That's not the point. The issue is not that the buffs are additive, but that they are additive to a stat based multipliers, the critical severity and combat advantage.
There isn't a valid reason that all those 3 should be added together. Buffs should be added to buffs, debuffs to debuffs, CA has it's counter stat and critical severity is on crit.
CA and Severity, and in this case Buffs should be seperated. This is similar issue with outgoing healing, where it is added to critical severity...
What next, we should added power multiplier into the bucket too????
weapons * magnitude * (1 + power / 100000) * ( 1 + crit * severity ) * (1 + ca) * ( arp_resistance) * (1- targetdeflectChance * deflectSeverity) * ( 1 + SUM OF ALL DAMAGE BUFFS) * (1 + SUM OF ALL DEBUFFS)
This is how additive buffs should work.
If when things where they belong too over-perform, then the can be adjusted, if it's lower CA ratio, severity, or adjusting the buffs or magnitudes. But the entire things should have at least some consistency and logic first.
My suggestion: Cryptic should hire you. They should also hire Sharpedge and the few others that truly understand the formulas, the testing and the mechanics at work. How much cost in Dev time, player animosity and lost income could be saved by having competent QCers? It is usually more than the cost of the competent QCer.
Just my 2 cents.
Main: Angels Scar Guild: Ruathym Corsairs
6
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Perhaps tangential to the main focus here, but I want to look at the last two terms above – the sums of all damage buffs and debuffs.
If the buffs and debuffs are separated into two terms as above, we get a situation where the debuffs dominate. Consider, for example, if you have a buff and a debuff that are equal in magnitude, which I’ll call X. Then we have (1 + X) * (1 - X) == 1 – X^2, so you can see that equal buffs and debuffs will lead to a net damage reduction. I guess that’s good if you’re debuffing the boss, but bad if the boss is debuffing you….
There’s also an issue that if you have a 100% debuff (if that happens), then you do 0 damage, regardless of anything else, including other buffs. I’d suggest that a buff should counter, even if only a little, a 100% debuff, to leave you with at least some damage.
So it would be better I think if the buffs and debuffs added together in the same term, so that if they’re equal they net to no effect on damage, and so that debuffs don’t disproportionately reduce damage, compared to how much buffs increase it.
Asterdahl (GF/GWF/DC) - Performing correctly and not impacted by the bug. NoWorries (SW, CW, HR, TR) - Overperforming due to the bug. Not quite sure who did the OP.
The warlock really feels like the odd man out here.I mean, there is a general consensus that Wizard is the best DPS right now, followed by Rogues and Rangers - sure, there are individual exceptions, but I'm talking about the class as a whole. So, bringing those three classes down a bit would probably level the field a bit. But Warlocks? If anything, they need a bit of a DPS boost, not a nerf.
DPS players of other classes have been somewhat worried that the discrepancy will make them "not wanted" for ToMM. Now, if the 3 classes mentioned before are nerfed a bit, that would make good Cleric, Fighter and Barbarians just as sought after for Tomm as the other 3 classes, but at the same time ToMM probably needs to be toned down a bit as well if the DPS pf Wizards, Rogues and Rangers is brought down to match that of the other DPSers.
no one needs to be brought down. especially with the new raid.
This, you bring the other classes up... Not bring the ones who are performing properly down. The Asterdahl classes are underperforming because they are using additive and not multiplicative formulas. Which from everything I have heard multiplicative buffs have been the standard since mod 4/5. Changing everything to additive would just create more problems, more balancing and eventual rebuffing of the classes to bring them up to snuff. And even a probable debuff to the enemies which gives room for more screw ups.
This, you bring the other classes up... Not bring the ones who are performing properly down. The Asterdahl classes are underperforming because they are using additive and not multiplicative formulas. Which from everything I have heard multiplicative buffs have been the standard since mod 4/5. Changing everything to additive would just create more problems, more balancing and eventual rebuffing of the classes to bring them up to snuff. And even a probable debuff to the enemies which gives room for more screw ups.
Exactly this ....
The new trial was balanced around a BiS group using the highest DPS classes available. It's likely it cannot be done by a group consisting of nothing but Barbarian and Fighter DPS .... which means if you are planning to nerf the other classes by changing their buffs to additive, you also need to make appropriate adjustments to the new trial as well.
Hm. The only way I can make sense of that is if you mean debuffs on the target (e.g., “target takes 5% more damage for 10 seconds”), rather than debuffs on the player (e.g., “you do 5% less damage for 10 seconds”).
I was assuming “debuff” meant the latter.
However, if you mean the former, then I’d still argue that those target-debuffs should appear in the same term, for the same reasons that you argue against multiplicative buffs in the first place. Of course it’s only ever one term rather than an endless string of them, so it’s not as big a deal, but it would mean that it’s more effective to combine a player-buff and a target-debuff than two of the same of either. (maybe some people would think that’s a good thing….)
