test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Rumor mill of the game

12357

Comments

  • theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,861 Arc User
    Rogues were top tier damage dealers in 4th edition, but they dropped down to third tier status in 5E.

    GWFs should suck just because they're based on the Slayer class from 4E, and that class was a dumbed down version that didn't have the power or versatility of classes that came before it.

    I am, of course, kidding-NWO doesn't duplicate 4E's playstyle in any way shape or form, there's no reason for it to duplicate its sense of class balance.
  • rollingonitrollingonit Member Posts: 1,322 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    Yah I dont get where DnD even fits in this game. It's an MMO with a very loose theme to NW. The people who got me into this game, left like 2 days after the release of it. The reason for that, this wasnt DnD. It was an MMO with the DnD just stuck on it.

    I asked them, "why don't you like the game."

    Answer:"This isnt dungeons and dragons."
    We can pretend.
    Fox Stevenson - Sandblast
    Oh Wonder - Without You

    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    - Dylan Thomas
  • theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,861 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    It's not Neverwinter Nights 3

    Seriously, people bitched and moaned that 4th Edition was too "video gamey" but for !@#$s sake, 4E was the only edition of the game to never have a CRPG release that actually modeled the rules set. That's such a sore spot for me. If I ever go back in time, I'm going to engineer events to ensure that 4E gets a CRPG release.
  • hedgebethedgebet Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 447 Arc User
    ghoulz66 said:

    Why shouldn't the GWF be top DPS? It's melee, it has no dodge, has no viable CC, no way of starting a fight without taking damage. It depends on a tank and controllers to give it the breathing room it requires.

    Toss 3 of em with a GF that doesn't use KV, and a DC. They drop like flies. They get completely wrecked by the blob of phase spiders in eToS.

    Top DPS is one thing, 50% to 100% more damage than a comparable striker is another altogether. GWF has better total damage, better burst, better single target, better ae, and thanks to hidden daggers now better ranged (you don't believe me on this I bet, simple parse it). The GWF handles hits a hell of a lot better than a TR and it is only due to the TR aggro bug that the squishy nature of the TR is not apparent. The TR has his smoke and his pause in his favor but that in no way equates to 50% to 100% or more of a difference. I have always felt the GWF should have a small edge in overall damage, in the degree of 5% or so, but nothing like it currently is.
  • This content has been removed.
  • edited September 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • romotheoneromotheone Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 729 Arc User
    edited September 2015





    Post edited by romotheone on
  • edited September 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • romotheoneromotheone Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 729 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    clonkyo1 said:

    . . .

    Now, do the same run but without Lostmauth set.

    EDIT: And would be nice know if you all were from the same guild and other stuff like that to know if you were using the same boons and so on. :)
    No damage boons and Borland didn't have his Stone companion summoned during the VT run.
  • commanderdata002commanderdata002 Member Posts: 312 Arc User
    zacazu said:




    To clarify some things, we are generally fairly happy with where GWFs are in PVE. They are competitive, and do very solid damage for the risks they take being in melee range (where there are more consistent threats to worry about).

    the same is valid for the "BIG pratical difference" in this game between your type of armor. well, rogues dont have the best damage, but by far the best tools to attack w;o counter. the PRATICAL reason WHY GWF DO SO MUCH DAMAGE

    We as GWFs I presume!

    It shouldnt do 2/3 times dmg as other dps classes with same gear.

    The PVE Balance is getting embarassing in this game...

    stock and stone I can master, but there's a Wizard to manage here!
  • edited September 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • zacazuzacazu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,934 Arc User
    edited September 2015

    We as GWFs I presume!

    It shouldnt do 2/3 times dmg as other dps classes with same gear.

    The PVE Balance is getting embarassing in this game...

    like i said in another post, some differences is more subjective (and qualitative) than material. for exemple, how much damage you do through your party using a debuff. if you quantify that, you will see that gfs do far more damage than a gwf, in pve, for example. is just a conditional attribute.)

    about that romo posts: the single problem here - ignoring thats bizarre 65k of power - is a hipotetical ranger (or rogue... the third one) dont do 2/3 more damage than your cw too. but close to 2x less being DAMAGE A MAIN FUNCTION OF A STRIKER, NOT A CONTROLLER.

    thats is the neverwinter forum. do 2x more damage than another class is ok, even if that is the function of another class, if you are a cw.
    Post edited by zacazu on
  • zacazuzacazu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,934 Arc User
    verdonix1 said:

    I'm sorry, that is BiS damage, nothing more. That is Rank12 everywhere and the best of everything in the game. I also think you all need to read the Lostmauth set bonus again ..... I do not understand how you all think the set is OP

    for us, that set works like +/-50% of severity over the commom sure strike (33% the last hit) and 10% a ibs execution. because of that i give the suggest to fix that set and up the critical severity for all races/ classes in 15%/25% and that still a nerf for gwfs (and a breath for the new players)

    but that cws are more concerned about be the top king of everthing.
  • romotheoneromotheone Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 729 Arc User
    It should be interesting to see the amount of LoL set procs both for me and for the GWF. The GWF reached 143k



