or change that page into
GF =Defender/Controller/Striker/Leader and GWF = Striker
Controller: Controllers influence fights by controlling either the field of battle or targets directly. Their role is to ensure threats are minimized or handled efficiently.
Defender: Defenders take a lot of damage, mark targets and protect the rest of the party. If enemies they target try to attack another member of the party the defender will attack to stun, damage or taunt enemies to protect their companions.
Leader Leaders are healers, buffers and debuffers. Their powers support the party's success either by healing damage taken, preventing damage from being taken or increasing the damage enemies take.
Striker Strikers specialize in mobility and damage output. These combatants focus on disposing threats as quickly as possible by doing as much damage as they can, as quickly as they can, without enemies retaliating.
Example: Guardian Fighter Conqueror: Primary Role: Striker; Secondary Role: Tank: Is a Conqueror GF competitive with similar gear/skill level damage dealers? Can a Conqueror GF act as a tank if necessary (probably by changing power that lower damage unless he out gears the content)?
Protector: Primary Role: Tank; Second Role: Striker Does a Protector GF have the tools necessary to maintain aggro and mitigate group damage and otherwise enable his group to survive content? Does a Protector GF contribute a reasonable amount of damage while performing his Tank role?
Tactician: Primary Role: Leader (Buffer); Secondary Role: Tank Does a Tactician GF provide (Buffs, Debuffs, or Healing) on par with similar gear/skill level Leader Classes? Can a Tactician GF act as a tank if necessary?
GF = defender/controller that´s what cryptic tells us
GWF = striker/(defender) <-- not since long
The reality shows that GF is in deed a defender/Controller and also has best abilies as striker and leader (ITF)...but that is not intended following that page, so either they balance some stuf or change that page into
GF =Defender/Controller/Striker/Leader and GWF = Striker
Controller: Controllers influence fights by controlling either the field of battle or targets directly. Their role is to ensure threats are minimized or handled efficiently.
Defender: Defenders take a lot of damage, mark targets and protect the rest of the party. If enemies they target try to attack another member of the party the defender will attack to stun, damage or taunt enemies to protect their companions.
Leader Leaders are healers, buffers and debuffers. Their powers support the party's success either by healing damage taken, preventing damage from being taken or increasing the damage enemies take.
Striker Strikers specialize in mobility and damage output. These combatants focus on disposing threats as quickly as possible by doing as much damage as they can, as quickly as they can, without enemies retaliating.</p>
These are entirely the types of discussion that these questions are supposed to give rise to (First I should use Defender instead of Tank to remain consistent):
The page you quote is a starting point, the different feat trees are designed to take the classes off in different directions to perform different roles. So you can Spec into more Damage (Striker) or more Buff (Leader) with the Conq and Tac feat trees. Control is not very evident in any meaningful way in PVE for a GF.
Conq GF is stronger than the primary striker classes (SW/HR/CW/TR), not sure about GWF, and at the same time has the survivabilty of a full tank. Some players find that game-breaking. The best way to deal with it is buff the other strikers and increase GWF survivability. Also, increase Paladin Damage.
I am on XBox and so don't have any of the the parsing tools available to me but from the discussion on these boards those that can crunch the numbers seem to be saying that the nerf to ITF has already reduced Conq GF damage to below other strikers because of how well that damage scaled with the current version of ITF.
I agree with the increase Paladin Damage, and they do need to figure out how to allow a Sentinel GWF to actually tank...
Conq GF is stronger than the primary striker classes (SW/HR/CW/TR), not sure about GWF, and at the same time has the survivabilty of a full tank. Some players find that game-breaking. The best way to deal with it is buff the other strikers and increase GWF survivability. Also, increase Paladin Damage.
I am on XBox and so don't have any of the the parsing tools available to me but from the discussion on these boards those that can crunch the numbers seem to be saying that the nerf to ITF has already reduced Conq GF damage to below other strikers because of how well that damage scaled with the current version of ITF.
I agree with the increase Paladin Damage, and they do need to figure out how to allow a Sentinel GWF to actually tank...
Hi, just my 2 cents:
If the Op get a damage buff, or the gwf get the tools to be a true tank (in sentinel path, probably), don't you think that they will be in the same position gf has right now? And, obviously, they will get nerfed later due to the same issue that a lot of player are pointing out atm in this thread? Let Op be a tank, and gf too. Let gwf be a striker. Then, if we get some content that require tanking, healing, dps'ing and some strategy, we all will enjoy the game.
I'm super curious about new tier dungeon, just to say...
Example: Guardian Fighter Conqueror: Primary Role: Striker; Secondary Role: Tank: Is a Conqueror GF competitive with similar gear/skill level damage dealers? Can a Conqueror GF act as a tank if necessary (probably by changing power that lower damage unless he out gears the content)?