So then in the case of debuffs on the player, I would still say they should be a negative number in the same “sum of all …” for the reasons given above.
Yes, I've meant target debuffs, I should have wrote it more clearly, sorry.
As I see it, it's a system of balance and tradeoffs, The less things 'binned' together, the more meaning have and the more meaning they retain as choice when other things improved.
Buffs, historically, where almost fully separated (few exceptions like the melee range that were added together)m hence no matter what you had each gave exactly what it stated, no 'scaling'. This and combined with the multiplication made all the plethora of buffs resulting in the well known issues. So this is unwelcome outcome, and I have posted multiple times that a simple solution was to make external buffs additive (with the option of adding further diminishing returns on top - similar to how debuffs worked pre-mod16)
On the other side of that type, we can add things together, there, the more things of the same "bin" we have, the less adding more has the same yield. We can add up, debuffs, buffs, feats, and all the multipliers from the stats too. Resulting in decreasing gain as we progress.
The issue here is not that we have decreasing gain, (that happens from the suggested additive+diminishing returns function too) but the loss of significance of various things as others increase. So for example a players feats will "decrease" as their stats and gear becomes better. Or if we add buffs and debuffs, a player with more buffs (that could originate from feats for example on some classes as opposed to feats that generate secondary proc) will benefit less. Creating both a balance issue, and making class builds, more complicated in some aspect (where it shouldn't be), and at the same time some choices worse in long term. Much worse if stat gains involved, you get CA? Your feat is almost useless...
The solution to all this is actually very very simple, and it's a middle ground between both concepts.
Additive per bin, with several bins, all the gear buffs can go into one additive group, all the debuffs into another. Feats, and core class mechanics can remain separate and multiplicative , they are well known upfront, none are simply added into the game, and can be balanced as such. Stat based, should also be seperated, CA from Critical Severity, etc..
This creates a situation where each group affects every player in the same way, regardless of other groups. Creating a predictable "meta" of how debuffs, for example, scale and affect the player in 5 people content, 10, etc.. Allowing to further balance as needed, and add diminishing returns if necessary in the future on each "bin", while keeping each with their significance and good balance of build complexity and predictability (for example a support player choosing a debuff artifact doesn't need to think if the dps has a vorpal or not, but only what other debuffs are in play)
4
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
@asterdahl and @noworries#8859 The issue that I think many of the people in this thread have with this change isn't that buffs are becoming additive, it is that they are becoming additive with critical severity and combat advantage. There are a number of reasons that this is an issue for us, the first of which is it makes gear reduce the effectiveness of your feats. These 2 systems should not be adversarial, they should have synergy. The second reason is it makes feats less interesting, "oh, this feat does exactly the same thing as a piece of gear," is not a great feeling, especially when you have such a limited array of feats to begin with.
My suggestion is, that it works as explained by @micky1p00 above, but with the addition that item buffs are their own category (so the buffs from shadowstalker do not add with your feats) and they add with each other within the item buff category.
Also with a single item category (for summation purposes), there shouldn't be a question what stacks with what and how many times, things will just add up. Easier for players, easier to balance, easier to QA. And actual reduces the overall potency of the buffs as compared to now where they are multiplicative.
i've heard that old gear with %dmg buffs are multiplicative as well, can someone verify that, please?
Also, does anyone have an idea which classe will get hit the most with the change to additive buffs, i.e. which class our of ranger,wiz/rogue and warlock used self buffs the most?
First I'd like to say that it is always good to see conversations back and forth between players on what they feel about changes and their different viewpoints. The majority of this thread was approached in a very constructive way and had a lot of good analysis presented to support different arguments.
This is also the type of topic that we can't always provide quick answers to the questions as it involves more internal discussion before being able to say what we will do. That is why it has taken as long as it has to make a follow up post to the conversation.
One clarification before I jump into what the plan is: Referring to something as additive, does not mean it has to add into everything else that is additive. For example, making buffs additive doesn't mean they have to add into CA + Crit Severity. It could be for example: Damage * (Crit Severity + CA) * (all buffs added together). It was a fair assumption that since the additive buffs on classes are currently adding into Crit and CA that it means anything referred to as additive all goes into 1 singular pool, but that isn't necessarily the case.
The Plan:
We looked at a few ways to approach the different aspects combining together and we agree that separating out CA, Crit, and Buffs is the most intuitive for players and will feel the best. To be clear that means it would roughly be this:
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * combination of all buffs.
It is unfortunately also the adjustment that will change balance the most and therefore will be a little while before the changes hit live (which will hopefully include some preview server sessions as well).
This change will increase player damage by ~33%, which means we will need to do an increase to critter health to compensate.
The same formulas that apply to players also apply to critters, which means critter damage will go up depending on the situation (if they are have high enough crit rating to crit the player, if they are in a position of combat advantage and have enough rating to cause combat advantage). This will be a tougher adjustment to make since for maxed out players, they are currently negating both of those enemy ratings and wouldn't see a damage increase, but for players not as maxed out they would.