    CW did 14,7k



    The problem here obviously lies within the insane multipliers. Yea, the GWF has a substantial higher base weapon damage, so everything else that multiplies is going to multiply a much higher number, but this isn't the actual problem. The problem is the multipliers. Even if you nerf the lostmauth set, because it hits like a truck, it is not going to solve future problems. Everything else that deals damage and is similar to what the lostmauth set does, it is going to be just as broken.
    I don't know which GWF player kept saying this, but he was right. Very right. Nerf the multipliers, give the GWF flat damage in exchange.
  • zacazuzacazu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,934 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    [Combat (Self)] Critical Hit! Your Sure Strike deals 76708 (48858) Physical Damage to Target Dummy.

    [Combat (Self)] Critical Hit! Your Lostmauth's Vengeance deals 43477 (34234) Physical Damage to Target Dummy.


    sorry, is more than 50% OVER a sure strike CRITICAL (+executioner style).

    they dont understand the difference between 25% before and 50% OVER a critical after...
    Post edited by zacazu on
  • hedgebethedgebet Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 447 Arc User
    edited September 2015

    zacazu said:




    To clarify some things, we are generally fairly happy with where GWFs are in PVE. They are competitive, and do very solid damage for the risks they take being in melee range (where there are more consistent threats to worry about).

    the same is valid for the "BIG pratical difference" in this game between your type of armor. well, rogues dont have the best damage, but by far the best tools to attack w;o counter. the PRATICAL reason WHY GWF DO SO MUCH DAMAGE

    We as GWFs I presume!

    It shouldnt do 2/3 times dmg as other dps classes with same gear.

    The PVE Balance is getting embarassing in this game...

    I remember that quote from crush, it was back in mod 5 and in relations to some gwf asking for significant increases in damage. I don't think there is a single gwf asking for more damage now (and that alone says much) and thus we can see that the quote he pulled has nothing at all to do with the state of the game currently. In fact pulling up that quote and posting it is an intentionally deceptive appeal to authority.
  • zacazuzacazu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,934 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    appeal to authority would be if I, instead to give valid arguments, i give my position and said that it is valid only because I am an expert in the subject or a subject expert agrees with me.

    I have already given thousands of arguments in favor of my point - gwfs dont exercise a functions of "off tank" in these dungeons but DD - and have used this quote to demonstrate what the AUTHOR OF THE WORK told about it (he can be wrong about your projections, but is not).

    briefly ... this is not an "appeal to authority ', but a simple citation :'(
  • hedgebethedgebet Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 447 Arc User
    zacazu said:

    appeal to authority would be if I, instead to give valid arguments, i give my position and said that it is valid only because I am an expert in the subject or a subject expert agrees with me.

    I have already given thousands of arguments in favor of my point - gwfs dont exercise a functions of "off tank" in these dungeons but DD - and have used this quote to demonstrate what the AUTHOR OF THE WORK told about it (he can be wrong about your projections, but is not).

    briefly ... this is not an "appeal to authority ', but a simple citation :'(

    Eh? Yes it most certainly is.

    I can also pull up many a "simple citation" of a quote where devs claim that they are going to buff/nerf x/y class for so and so reasons that have no relation at all to the current state of the game and if such buffs/nerfs were applied I could again pull up the original quotes ad infinitum but that would be rather dishonest and silly don't you think?
  • edited September 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • schweifer1982schweifer1982 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,662 Arc User
    edited September 2015






    Somthing is stinking about this 65300 power??????? WT????
    I think any char can do this dmg with this power +Lol set+ with this crit chance even buffer dc .

    Mybe he use rank 20 enchants???
    Those stats are unreachable not even with stronghold boons.

    He shoud teach us how to reach 100929 offensive stat.

    hm... hack?
    GWF 3700Ilvl Éjsötét & ProPala 3200Ilvl Menydörgés (main) & Szürkefarkas 2600 ilvl
  • fatgunsfatguns Member Posts: 410 Arc User
    LOL saber
    Omg that guy is pathetic x3
  • fatgunsfatguns Member Posts: 410 Arc User

    verdonix1 said:

    GWF = GREAT WEAPON FIGHTER they are suppose to do the most damage,

    Nope they not!
    Its an offtank class! It can do some dmg but not top dmg!

    And excusing it with Lostmauth dmg is lame!
    Maybe someone is not doing math but others do...
    It's not an off tank, GWF is a mix between go sentinel and become a meh tank, or go destroyer and do DMG, couze were destroyers after all ;3
  • zacazuzacazu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,934 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    Eh? Yes it most certainly is.