Protector: Primary Role: Tank; Second Role: Striker Does a Protector GF have the tools necessary to maintain aggro and mitigate group damage and otherwise enable his group to survive content? Does a Protector GF contribute a reasonable amount of damage while performing his Tank role?
Tactician: Primary Role: Leader (Buffer); Secondary Role: Tank Does a Tactician GF provide (Buffs, Debuffs, or Healing) on par with similar gear/skill level Leader Classes? Can a Tactician GF act as a tank if necessary?
GF = defender/controller that´s what cryptic tells us
GWF = striker/(defender) <-- not since long
The reality shows that GF is in deed a defender/Controller and also has best abilies as striker and leader (ITF)...but that is not intended following that page, so either they balance some stuf or change that page into
GF =Defender/Controller/Striker/Leader and GWF = Striker
Controller: Controllers influence fights by controlling either the field of battle or targets directly. Their role is to ensure threats are minimized or handled efficiently.
Defender: Defenders take a lot of damage, mark targets and protect the rest of the party. If enemies they target try to attack another member of the party the defender will attack to stun, damage or taunt enemies to protect their companions.
Leader Leaders are healers, buffers and debuffers. Their powers support the party's success either by healing damage taken, preventing damage from being taken or increasing the damage enemies take.
Striker Strikers specialize in mobility and damage output. These combatants focus on disposing threats as quickly as possible by doing as much damage as they can, as quickly as they can, without enemies retaliating.</p>
These are entirely the types of discussion that these questions are supposed to give rise to (First I should use Defender instead of Tank to remain consistent):
The page you quote is a starting point, the different feat trees are designed to take the classes off in different directions to perform different roles. So you can Spec into more Damage (Striker) or more Buff (Leader) with the Conq and Tac feat trees. Control is not very evident in any meaningful way in PVE for a GF.
Tbh , I don´t mind if a GF can be a striker in PVE. 99% of dungeonruns I meet tank-GF´s, because that´s what is asked for , I run a 3k+ protector myself, never saw much overperforming GF´s in PVE till now. But the problem being a striker and a tank in one person, having massive buffs on top, disbalances PVP to an intolerable degree. So you can say fak for PVP and just delete it, if that´s your statement it´s okay. We talk about balance because a game can´t survive or be enjoyable if there is one class that fullfills all roles in one, much better than dedicated classes in terms of leader/buffer -> ITF, or striker, outdamaging original striker classes, and at same time being the best tank ingame. Every mmo´ler with a small sense of understanding and maybe a little bit of "overall view" may get to the point, that classroles are a big factor in the end, otherwies we can play this game having one class, able to switch between the four roles by respecc...but that would be boring imo.
0
checkmatein3Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 525Arc User
What i dont get at all from the GF lobby is a simple thing: Why they have a hard time to admit that the class is overperforming and that, for sake of the balance, a class exceeding multiple roles at once as GF class is right now is a BAD THING at all??
I will try to answer this:
The nervousness in the GF community is not from the fact that the GF will be moved into a tank role, or that it will no longer be a top dps. The issue is whether the GF, if nerfed in buffing and dps, will have a roll in parties that desire speed of finishing so that the game's grinding design is accomplished.
It is not a direct comparison to pull the GF tank from pre-mod 6 (or even pre-mod 4) to now. When the rewards for completing dungeons were greater, and where the number of daily quests was much less than now, having a long dungeon experience was not always looked down upon. Players did not have to grind out the amount of dailies as they do now. But, helping the GF with the daily grind (and the DC and OP) is the ability to do dps sufficiently. A tank build is 100% unnecessary for solo questing. And, a tank build (aggro and debuffing mob dmg) will not speed up a dungeon run. So, to the party that knows it can do fast runs, by adding in another dpser OR by adding, as is argued here for the GF 'a tank,' and the difference is not finishing the dungeon, but finishing it in half the time, which class will be taken and which will be left out?
It may be hard for the dps class to understand what it was like to be left out of dungeon groups, but GFs know FROM EXPERIENCE what this is like. That is why GFs are vocal about being very careful about taking away buffs and dps. It evens the field between choosing a tank who buffs/debuffs/provides adequate dps versus a full dpser, and which will make dungeon run times comparable. Sure, nerf the ability of the GF to outperform a dps class, but, the problem the GF community also has is that Cryptic does not have a history of making 'class-balancing' choices that actually target the issue and restore order to the classes. Again, from the history of class balance, you can understand how tenuous it is to trust this process. You mistake a desire to be 'top dps class' with the desire 'to not be excluded.'