Because of those factors, we're going to want to test these changes longer and not push them into a near upcoming patch before we're sure the balance is still in a good place after the adjustments. And as I mentioned above, that will hopefully include some time on preview to get additional balance feedback before pushing it out to live.
14
kalina311Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,082Arc User
so because 2 devs built characters buffs differently and did not use one philosophy/ compare notes we have to class and monster balance pass all over again ...again ... *sigh* May as well delay the pvp season again now due to this ... and various other bugs already reported in the Pvp section
Please make sure each characters "Math" is the same / balanced this time around ..What a colossal waste of time .. dare I say this alone probably wasted / will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of dev testing time that could have been better spent elsewhere . \ Let alone the players time you wasted that had the passion to test all the classes and changes for the new mod 16/17 and now they have to do it all again ..again
"This change will increase player damage by ~33%, which means we will need to do an increase to critter health to compensate."
"The same formulas that apply to players also apply to critters, which means critter damage will go up depending on the situation (if they are have high enough crit rating to crit the player, if they are in a position of combat advantage and have enough rating to cause combat advantage). This will be a tougher adjustment to make since for maxed out players, they are currently negating both of those enemy ratings and wouldn't see a damage increase, but for players not as maxed out they would."
... again, like i said in another topic, the point is not only how much damage i can do, but how long i can survive until kill my enemie. you know how much defensive status is necessary to a range class hit a enemie w/o be touched? 0.
if you guys want have some real balance w/o a snow ball of new buffs, is time to change this: your critical chance, damage bonus, acuracy, etc will be based in your distance to the target. of course, archers, by some way, dont will suffer that.
First I'd like to say that it is always good to see conversations back and forth between players on what they feel about changes and their different viewpoints. The majority of this thread was approached in a very constructive way and had a lot of good analysis presented to support different arguments.
This is also the type of topic that we can't always provide quick answers to the questions as it involves more internal discussion before being able to say what we will do. That is why it has taken as long as it has to make a follow up post to the conversation.
One clarification before I jump into what the plan is: Referring to something as additive, does not mean it has to add into everything else that is additive. For example, making buffs additive doesn't mean they have to add into CA + Crit Severity. It could be for example: Damage * (Crit Severity + CA) * (all buffs added together). It was a fair assumption that since the additive buffs on classes are currently adding into Crit and CA that it means anything referred to as additive all goes into 1 singular pool, but that isn't necessarily the case.
The Plan:
We looked at a few ways to approach the different aspects combining together and we agree that separating out CA, Crit, and Buffs is the most intuitive for players and will feel the best. To be clear that means it would roughly be this:
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * combination of all buffs.
It is unfortunately also the adjustment that will change balance the most and therefore will be a little while before the changes hit live (which will hopefully include some preview server sessions as well).
This change will increase player damage by ~33%, which means we will need to do an increase to critter health to compensate.
The same formulas that apply to players also apply to critters, which means critter damage will go up depending on the situation (if they are have high enough crit rating to crit the player, if they are in a position of combat advantage and have enough rating to cause combat advantage). This will be a tougher adjustment to make since for maxed out players, they are currently negating both of those enemy ratings and wouldn't see a damage increase, but for players not as maxed out they would.
Because of those factors, we're going to want to test these changes longer and not push them into a near upcoming patch before we're sure the balance is still in a good place after the adjustments. And as I mentioned above, that will hopefully include some time on preview to get additional balance feedback before pushing it out to live.
IMO, doubling damage for CA is too easy in a group, and will unbalance solo players greatly.
Reccomendation: (split the combat advantage into 2 forms) Half of CA bonus counts toward Strategic Advantage -- Gained from skills & items Half of CA bonus counts toward Tactical Advantage --- Gained from position
100% Combat advantage would then give 50% toward both types (additive) for a max bonus of doubling damage
First I'd like to say that it is always good to see conversations back and forth between players on what they feel about changes and their different viewpoints. The majority of this thread was approached in a very constructive way and had a lot of good analysis presented to support different arguments.
This is also the type of topic that we can't always provide quick answers to the questions as it involves more internal discussion before being able to say what we will do. That is why it has taken as long as it has to make a follow up post to the conversation.
One clarification before I jump into what the plan is: Referring to something as additive, does not mean it has to add into everything else that is additive. For example, making buffs additive doesn't mean they have to add into CA + Crit Severity. It could be for example: Damage * (Crit Severity + CA) * (all buffs added together). It was a fair assumption that since the additive buffs on classes are currently adding into Crit and CA that it means anything referred to as additive all goes into 1 singular pool, but that isn't necessarily the case.
The Plan:
We looked at a few ways to approach the different aspects combining together and we agree that separating out CA, Crit, and Buffs is the most intuitive for players and will feel the best. To be clear that means it would roughly be this:
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * combination of all buffs.