    I can also pull up many a "simple citation" of a quote where devs claim that they are going to buff/nerf x/y class for so and so reasons that have no relation at all to the current state of the game and if such buffs/nerfs were applied I could again pull up the original quotes ad infinitum but that would be rather dishonest and silly don't you think?


    wait, wait, wait... that is not a "simple citation" that is the PROJECTION GIVE BY THE AUTHOR OF THE NEW DESIGNE about how gwf should work for now and why this or that dont will be changed.

    commander say "gwf is a offtank - projected for that - so dont should do so much damage" than i show that projection,. he understand. you dont.

    what you want about a balance projection is... a pratical balance. a real effect in the reality

    The balance projection can be wrong - is not enough for a certain demand or how the player want your class - and worst, a class can be designeded to do "x" but, because of some factors, do "x and y". FROM THERE you can say "look devs, your projection dont work".

    you see a "appeal to authority" where dont exist and now will read everthing wrinten by me through your illusions. deja vu...

  • deathbeezdeathbeez Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 789 Arc User






    You sick HAMSTER. Didn't even think 65k power was possible.
  • zacazuzacazu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,934 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    have a sw that show the same or 80000k of power on preview, so i not will say that is fake. is just not a particular gwf thing.

    i just want know how much power he have to be outdpsesd only by 2 times a gwf that have more than 150% of damage bonus. because, for that numbers in act should be much, much more.
  • hedgebethedgebet Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 447 Arc User
    zacazu said:

    Eh? Yes it most certainly is.

    I can also pull up many a "simple citation" of a quote where devs claim that they are going to buff/nerf x/y class for so and so reasons that have no relation at all to the current state of the game and if such buffs/nerfs were applied I could again pull up the original quotes ad infinitum but that would be rather dishonest and silly don't you think?


    wait, wait, wait... that is not a "simple citation" that is the PROJECTION GIVE BY THE AUTHOR OF THE NEW DESIGNE about how gwf should work for now and why this or that dont will be changed.

    commander say "gwf is a offtank - projected for that - so dont should do so much damage" than i show that projection,. he understand. you dont.

    what you want about a balance projection is... a pratical balance. a real effect in the reality

    The balance projection can be wrong - is not enough for a certain demand or how the player want your class - and worst, a class can be designeded to do "x" but, because of some factors, do "x and y". FROM THERE you can say "look devs, your projection dont work".

    you see a "appeal to authority" where dont exist and now will read everthing wrinten by me through your illusions. deja vu...

    Oh my word do you even have any idea about the original quote from the dev that you posted? "simple citation" is your words, not mine so now you don't even remember your own post and try to lay that on me? The only reason for you to post the dev quote from back in another era that had nothing at all to do with the current status is as an appeal to authority -- you used it as proof to validate and backup your claim that gwf should be doing double the damage of other strikers and that usage and reference a quote as proof (albeit a quote that is outdated and irrelevant) is an appeal to authority.

    Again and back to the original post you quoted that you have no knowledge of what it was about at all. It was from a request for Buffs to GWF damage and not a concern they were doing too much. Put that into perspective with the current situation and anyone with even the simplest ability to reason would quickly realize that it has no relevance at all as to what stands now. You wield it like a greatsword to reinforce your position when in fact it is actually an official position contrary to the one you are assuming.
  • schweifer1982schweifer1982 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,662 Arc User
    zacazu said:

    have a sw that show the same or 80000k of power on preview, so i not will say that is fake. is just not a particular gwf thing.

    i just want know how much power he have to be outdpsesd only by 2 times a gwf that have more than 150% of damage bonus. because, for that numbers in act should be much, much more.

    It look fake to me also.

    I just cheked him he have 35k power .

    Also the CW have T.ligthning enchant. -50% dmg

    The GWF have Vorpal.+50% dmg

    This picture is total fake in all case.

    GWF 3700Ilvl Éjsötét & ProPala 3200Ilvl Menydörgés (main) & Szürkefarkas 2600 ilvl
  • sasagerusasageru Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    I can beleive most of those, but the nerfing rogue one. I play a DPS rogue, they are not as powerful as GWF, are easily killed by CW's and have a hard time against tanks and dc's in pvp - and thats a full DPS spec, the stealth builds are worse, they survive longer and cause more agravation, but they're only saving grace is Shocking Execution which hasn't been all that effective in mod 6 anyway (does less damage against mobs than dazing strike and lashing blade for me - only reason people are still getting 1 hit or close to 1 hit with it is because they've got low defensive stats once their armour is ignored).

    Also one to add: New race, they've got an active poll going, so not a big shocker.
    DPS Rogue | Heal/Buff Cleric
     
  • zacazuzacazu Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,934 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    ... ok, that UNECESSARY discussion is in part my fault. the correct word for "simplesmente" is simply. that is not a context thing, you guys have a word for that.

    maybe the correct is: "briefly ... this is not an 'appeal to authority ', but simply a citation"?

    the rest is just like i predicted... dam karma.
Sign In or Register to comment.