Ask yourself this question: If you could take a tank build that only aggroed and debuffed the damage of the mobs, or take a dps class that could kill the mobs quickly and not need a tank, which one will you prefer in your party?
The issue is that of 'need a tank.' The dps classes are complaining the GF needs to be a tank and only a tank, and why would a GF player, who chose a tank class, not want it to be a tank? Because, no content at present 'needs a tank.' None. GFs have become useful to parties through its ability to party buff damage, and then, through power creep and broken interactions, to out dps the striker classes.
The proposed solution, by dps classes, is to take away both its ability to buff and its dps and make it a tank only. But, that MIGHT put the GF on the sideline with no role in a game that does not need a tank. For me, as I posted elsewhere, my ONLY concern is this...being forced into the role of tank and then finding no role in the game.
1. The proposed changes to ITF seem to keep the role of the GF as an adequate party buff, equivalent to selecting a full dpser. (I personally would love about 10% more, but oh well). 2. The unzipping of the GWF and GF lines means that the dps nerfs to encounters (frontline surge) that were specific to GF first are getting buffed again. 3. The nerfing of class powers that were specific to the GWF (steel defense) at first and now shared with the GF show a push to have the GF go back to 'sword-and-board' style play. 4. The fixing of the DC's powers to infinitely buff is paramount to damage balance in parties. 5. The fixing of steel blitz's secret % increase is paramount to reducing damage the GF did in large groups (like tiamat and edemo) and make it outperform dps striker classes.
On top of all this is the demand for reduction of burst damage in PvP: 1) Change of Anvil of Doom from huge burst damage to DoT. 2) Fix of Bull Charge's bonus damage from 20% to 10%. 3) Changing Knight Challenge.
Do these changes keep the GF viable in parties? Unknown... The only way we will know is when the changes go live with the new content, and we see what happens with party formation.
For the dpser, there is no risk. You will always be needed in a party, even with power creep. For the GF, there is only risk in a game where the role that you are demanding we take is unneeded.
What i dont get at all from the GF lobby is a simple thing: Why they have a hard time to admit that the class is overperforming and that, for sake of the balance, a class exceeding multiple roles at once as GF class is right now is a BAD THING at all??
I will try to answer this:
The nervousness in the GF community is not from the fact that the GF will be moved into a tank role, or that it will no longer be a top dps. The issue is whether the GF, if nerfed in buffing and dps, will have a roll in parties that desire speed of finishing so that the game's grinding design is accomplished.
It is not a direct comparison to pull the GF tank from pre-mod 6 (or even pre-mod 4) to now. When the rewards for completing dungeons were greater, and where the number of daily quests was much less than now, having a long dungeon experience was not always looked down upon. Players did not have to grind out the amount of dailies as they do now. But, helping the GF with the daily grind (and the DC and OP) is the ability to do dps sufficiently. A tank build is 100% unnecessary for solo questing. And, a tank build (aggro and debuffing mob dmg) will not speed up a dungeon run. So, to the party that knows it can do fast runs, by adding in another dpser OR by adding, as is argued here for the GF 'a tank,' and the difference is not finishing the dungeon, but finishing it in half the time, which class will be taken and which will be left out?
It may be hard for the dps class to understand what it was like to be left out of dungeon groups, but GFs know FROM EXPERIENCE what this is like. That is why GFs are vocal about being very careful about taking away buffs and dps. It evens the field between choosing a tank who buffs/debuffs/provides adequate dps versus a full dpser, and which will make dungeon run times comparable. Sure, nerf the ability of the GF to outperform a dps class, but, the problem the GF community also has is that Cryptic does not have a history of making 'class-balancing' choices that actually target the issue and restore order to the classes. Again, from the history of class balance, you can understand how tenuous it is to trust this process. You mistake a desire to be 'top dps class' with the desire 'to not be excluded.'
Ask yourself this question: If you could take a tank build that only aggroed and debuffed the damage of the mobs, or take a dps class that could kill the mobs quickly and not need a tank, which one will you prefer in your party?
The issue is that of 'need a tank.' The dps classes are complaining the GF needs to be a tank and only a tank, and why would a GF player, who chose a tank class, not want it to be a tank? Because, no content at present 'needs a tank.' None. GFs have become useful to parties through its ability to party buff damage, and then, through power creep and broken interactions, to out dps the striker classes.
The proposed solution, by dps classes, is to take away both its ability to buff and its dps and make it a tank only. But, that MIGHT put the GF on the sideline with no role in a game that does not need a tank. For me, as I posted elsewhere, my ONLY concern is this...being forced into the role of tank and then finding no role in the game.