It is unfortunately also the adjustment that will change balance the most and therefore will be a little while before the changes hit live (which will hopefully include some preview server sessions as well).
This change will increase player damage by ~33%, which means we will need to do an increase to critter health to compensate.
The same formulas that apply to players also apply to critters, which means critter damage will go up depending on the situation (if they are have high enough crit rating to crit the player, if they are in a position of combat advantage and have enough rating to cause combat advantage). This will be a tougher adjustment to make since for maxed out players, they are currently negating both of those enemy ratings and wouldn't see a damage increase, but for players not as maxed out they would.
Because of those factors, we're going to want to test these changes longer and not push them into a near upcoming patch before we're sure the balance is still in a good place after the adjustments. And as I mentioned above, that will hopefully include some time on preview to get additional balance feedback before pushing it out to live.
so does that mean we are aiming for roughly the same amount of damage at the end of the day for maxed out toons or by inverse we should expect a decrease in damage? I haven't actually tried the new raid yet but from what I understand we can't afford to actively lose any damage..
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
edited August 2019
I would suggest looking into outgoing healing bonus on the way:
Currently:
Due to critical severity being additive to outgoing healing bonus, the gain from crit heal (on average) is relatively low, creating a clear benefit of going into more power oriented build.
Separating them, will not increase the maximal healing potency, but will increase the relative gain in critical heal and somewhat rise the average.
Another consideration can be changing the crit proc not per target, but per cast, either all crit or none, creating a more consistent system that will encourage building into crit-heal.
In this case, I don't have a strong opinion about changing or leaving the additive system here, but for a mechanics balance pass, this can be considered.
While there is a bug here, no one on this thread is going to like that it is the reverse of what is being called out.
Multiplicative buff stacking was a big problem for Neverwinter and is what would cause a normal geared group to do a boss over minutes, and a group that knew how to min max all of the stacking buffs to complete a boss in seconds.
We had made the decision in M16 to switch the buffs over to additive instead of multiplicative to keep power creep in a better place to allow content to be designed better for both elite and standard groups.
Throughout the handover of classes as staff changes occurred, this adjustment was missed for the Ranger, Warlock, Wizard, and Rogue. They are actually the classes in error here and the ones that will need to have their buffs adjusted.
I realize that the players in this thread understand the significant difference between the two methods (which is exactly why you did tests and brought this up), but for those who have not delved as far into the math:
If a player has 10 buffs that each increase the damage 10%, there are two main ways to do this. The first is to add up all of the buffs together and then multiply by the base. If the player's base damage was 1000, then the end result would be 2000 damage as it would be a total of 10 x 10% = 100%.
The second method is to multiply each bonus on top of the previous bonus. In the past this was how most damage boosts worked, and it was also the one of the biggest source of problems of having so many stacking sources that players could even potentially 1 or 2 shot endgame bosses. With the same number of bonuses as the above example, instead of ending at 2000 damage you'd end up at ~2600 damage, or in this particular case 30% more damage than the other method.
Now that might not look like much at a small scale, but let's compare bigger effects. Let's look at if in the examples above instead each boost was 20%.
Additive = 3000 damage Multiplicative = ~6200 damage - so now the multiplicative approach is over double the value of the additive.
The bigger the value of the bonuses and the more of them that there are, the bigger the gap between the two methods. Additive provides a much more linear approach that works better for the long term health and balance of the game.
Please show me a group finishing the dps check at the end of phase 1 in tomm if you make this change. Forget about the rest of the raid. Also throw class balance out of the window and pretty much everything else. This is also completely ignoring the issue that the buffs are adding to critical severity and combat advantage.
The trial isn't meant to be completed so easily. I agree with the developers decision to fix the classes so buffs are additive as that would improve the game if this is a bug according to their decision on how buffs are applied. I go back to my comment that all class bugs need to be address and resolved before any class balancing can actually take place. If these four classes are indeed over performing given this than it needs to be addressed. The problem I see is that the developers have already made other changes to the wizard before implementing this change making the class less effective than it should be if this change is to take place I recommend reverting the prior changes until all other bugs are resolved.
I rather the developers fix all other class bugs, than collect data and adjust as needed.
Coding for this game was simplified so that bugs can be fixed quicker and the developer could adjust classes as needed. Well, let the developers do their job and fix the bugs first.
As for ToMM; that trial shouldn't even be beaten IMO until mod 18 gear is out. ToMM is suppose to be a very challenging trial and last us a while; it is why I believe that these fixes would actually make the game better as less players would be able to complete the trial as it should be.
Asterdahl (GF/GWF/DC) - Performing correctly and not impacted by the bug. NoWorries (SW, CW, HR, TR) - Overperforming due to the bug. Not quite sure who did the OP.
