I believe in discussions. I believe they will lead to some insight and progress.
So lets say they do what xsayajinx1 proposed. Where does that leave the other classes like OP and DC? I just wanna make sure were not missing the big picture here, by focusing only on the GWF.
▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ Gankdalf The Icehole █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁
0
josiahiyonMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 396Arc User
I believe in discussions. I believe they will lead to some insight and progress.
So lets say they do what xsayajinx1 proposed. Where does that leave the other classes like OP and DC? I just wanna make sure were not missing the big picture here, by focusing only on the GWF.
In a bad place. Survivability cut in half relative to live.
I'd rather go back to the beginning. Why try balance around this 0-arpen-tenacity proposal on ptr, when we can just propose something better that doesn't introduce balancing issues? i.e. 50/20/75 or similar. The 0-arpen-tenacity CREATES the class imbalance.. we don't have to try to design other things to fix this imbalance. We can just stop it from occurring to begin with.
Post edited by josiahiyon on
Iyon the Dark
0
kalina311Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,082Arc User
do we/ dont we think there is to much healing in pvp ?
Effective hit points might be getting cut on Pally and Dc... however consideration was not made to how many temps hitpoints and DR these classes create from buffs and healing and powers... and spamming of dailies that accomplish the same thing /./
also what were the test conditions for these effective hitpoints ... also considering lots of tiny little hit will procs mount healing bonuses/ boons and there might not be much of a difference only for the large burst hits more then a certain threshold of damage might there be a change in effective hitpoints .. basically a player can withstand less burst damage .
in a 1 v 1 or in a premade how many seconds should these classes be able to survive 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 before help comes?? especially since they can heal themselves ... heck the Dc has one capstone that instantly raises them as soon as they die ... does that not effectively double their hit points lol
we all agree healing is out of control /needs to be toned down.. do we not ? so your effective hit point pools is down... but sources and ways to heal are still there / over powered
why should classes that can heal themselves have or even need / worry about a higher effective hit point pool anyways ...
as a Bis Cw I have not been able to kill a Bis Pally ever or a Bis DC since like mod 6 (given a 30-45 second exchange in pvp )
way too much healing and layers of protection
your effective hitpoint chart is waaay off and biased and also you play a Dc
did you account that a cws shield can be destablized and is not always giving full dr in your effective hitpoints chart ??
did you account for the player wearing a negation vs an elven as well in your calculations ... .. umm nope ....
do we/ dont we think there is to much healing in pvp ?
Effective hit points might be getting cut on Pally and Dc... however consideration was not made to how many temps hitpoints and DR these classes create from buffs and healing and powers... and spamming of dailies that accomplish the same thing /./
in a 1 v 1 or in a premade how many seconds should these classes be able to survive 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 before help comes?? especially since they can heal themselves ... heck the Dc has one capstone that instantly raises them as soon as they die ... does that not effectively double their hit points lol
we all agree healing is out of control /needs to be toned down.. do we not ? so your effective hit point pools is down... but sources and ways to heal are still there / over powered
why should classes that can heal themselves have or even need a higher effective hit point pool anyways ...
A DC wouldn't survive long, I can almost kill a DC on my own and this is before putting much effort in any new builds/enchant changes. Only changed the guild boon from armp to power. So I think atleast the DC needs some buff too if devs are going with what xsayajinx1 proposed and probably OP too.
▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ Gankdalf The Icehole █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁
0
kalina311Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,082Arc User
edited June 2017
well that might be good a Cw has not been able to threaten a Dc since like forever lol however in all fairness ranged classes that are fast will just stay at a distance and slowly burn people away that have no way of closing the gap .. there will be no need to fight on the nodes anymore lol
The last Equally geared Dc I can remember killing solo ( A Guild leader from an infamous guild named after trains) I got told I must have been using Macros on my keyboard
Post edited by kalina311 on
2
josiahiyonMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 396Arc User
do we/ dont we think there is to much healing in pvp ?