1. The proposed changes to ITF seem to keep the role of the GF as an adequate party buff, equivalent to selecting a full dpser. (I personally would love about 10% more, but oh well). 2. The unzipping of the GWF and GF lines means that the dps nerfs to encounters (frontline surge) that were specific to GF first are getting buffed again. 3. The nerfing of class powers that were specific to the GWF (steel defense) at first and now shared with the GF show a push to have the GF go back to 'sword-and-board' style play. 4. The fixing of the DC's powers to infinitely buff is paramount to damage balance in parties. 5. The fixing of steel blitz's secret % increase is paramount to reducing damage the GF did in large groups (like tiamat and edemo) and make it outperform dps striker classes.
On top of all this is the demand for reduction of burst damage in PvP: 1) Change of Anvil of Doom from huge burst damage to DoT. 2) Fix of Bull Charge's bonus damage from 20% to 10%. 3) Changing Knight Challenge.
Do these changes keep the GF viable in parties? Unknown... The only way we will know is when the changes go live with the new content, and we see what happens with party formation.
For the dpser, there is no risk. You will always be needed in a party, even with power creep. For the GF, there is only risk in a game where the role that you are demanding we take is unneeded.
Thanks for reading!
How long do you have to wait ot get an invite to a party for a CN run with your GF in PE atm? How long do you have to wait to get an invite to a party for a CN run with your TR/Hunter in PE atm?
Despite the fact , that GF is so powerfull there seems to be a big deficit ingame. I will predict, this will not get worse for any tank in mod 10. No , you will be haunted even more, since some player will decide to switch to supporter or striker, that´s what allways happens when a fotm class get´s nerfed. Atm you have to wait 10 times longer in PE to get an invite to a party being a striker, and as far as I read mod 10 is in need of tanks, especially with high HP due to the new unmitigatable frostburn/damage So my tank will chat in PE and be even more picky, knowing these guys have to peform or go home
Conq GF is stronger than the primary striker classes (SW/HR/CW/TR), not sure about GWF, and at the same time has the survivabilty of a full tank. Some players find that game-breaking. The best way to deal with it is buff the other strikers and increase GWF survivability. Also, increase Paladin Damage.
I am on XBox and so don't have any of the the parsing tools available to me but from the discussion on these boards those that can crunch the numbers seem to be saying that the nerf to ITF has already reduced Conq GF damage to below other strikers because of how well that damage scaled with the current version of ITF.
I agree with the increase Paladin Damage, and they do need to figure out how to allow a Sentinel GWF to actually tank...
Hi, just my 2 cents:
If the Op get a damage buff, or the gwf get the tools to be a true tank (in sentinel path, probably), don't you think that they will be in the same position gf has right now? And, obviously, they will get nerfed later due to the same issue that a lot of player are pointing out atm in this thread? Let Op be a tank, and gf too. Let gwf be a striker. Then, if we get some content that require tanking, healing, dps'ing and some strategy, we all will enjoy the game.
I'm super curious about new tier dungeon, just to say...
What i dont get at all from the GF lobby is a simple thing: Why they have a hard time to admit that the class is overperforming and that, for sake of the balance, a class exceeding multiple roles at once as GF class is right now is a BAD THING at all??
I will try to answer this:
The nervousness in the GF community is not from the fact that the GF will be moved into a tank role, or that it will no longer be a top dps. The issue is whether the GF, if nerfed in buffing and dps, will have a roll in parties that desire speed of finishing so that the game's grinding design is accomplished.
It is not a direct comparison to pull the GF tank from pre-mod 6 (or even pre-mod 4) to now. When the rewards for completing dungeons were greater, and where the number of daily quests was much less than now, having a long dungeon experience was not always looked down upon. Players did not have to grind out the amount of dailies as they do now. But, helping the GF with the daily grind (and the DC and OP) is the ability to do dps sufficiently. A tank build is 100% unnecessary for solo questing. And, a tank build (aggro and debuffing mob dmg) will not speed up a dungeon run. So, to the party that knows it can do fast runs, by adding in another dpser OR by adding, as is argued here for the GF 'a tank,' and the difference is not finishing the dungeon, but finishing it in half the time, which class will be taken and which will be left out?
It may be hard for the dps class to understand what it was like to be left out of dungeon groups, but GFs know FROM EXPERIENCE what this is like. That is why GFs are vocal about being very careful about taking away buffs and dps. It evens the field between choosing a tank who buffs/debuffs/provides adequate dps versus a full dpser, and which will make dungeon run times comparable. Sure, nerf the ability of the GF to outperform a dps class, but, the problem the GF community also has is that Cryptic does not have a history of making 'class-balancing' choices that actually target the issue and restore order to the classes. Again, from the history of class balance, you can understand how tenuous it is to trust this process. You mistake a desire to be 'top dps class' with the desire 'to not be excluded.'