The warlock really feels like the odd man out here.I mean, there is a general consensus that Wizard is the best DPS right now, followed by Rogues and Rangers - sure, there are individual exceptions, but I'm talking about the class as a whole. So, bringing those three classes down a bit would probably level the field a bit. But Warlocks? If anything, they need a bit of a DPS boost, not a nerf.
DPS players of other classes have been somewhat worried that the discrepancy will make them "not wanted" for ToMM. Now, if the 3 classes mentioned before are nerfed a bit, that would make good Cleric, Fighter and Barbarians just as sought after for Tomm as the other 3 classes, but at the same time ToMM probably needs to be toned down a bit as well if the DPS pf Wizards, Rogues and Rangers is brought down to match that of the other DPSers.
no one needs to be brought down. especially with the new raid.
I disagree with this statement. If the intention was to make all buff additive than just do it. If it makes the trial harder than we as the player simply have to adjust. Elite players find a way; but what I'm seeing in this thread is elite player crying about losing possible damage instead of saying bring it on, we love this challenge.
I'm in the later, drop my damage. I think I'm doing to much as a wizard. It will make the game better IMO and make content a bit more challenging. Bring it on!
@nitocris83 just as a heads up. the facebook and reddit forums are blowing up wiht this. various facebook groups have a ton of people trying to sell their toons over this. I would like to suggest damage control of some sort some sort of statement assuring people that you don't really intend on nerfing without rebalancing damages. honestly... the viral on this is worse than I remember the viral for mod 16. people aren't taking it well at all.
The thing I want to point out about this is that we loss a lot of our buffs already. At this point switching over to additive won't change our damage all that much. If this occurred in prior mod it would have made a bigger impact to the game, which is what we all wanted as an update initially. In the game's current state it won't make all that much of a difference.
Here is why...we loss the group buffs from the Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Wizard, etc... The buffs are much smaller now than they were previously. We also loss the damage buffs from our companion active lowering our damage further.
In the game current state going to additive won't be as big of an impact than if it was done say in mod 15.
I'm all in for getting the additive changes implemented asap, I get that this will further hinder classes even more so.
But as it is now, warlocks are neglected and in a really bad state currently anyways. Hopefully these changes will FINALY get some or any of the dps warlock core class mechanic/fundamental problems addressed since they will further exasperate the issues.
A bit depressing "the plan" is slowly rolling out these changes. Aka underperforming classes will have to wait even longer for any resolution...
Since mod16 release the only solution for warlocks has been build another class since majority of groups don't want to needlessly die and other dps classes perform better. No class should fail to perform well at any assigned role, let alone both. In the current state, underperforming classes are not balanced anyways.
Post edited by mongol69 on
7
lordaeolosMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 167Arc User
First I'd like to say that it is always good to see conversations back and forth between players on what they feel about changes and their different viewpoints. The majority of this thread was approached in a very constructive way and had a lot of good analysis presented to support different arguments.
This is also the type of topic that we can't always provide quick answers to the questions as it involves more internal discussion before being able to say what we will do. That is why it has taken as long as it has to make a follow up post to the conversation.
One clarification before I jump into what the plan is: Referring to something as additive, does not mean it has to add into everything else that is additive. For example, making buffs additive doesn't mean they have to add into CA + Crit Severity. It could be for example: Damage * (Crit Severity + CA) * (all buffs added together). It was a fair assumption that since the additive buffs on classes are currently adding into Crit and CA that it means anything referred to as additive all goes into 1 singular pool, but that isn't necessarily the case.
The Plan:
We looked at a few ways to approach the different aspects combining together and we agree that separating out CA, Crit, and Buffs is the most intuitive for players and will feel the best. To be clear that means it would roughly be this:
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * combination of all buffs.
It is unfortunately also the adjustment that will change balance the most and therefore will be a little while before the changes hit live (which will hopefully include some preview server sessions as well).
This change will increase player damage by ~33%, which means we will need to do an increase to critter health to compensate.
The same formulas that apply to players also apply to critters, which means critter damage will go up depending on the situation (if they are have high enough crit rating to crit the player, if they are in a position of combat advantage and have enough rating to cause combat advantage). This will be a tougher adjustment to make since for maxed out players, they are currently negating both of those enemy ratings and wouldn't see a damage increase, but for players not as maxed out they would.
Because of those factors, we're going to want to test these changes longer and not push them into a near upcoming patch before we're sure the balance is still in a good place after the adjustments. And as I mentioned above, that will hopefully include some time on preview to get additional balance feedback before pushing it out to live.
Whatever the final damage formula is needs to be published to the community, this is critical to the community from both a build and testing perspective
Also, I think this is a very logical step in the right direction, but we should have class feature buffs separated from item buffs... to steal from sharpedge..
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * Class Buffs * item buffs
if these are not separated like this you will wind up in a scenario where certain gear will have more or less impact or certain classes. for example The Ranger has a buff to melee at-wills "Flurry" which is a 100% increase, if I apply a melee damage bonus of 3% the effective increase for that class will actually be much less, than another class that doesn't have that self buff, or has a lower self buff.
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
@noworries, now you come up with an approach that makes sense in itself (well, it's micky1p00's proposal), that implicitly invalidates the current state of the barbar and is very close to the current state of TR, HR, CW and SW.
But this formula increases the old problem of unbound power increase. Endgame players are simply able to max out all capped stats, collect all bonusses and invest every remaining ressources into (unbound) power. Because there is no saturation function in power and all bonusses multiply with everything, endgamers can reach extreme dmg levels, unreachable for average players.
This feels like an endless loop. Wasn't solving the power creep problem one major goal of Mod 16? But by oversimplification (avoiding saturation, ...) you missed that goal.
I guess, neverwinter needs a more fundamental redesign.
The damage a DPS Scourge Warlock does has too much DOT component, and often enemies are killed by the party before the damage over time effect ticks away. With the removal of Pillar of Power, and replacement by the difficult to aim Hellfire Ring, we lose a party damage buff, a self buff, a debuff when new enemies enter the field of the AOE, and any shield effects. Hellfire Ring needs to be looked at, as it's effectiveness is unworthy to compare to what has been removed. Also, we need far less dependence on DOT and more immediate damage, as it gives enemies time to get within melee range far too often for a squishy ranged class to counter.
The damage a DPS Scourge Warlock does has too much DOT component, and often enemies are killed by the party before the damage over time effect ticks away. With the removal of Pillar of Power, and replacement by the difficult to aim Hellfire Ring, we lose a party damage buff, a self buff, a debuff when new enemies enter the field of the AOE, and any shield effects. Hellfire Ring needs to be looked at, as it's effectiveness is unworthy to compare to what has been removed. Also, we need far less dependence on DOT and more immediate damage, as it gives enemies time to get within melee range far too often for a squishy ranged class to counter.
warlock doesnt have any signifcant DoT, idk what u are talking about.
@noworries, now you come up with an approach that makes sense in itself (well, it's micky1p00's proposal), that implicitly invalidates the current state of the barbar and is very close to the current state of TR, HR, CW and SW.
But this formula increases the old problem of unbound power increase. Endgame players are simply able to max out all capped stats, collect all bonusses and invest every remaining ressources into (unbound) power. Because there is no saturation function in power and all bonusses multiply with everything, endgamers can reach extreme dmg levels, unreachable for average players.
This feels like an endless loop. Wasn't solving the power creep problem one major goal of Mod 16? But by oversimplification (avoiding saturation, ...) you missed that goal.
I guess, neverwinter needs a more fundamental redesign.
Do u really try to claim that BIS gear, etc shouldnt have any noticable impact on your character? Because thats what it sounds like to me. Ofc the "average" casual player, with average gear wont deal as much dmg as a fully optimised char. If that were the case, u could delete character progression all together, because whats the point of even improving your character when u get nothing for it?
Throughout the handover of classes as staff changes occurred, this adjustment was missed for the Ranger, Warlock, Wizard, and Rogue. They are actually the classes in error here and the ones that will need to have their buffs adjusted.
Are you f* serious? You actually want more nerfing to the warlock? go home dude. In all platforms ppl are saying that warlock is underperfoming and you want to reduce their damage more, gg. Besides,you want to encourage pvp on this mod? lemme tell you that warlock can't do anything on pvp, it has horrible damage, survivability and even less cc skills tan a pally.
We looked at a few ways to approach the different aspects combining together and we agree that separating out CA, Crit, and Buffs is the most intuitive for players and will feel the best. To be clear that means it would roughly be this:
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * combination of all buffs.
It is unfortunately also the adjustment that will change balance the most and therefore will be a little while before the changes hit live (which will hopefully include some preview server sessions as well).
This change will increase player damage by ~33%, which means we will need to do an increase to critter health to compensate.
So what you plan to do is separate ca from crit severity only and make gear more irrelevant by switching to additive. Great plan, that won't balance anything
The damage a DPS Scourge Warlock does has too much DOT component, and often enemies are killed by the party before the damage over time effect ticks away. With the removal of Pillar of Power, and replacement by the difficult to aim Hellfire Ring, we lose a party damage buff, a self buff, a debuff when new enemies enter the field of the AOE, and any shield effects. Hellfire Ring needs to be looked at, as it's effectiveness is unworthy to compare to what has been removed. Also, we need far less dependence on DOT and more immediate damage, as it gives enemies time to get within melee range far too often for a squishy ranged class to counter.
No it doesn't. Dot master sw was before mod 16. Now it doesn't have dots and it also depends on cursing/uncursing which is what takes more time tan other classes.
Comments
Besides, pesky warlocks weren't doing low enough damage already. XD
Just my 2 cents.
Guild: Ruathym Corsairs
I'm not sure what you mean here, but the debuff are (1 + debuff) not ( 1 - ...).