Ask yourself this question: If you could take a tank build that only aggroed and debuffed the damage of the mobs, or take a dps class that could kill the mobs quickly and not need a tank, which one will you prefer in your party?
The issue is that of 'need a tank.' The dps classes are complaining the GF needs to be a tank and only a tank, and why would a GF player, who chose a tank class, not want it to be a tank? Because, no content at present 'needs a tank.' None. GFs have become useful to parties through its ability to party buff damage, and then, through power creep and broken interactions, to out dps the striker classes.
The proposed solution, by dps classes, is to take away both its ability to buff and its dps and make it a tank only. But, that MIGHT put the GF on the sideline with no role in a game that does not need a tank. For me, as I posted elsewhere, my ONLY concern is this...being forced into the role of tank and then finding no role in the game.
1. The proposed changes to ITF seem to keep the role of the GF as an adequate party buff, equivalent to selecting a full dpser. (I personally would love about 10% more, but oh well). 2. The unzipping of the GWF and GF lines means that the dps nerfs to encounters (frontline surge) that were specific to GF first are getting buffed again. 3. The nerfing of class powers that were specific to the GWF (steel defense) at first and now shared with the GF show a push to have the GF go back to 'sword-and-board' style play. 4. The fixing of the DC's powers to infinitely buff is paramount to damage balance in parties. 5. The fixing of steel blitz's secret % increase is paramount to reducing damage the GF did in large groups (like tiamat and edemo) and make it outperform dps striker classes.
On top of all this is the demand for reduction of burst damage in PvP: 1) Change of Anvil of Doom from huge burst damage to DoT. 2) Fix of Bull Charge's bonus damage from 20% to 10%. 3) Changing Knight Challenge.
Do these changes keep the GF viable in parties? Unknown... The only way we will know is when the changes go live with the new content, and we see what happens with party formation.
For the dpser, there is no risk. You will always be needed in a party, even with power creep. For the GF, there is only risk in a game where the role that you are demanding we take is unneeded.
Thanks for reading!
+ 1000 this. You really got it.
And i ask directly to dps players who are reading this thread: will you like to have a tank in your party?. Just a tank, but not a buffer and not a dps'r. A tank who just pull enemy on him for you to kill.
EDIT: We should stop talking about these things on a "official feedback change" thread. This debate has nothing to do with "balance" at all. So, please, open a new post on Players corner and im pretty sure that we can leave this thread to its original mission: be a "official thread" where we talk about "feedback" and the bugs we'll fing.
Actually, this thread isn't supposed to be all about "balance" at all. From the original post:
"We’d like you all to focus on playing the class in various content and giving us feedback. There are many changes that are meant to work together as a whole, so we'd appreciate feedback after playing with the changes, more than just reactions to the patch notes themselves."
So it is totally fair game to discuss how the changes will affect the GF in all modes of the game including dailies, dungeons, skirmishes and general leveling. Hell, it is even okay to discuss how it "feels" regardless of the actual numbers.
Comments
I run a pretty close to bis dps geared conq spec gf (4k ilvl) and i top or come close to the top of most edemo runs.
The GF dps you see in that video and others is from the broken interaction of ITF and DC buffs. Not only that but due to the GF always having ITF and the DC buffs allows its other encounters along with the burst of AoD to maximise the dps time on the mobs (which in most 3k+ runs lasts 1 rotation), (i have seen this interaction along with non augment companions and r12 bondings can spike my power over 100k which when used with AoD will cause those 11mil crits). A GWF using IBS can make more dps if it is in group and is smart and stays in range of the GF/DC buff.
A second point is that in that video in particular you have a dps GF being buffed by a DC and a 2nd GF so it is not having to waste an encounter slot on ITF itself, further inflating its dps up, and is not something you would normally see unless you ran a double GF party.
Once ITF is balanced, and the broken DC powers fixed the GF will not be at the top of those dps charts regardless of any other changes that happen to the class.
A smarter approach would have been to fix this issue first then looked into balancing the class tbh.
However on those runs or any other 3.5k+ groups I run, I will be consistently out dps'd by a GWF of 3.5k+ or higher, as long as they know how to play and take advantage of the ITF and DC buff. on anything other than single target such as during CN etc any of the other DPS classes of equivalent Ilvl will beat my dps. I think you need to be sure your anecdotal evidence is comparing oranges to oranges.
Ultimately, a conq spec dps geared GF is a bad tank.. But Yes at 3.5k+ it can tank everything in the game adequately save orcus without having to slot in some non dps orientated class features. The fact that the pve balance in this game is poor and that runs can be done with a 3k+ ilvl group regardless of healer or tank is a different and more complex issue.