I've refered to 'defense' debuffs which are damage increase.
ArP-Defense interaction is similar to (1 - stuff) but there are caps to prevent damage going to 0.
The new trial was balanced around a BiS group using the highest DPS classes available. It's likely it cannot be done by a group consisting of nothing but Barbarian and Fighter DPS .... which means if you are planning to nerf the other classes by changing their buffs to additive, you also need to make appropriate adjustments to the new trial as well.
Winter Lily (CW) / Winter Rose (DC) / Winter Ivy (HR)
Pandora's Misfits Guild Leader
As I see it, it's a system of balance and tradeoffs, The less things 'binned' together, the more meaning have and the more meaning they retain as choice when other things improved.
Buffs, historically, where almost fully separated (few exceptions like the melee range that were added together)m hence no matter what you had each gave exactly what it stated, no 'scaling'.
This and combined with the multiplication made all the plethora of buffs resulting in the well known issues. So this is unwelcome outcome, and I have posted multiple times that a simple solution was to make external buffs additive (with the option of adding further diminishing returns on top - similar to how debuffs worked pre-mod16)
On the other side of that type, we can add things together, there, the more things of the same "bin" we have, the less adding more has the same yield.
We can add up, debuffs, buffs, feats, and all the multipliers from the stats too. Resulting in decreasing gain as we progress.
The issue here is not that we have decreasing gain, (that happens from the suggested additive+diminishing returns function too) but the loss of significance of various things as others increase.
So for example a players feats will "decrease" as their stats and gear becomes better. Or if we add buffs and debuffs, a player with more buffs (that could originate from feats for example on some classes as opposed to feats that generate secondary proc) will benefit less. Creating both a balance issue, and making class builds, more complicated in some aspect (where it shouldn't be), and at the same time some choices worse in long term. Much worse if stat gains involved, you get CA? Your feat is almost useless...
The solution to all this is actually very very simple, and it's a middle ground between both concepts.
Additive per bin, with several bins, all the gear buffs can go into one additive group, all the debuffs into another. Feats, and core class mechanics can remain separate and multiplicative , they are well known upfront, none are simply added into the game, and can be balanced as such.
Stat based, should also be seperated, CA from Critical Severity, etc..
This creates a situation where each group affects every player in the same way, regardless of other groups. Creating a predictable "meta" of how debuffs, for example, scale and affect the player in 5 people content, 10, etc..
Allowing to further balance as needed, and add diminishing returns if necessary in the future on each "bin", while keeping each with their significance and good balance of build complexity and predictability (for example a support player choosing a debuff artifact doesn't need to think if the dps has a vorpal or not, but only what other debuffs are in play)
Also, does anyone have an idea which classe will get hit the most with the change to additive buffs, i.e. which class our of ranger,wiz/rogue and warlock used self buffs the most?
This is also the type of topic that we can't always provide quick answers to the questions as it involves more internal discussion before being able to say what we will do. That is why it has taken as long as it has to make a follow up post to the conversation.
One clarification before I jump into what the plan is: Referring to something as additive, does not mean it has to add into everything else that is additive. For example, making buffs additive doesn't mean they have to add into CA + Crit Severity. It could be for example: Damage * (Crit Severity + CA) * (all buffs added together). It was a fair assumption that since the additive buffs on classes are currently adding into Crit and CA that it means anything referred to as additive all goes into 1 singular pool, but that isn't necessarily the case.
The Plan:
We looked at a few ways to approach the different aspects combining together and we agree that separating out CA, Crit, and Buffs is the most intuitive for players and will feel the best. To be clear that means it would roughly be this:
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * combination of all buffs.
It is unfortunately also the adjustment that will change balance the most and therefore will be a little while before the changes hit live (which will hopefully include some preview server sessions as well).
This change will increase player damage by ~33%, which means we will need to do an increase to critter health to compensate.
The same formulas that apply to players also apply to critters, which means critter damage will go up depending on the situation (if they are have high enough crit rating to crit the player, if they are in a position of combat advantage and have enough rating to cause combat advantage). This will be a tougher adjustment to make since for maxed out players, they are currently negating both of those enemy ratings and wouldn't see a damage increase, but for players not as maxed out they would.
Because of those factors, we're going to want to test these changes longer and not push them into a near upcoming patch before we're sure the balance is still in a good place after the adjustments. And as I mentioned above, that will hopefully include some time on preview to get additional balance feedback before pushing it out to live.
so because 2 devs built characters buffs differently and did not use one philosophy/ compare notes we have to class and monster balance pass all over again ...again ... *sigh* May as well delay the pvp season again now due to this ... and various other bugs already reported in the Pvp section
Please make sure each characters "Math" is the same / balanced this time around ..What a colossal waste of time ..
dare I say this alone probably wasted / will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of dev testing time that could have been better spent elsewhere .