A GF specced and geared like a striker class is equivalent to a striker class, and should be treated as such IMHO, in fact i would like to see more sustained/aoe dps in the conq tree at the expense of defensive capability to further accentuate and differentiate that path (changing the capstone reckless attacker to be dependent linearly on the stamina bar eg full stamina = full bonus damage somewhat like a gwf could be cool).
What I think about it in general is the following:
From a game system perspective, they need to institute severe diminishing returns on every stat and put flat, small stacking bonuses on every ability for EVERY class to try to normalize things and get the outliers under control.
From a business perspective that will never happen because they have made the game into one supported by whales and "hard core" players who have invested large amounts of money and time into taking advantage on an inherently broken system. And if they make the whales and hard core players too angry the game will collapse economically. So what will happen is after this particular game of whack-a-mole is finished, a new one will open up on the remaining classes with the same arguments taking place there just as they have in the past for GWFs, CWs, TRs, HRs and...probably very soon given the proposed changes....SWs.
"For the next 5 seconds, the next Encounter attack each ally makes against a Marked foe deals bonus damage."
This means each member of your team has 5 seconds to use an Encounter power on any Marked target, and if they do, that next Encounter power deals bonus damage. Their "charge" of Commander's Strike is used up, and further Encounter powers will behave like normal until Commander's Strike is used again.
On other topics - thanks again for all of the feedback everyone. There are some great ideas in here, many which align with our plans, but not all of those plans will be enacted this module. We have longer term plans to help with some of the larger disparities between specs (both Paragon Path, and Feat tree), but they're bigger than what will go into this module. While I can certainly understand that fixing everything right now would be preferable, the reality is that changes are going to be somewhat incremental.
For this module, the intent is to move things in the right direction, not arrive at "all better now."
Guardian Fighter
TLO
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1221446/the-future-of-the-gf/p1 Existing Problems Still In The Guardian Fighter
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/comment/12984912m
Feat Changes I'd like to see in The Guardian Fighter
Face it, the majority of the content (all the zone dailies for instance) in this game is geared towards DPS classes. It is, quite simply, not rewarding to play a tank or a healer unless you have a dedicated group you run with and they most certainly don't need you unless they are doing the hard content (read not the dailies)...and sometimes not even then. And then, when the group is done, the DPS classes all get to go off and farm whatever at a high rate of efficiency while the healers and tanks get to....what? Switch to alts? Grind it out at half the pace? Screw that.
So, before "fixing" the GF such that it fits whatever the ultimate vision of the game is supposed to be and letting them suffer until it is fixed...which will be never....there is nothing wrong with them having a reasonable (if not exceptional) DPS tree.
TL;DR Fix the game so it rewards the style of play you want the GFs (and other non-dps classes) to have first then move the GFs (and other non-dps classes) to that style, not the other way around.
Let's keep the personal stuff to a minimum, thanks.
A proud member of "mythical horde of DPS GFs"
1). Is SW more dps or tank based?
2). Yes. I am panzer!
3). Get ACT if you want to celebrate your epeen.
4). Horniness will not stand between me and what I believe - "MM"
Each class has a lobby, no player want's it class to be nerfed to being useless. GF is OP at the moment mostly due to broken ITF and it's interactions with DC (mostly).
This will be capped in mod 10 and rightly so. KC's damage will be reduced against players, right? (not that I care, but if I recall it was mentioned in the notes).
There is much more than a simple "this class is bad" buffs/debuffs all of these layed one on another creates huge imbalance.
I do hope we will not see more of few sec's kills of the bosses in next mod.
A proud member of "mythical horde of DPS GFs"
1). Is SW more dps or tank based?
2). Yes. I am panzer!
3). Get ACT if you want to celebrate your epeen.
4). Horniness will not stand between me and what I believe - "MM"
<CO docs> .: Petco :. // Base DPS Sheet (needs revision) // PSA on Power Activation Delay
- Themed Tanks // Misc Build Dump // Ayonachan's Gift Horse (stat data)
- Be safe and have fun, champs - for science!
How it should be done:
Go through class by class, power and feat by power and feat and ask the following questions:
For Classes, Paragon Paths, and Feat Specs the questions are:
What is this Class/Spec’s role in the game? (Striker/Tank/Controller/Leader (Buff, Debuff, Healing))
Does this Class/Spec have a secondary role?
Can this Class/Spec viably perform their primary and secondary roles in the game compared to the other Classes/Specs with similar roles?
Is this Class/Spec being commonly used?