\
Let alone the players time you wasted that had the passion to test all the classes and changes for the new mod 16/17
and now they have to do it all again ..again
"The same formulas that apply to players also apply to critters, which means critter damage will go up depending on the situation (if they are have high enough crit rating to crit the player, if they are in a position of combat advantage and have enough rating to cause combat advantage). This will be a tougher adjustment to make since for maxed out players, they are currently negating both of those enemy ratings and wouldn't see a damage increase, but for players not as maxed out they would."
... again, like i said in another topic, the point is not only how much damage i can do, but how long i can survive until kill my enemie. you know how much defensive status is necessary to a range class hit a enemie w/o be touched? 0.
if you guys want have some real balance w/o a snow ball of new buffs, is time to change this: your critical chance, damage bonus, acuracy, etc will be based in your distance to the target. of course, archers, by some way, dont will suffer that.
Reccomendation: (split the combat advantage into 2 forms)
Half of CA bonus counts toward Strategic Advantage -- Gained from skills & items
Half of CA bonus counts toward Tactical Advantage --- Gained from position
100% Combat advantage would then give 50% toward both types (additive) for a max bonus of doubling damage
so does that mean we are aiming for roughly the same amount of damage at the end of the day for maxed out toons or by inverse we should expect a decrease in damage? I haven't actually tried the new raid yet but from what I understand we can't afford to actively lose any damage..
How exactly does power factor into the new formula? Am I correct in assuming that it is it's own factor, hence:
Final Damage = Damage *Power* CA * Crit Sev * combination of all buffs.
Or is it a "buff" and hence:
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * (combination of all buffs + Power)
Winter Lily (CW) / Winter Rose (DC) / Winter Ivy (HR)
Pandora's Misfits Guild Leader
Currently:
Due to critical severity being additive to outgoing healing bonus, the gain from crit heal (on average) is relatively low, creating a clear benefit of going into more power oriented build.
Separating them, will not increase the maximal healing potency, but will increase the relative gain in critical heal and somewhat rise the average.
Another consideration can be changing the crit proc not per target, but per cast, either all crit or none, creating a more consistent system that will encourage building into crit-heal.
In this case, I don't have a strong opinion about changing or leaving the additive system here, but for a mechanics balance pass, this can be considered.
I rather the developers fix all other class bugs, than collect data and adjust as needed.
Coding for this game was simplified so that bugs can be fixed quicker and the developer could adjust classes as needed. Well, let the developers do their job and fix the bugs first.
As for ToMM; that trial shouldn't even be beaten IMO until mod 18 gear is out. ToMM is suppose to be a very challenging trial and last us a while; it is why I believe that these fixes would actually make the game better as less players would be able to complete the trial as it should be.
I'm in the later, drop my damage. I think I'm doing to much as a wizard. It will make the game better IMO and make content a bit more challenging. Bring it on!
Here is why...we loss the group buffs from the Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Wizard, etc... The buffs are much smaller now than they were previously. We also loss the damage buffs from our companion active lowering our damage further.
In the game current state going to additive won't be as big of an impact than if it was done say in mod 15.
I'm all for this change.
But as it is now, warlocks are neglected and in a really bad state currently anyways. Hopefully these changes will FINALY get some or any of the dps warlock core class mechanic/fundamental problems addressed since they will further exasperate the issues.
A bit depressing "the plan" is slowly rolling out these changes. Aka underperforming classes will have to wait even longer for any resolution...
Guess my bigger question is how many more months or mods will it take? @asterdahl @noworries#8859
Since mod16 release the only solution for warlocks has been build another class since majority of groups don't want to needlessly die and other dps classes perform better. No class should fail to perform well at any assigned role, let alone both. In the current state, underperforming classes are not balanced anyways.
Whatever the final damage formula is needs to be published to the community, this is critical to the community from both a build and testing perspective
Also, I think this is a very logical step in the right direction, but we should have class feature buffs separated from item buffs... to steal from sharpedge..
Final Damage = Damage * CA * Crit Sev * Class Buffs * item buffs
if these are not separated like this you will wind up in a scenario where certain gear will have more or less impact or certain classes. for example The Ranger has a buff to melee at-wills "Flurry" which is a 100% increase, if I apply a melee damage bonus of 3% the effective increase for that class will actually be much less, than another class that doesn't have that self buff, or has a lower self buff.
Guild Leader: Mistaken Identity (formerly Midnight Express)
My Twitch Stream
See my Youtube Channel for guides and more
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
But this formula increases the old problem of unbound power increase. Endgame players are simply able to max out all capped stats, collect all bonusses and invest every remaining ressources into (unbound) power.
Because there is no saturation function in power and all bonusses multiply with everything, endgamers can reach extreme dmg levels, unreachable for average players.
This feels like an endless loop. Wasn't solving the power creep problem one major goal of Mod 16? But by oversimplification (avoiding saturation, ...) you missed that goal.
I guess, neverwinter needs a more fundamental redesign.