What needs to change for this Class/Spec to be viable in its role?
And for each question there is also an inherent Why/Why Not question attached.
Goal: Every Class, Paragon Path, and Feat Spec should be able to perform its primary and secondary roles and/or bring some useful utility to group. Equally geared/skilled players should be able perform their assigned role on a competitive footing with other Classes/Specs in the same role. Adding a secondary role should not eliminate the ability to be competitive at their primary role.
This then leads to similar questions for Specific Powers and Feats:
Is this power/feat being used?
Does this power/feat help the character perform their role or provide useful utility to the character and/or party?
How does this power/feat compare to other powers and feats options available to this class?
How does this power/feat compare to other powers and feats options available to other classes?
How can we change either the ability or the environment to make this option viable?
And for each question there is also an inherent Why/Why Not question attached.
Goal: There should be NO bad choices, every power, feat, or spec should useful in some way and comparable to other power & feat options within the class and comparable to similar powers and feat options of other classes WITHIN THEIR ROLE.
Example:
Guardian Fighter
Conqueror: Primary Role: Striker; Secondary Role: Tank:
Is a Conqueror GF competitive with similar gear/skill level damage dealers?
Can a Conqueror GF act as a tank if necessary (probably by changing power that lower damage unless he out gears the content)?
Protector: Primary Role: Tank; Second Role: Striker
Does a Protector GF have the tools necessary to maintain aggro and mitigate group damage and otherwise enable his group to survive content?
Does a Protector GF contribute a reasonable amount of damage while performing his Tank role?
Tactician: Primary Role: Leader (Buffer); Secondary Role: Tank
Does a Tactician GF provide (Buffs, Debuffs, or Healing) on par with similar gear/skill level Leader Classes?
Can a Tactician GF act as a tank if necessary?
http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Class
GF = defender/controller that´s what cryptic tells us
GWF = striker/(defender) <-- not since long
The reality shows that GF is in deed a defender/Controller and also has best abilies as striker and leader (ITF)...but that is not intended following that page, so either they balance some stuf or change that page into
GF =Defender/Controller/Striker/Leader
and
GWF = Striker
Controller:
Controllers influence fights by controlling either the field of battle or targets directly. Their role is to ensure threats are minimized or handled efficiently.
Defender:
Defenders take a lot of damage, mark targets and protect the rest of the party. If enemies they target try to attack another member of the party the defender will attack to stun, damage or taunt enemies to protect their companions.
Leader
Leaders are healers, buffers and debuffers. Their powers support the party's success either by healing damage taken, preventing damage from being taken or increasing the damage enemies take.
Striker
Strikers specialize in mobility and damage output. These combatants focus on disposing threats as quickly as possible by doing as much damage as they can, as quickly as they can, without enemies retaliating.
The page you quote is a starting point, the different feat trees are designed to take the classes off in different directions to perform different roles. So you can Spec into more Damage (Striker) or more Buff (Leader) with the Conq and Tac feat trees. Control is not very evident in any meaningful way in PVE for a GF.
I agree with the increase Paladin Damage, and they do need to figure out how to allow a Sentinel GWF to actually tank...
If the Op get a damage buff, or the gwf get the tools to be a true tank (in sentinel path, probably), don't you think that they will be in the same position gf has right now? And, obviously, they will get nerfed later due to the same issue that a lot of player are pointing out atm in this thread? Let Op be a tank, and gf too. Let gwf be a striker. Then, if we get some content that require tanking, healing, dps'ing and some strategy, we all will enjoy the game.
I'm super curious about new tier dungeon, just to say...
Regards
99% of dungeonruns I meet tank-GF´s, because that´s what is asked for , I run a 3k+ protector myself, never saw much overperforming GF´s in PVE till now.
But the problem being a striker and a tank in one person, having massive buffs on top, disbalances PVP to an intolerable degree.
So you can say fak for PVP and just delete it, if that´s your statement it´s okay.
We talk about balance because a game can´t survive or be enjoyable if there is one class that fullfills all roles in one, much better than dedicated classes in terms of leader/buffer -> ITF, or striker, outdamaging original striker classes, and at same time being the best tank ingame.
Every mmo´ler with a small sense of understanding and maybe a little bit of "overall view" may get to the point, that classroles are a big factor in the end, otherwies we can play this game having one class, able to switch between the four roles by respecc...but that would be boring imo.
The nervousness in the GF community is not from the fact that the GF will be moved into a tank role, or that it will no longer be a top dps. The issue is whether the GF, if nerfed in buffing and dps, will have a roll in parties that desire speed of finishing so that the game's grinding design is accomplished.
It is not a direct comparison to pull the GF tank from pre-mod 6 (or even pre-mod 4) to now. When the rewards for completing dungeons were greater, and where the number of daily quests was much less than now, having a long dungeon experience was not always looked down upon. Players did not have to grind out the amount of dailies as they do now. But, helping the GF with the daily grind (and the DC and OP) is the ability to do dps sufficiently. A tank build is 100% unnecessary for solo questing. And, a tank build (aggro and debuffing mob dmg) will not speed up a dungeon run. So, to the party that knows it can do fast runs, by adding in another dpser OR by adding, as is argued here for the GF 'a tank,' and the difference is not finishing the dungeon, but finishing it in half the time, which class will be taken and which will be left out?
It may be hard for the dps class to understand what it was like to be left out of dungeon groups, but GFs know FROM EXPERIENCE what this is like. That is why GFs are vocal about being very careful about taking away buffs and dps. It evens the field between choosing a tank who buffs/debuffs/provides adequate dps versus a full dpser, and which will make dungeon run times comparable. Sure, nerf the ability of the GF to outperform a dps class, but, the problem the GF community also has is that Cryptic does not have a history of making 'class-balancing' choices that actually target the issue and restore order to the classes. Again, from the history of class balance, you can understand how tenuous it is to trust this process. You mistake a desire to be 'top dps class' with the desire 'to not be excluded.'
Ask yourself this question: If you could take a tank build that only aggroed and debuffed the damage of the mobs, or take a dps class that could kill the mobs quickly and not need a tank, which one will you prefer in your party?
The issue is that of 'need a tank.' The dps classes are complaining the GF needs to be a tank and only a tank, and why would a GF player, who chose a tank class, not want it to be a tank? Because, no content at present 'needs a tank.' None. GFs have become useful to parties through its ability to party buff damage, and then, through power creep and broken interactions, to out dps the striker classes.
The proposed solution, by dps classes, is to take away both its ability to buff and its dps and make it a tank only. But, that MIGHT put the GF on the sideline with no role in a game that does not need a tank. For me, as I posted elsewhere, my ONLY concern is this...being forced into the role of tank and then finding no role in the game.
1. The proposed changes to ITF seem to keep the role of the GF as an adequate party buff, equivalent to selecting a full dpser. (I personally would love about 10% more, but oh well).
2. The unzipping of the GWF and GF lines means that the dps nerfs to encounters (frontline surge) that were specific to GF first are getting buffed again.
3. The nerfing of class powers that were specific to the GWF (steel defense) at first and now shared with the GF show a push to have the GF go back to 'sword-and-board' style play.
4. The fixing of the DC's powers to infinitely buff is paramount to damage balance in parties.
5. The fixing of steel blitz's secret % increase is paramount to reducing damage the GF did in large groups (like tiamat and edemo) and make it outperform dps striker classes.
On top of all this is the demand for reduction of burst damage in PvP:
1) Change of Anvil of Doom from huge burst damage to DoT.
2) Fix of Bull Charge's bonus damage from 20% to 10%.
3) Changing Knight Challenge.
Do these changes keep the GF viable in parties?
Unknown... The only way we will know is when the changes go live with the new content, and we see what happens with party formation.
For the dpser, there is no risk. You will always be needed in a party, even with power creep. For the GF, there is only risk in a game where the role that you are demanding we take is unneeded.
Thanks for reading!
Guild--And the Imaginary Friends
How long do you have to wait to get an invite to a party for a CN run with your TR/Hunter in PE atm?
Despite the fact , that GF is so powerfull there seems to be a big deficit ingame. I will predict, this will not get worse for any tank in mod 10.
No , you will be haunted even more, since some player will decide to switch to supporter or striker, that´s what allways happens when a fotm class get´s nerfed.
Atm you have to wait 10 times longer in PE to get an invite to a party being a striker, and as far as I read mod 10 is in need of tanks, especially with high HP due to the new unmitigatable frostburn/damage
So my tank will chat in PE and be even more picky, knowing these guys have to peform or go home
You really got it.
And i ask directly to dps players who are reading this thread: will you like to have a tank in your party?. Just a tank, but not a buffer and not a dps'r. A tank who just pull enemy on him for you to kill.
I'd really like to know that.
Ty in advance.
Actually, this thread isn't supposed to be all about "balance" at all. From the original post:
"We’d like you all to focus on playing the class in various content and giving us feedback. There are many changes that are meant to work together as a whole, so we'd appreciate feedback after playing with the changes, more than just reactions to the patch notes themselves."
So it is totally fair game to discuss how the changes will affect the GF in all modes of the game including dailies, dungeons, skirmishes and general leveling. Hell, it is even okay to discuss how it "feels" regardless of the actual numbers.