Effective hit points might be getting cut on Pally and Dc... however consideration was not made to how many temps hitpoints and DR these classes create from buffs and healing and powers... and spamming of dailies that accomplish the same thing /./
also what were the test conditions for these effective hitpoints ... also considering lots of tiny little hit will procs mount healing bonuses and there might not be much of a difference only for the large burst hits more then a certain threshold of damage
in a 1 v 1 or in a premade how many seconds should these classes be able to survive 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 before help comes?? especially since they can heal themselves ... heck the Dc has one capstone that instantly raises them as soon as they die ... does that not effectively double their hit points lol
we all agree healing is out of control /needs to be toned down.. do we not ? so your effective hit point pools is down... but sources and ways to heal are still there / over powered
why should classes that can heal themselves have or even need / worry about a higher effective hit point pool anyways ...
as a Bis Cw I have not been able to kill a Bis Pally ever or a Bis DC since like mod 6 (given a 30-45 second exchange in pvp )
way too much healing and layers of protection
your effective hitpoint chart is waaay off and biased and also you play a Dc
did you account that a cws shield can be destablized and is not always giving full dr in your effective hitpoints chart ??
did you account for the player wearing a negation vs an elven as well in your calculations ... .. umm nope ....
I am fine if the healing in pvp gets re-examined and reduced. But the point of this thread is to review tenacity changes, not completely reshape class balance. Class balance should be handled separately, in different threads, and the focus here on how best to close gear gap with tenacity changes.
And yes, considerations were made for temp hp, base dr, deflect, deflect severity, dailies, encounters, buffs, different armor enchants, cw shield, gf shield, etc in that chart. You know me well enough Kalina to know that I am looking for truth, not biased results. I can go into more detail on the behind the scenes if you would like (in discord).
Good question on how long 'these classes' (heal op and heal dc, I assume) should last in 1v1, 2v1, 3v1, etc. My premise has always been that heal DCs should survive 1v1 vs all same skill same gear classes (but never kill), but die 2v1 fairly quickly. Others may disagree, but class balancing isn't the purpose of this thread.
Can your BiS CW kill a dps dc 1v1? Now imagine what happens when that DPS dc loses half his hp and your cw gains 15% more hp.
Iyon the Dark
0
kalina311Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,082Arc User
edited June 2017
ya I see ... some people wanted a better break down of your chart and more colors lol and dont fully understand your testing methods and are trying to discredit you for taking a break a few mods ...just trying to let them know you are actually one of the best / most qualified to do it ... but you will have to explain why convince them more / show some formulas / links to past work done
so your bias .. (whether it be right or wrong ) is that a Dc should not be able to be killed 1 V 1 by some one of the same gear regardless of skill level ... counter justified by saying in a 2 v 1 the should die quickly (also neither right or wrong )
Simple thing I am trying to avoid is destroying classes completely for PvE & PvP
"Remove 'second layer' defenses like gf shield and cw shield, and instead make these be DR buffs"
This was suggested by josiahiyon and is the sure way to break one class completely for both game modes (PvE & PvP)
What was also mentioned: changing armorpen into 400 statpoints = 1% RI if armorpen resist keeps being removed is unacceptable as well. We try to close the gap between PvE and PvP.
The biggest gap was PvE stacks power + critical hit and PvP stacked in general power + armorpen.
If you now change the armorpen stat curve to 400 = 1% RI we face the same problem again. You would have to stack insane amounts of RI to be effective in PvP which brings back the gate for PvEers we have right now on live. Also this would break the whole PvE system.
Let's scratch the shield change idea for now. I'm not sold on it, and it isn't really the point of this thread. Main issue is that the situation on ptr isn't good -- creates far too much class balance disruption.
Iyon the Dark
0
kalina311Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,082Arc User
Simple thing I am trying to avoid is destroying classes completely for PvE & PvP
"Remove 'second layer' defenses like gf shield and cw shield, and instead make these be DR buffs"
This was suggested by josiahiyon and is the sure way to break one class completely for both game modes (PvE & PvP)
What was also mentioned: changing armorpen into 400 statpoints = 1% RI if armorpen resist keeps being removed is unacceptable as well. We try to close the gap between PvE and PvP.
The biggest gap was PvE stacks power + critical hit and PvP stacked in general power + armorpen.
If you now change the armorpen stat curve to 400 = 1% RI we face the same problem again. You would have to stack insane amounts of RI to be effective in PvP which brings back the gate for PvEers we have right now on live. Also this would break the whole PvE system.
umm averge pve player should have 60% resist ignored ... often goes higher with bondings
if armor pen were increased to 400 = 1% .. they (pve players ) will find thier crit gear basically had to be changed for armor pen gear at huge huge expense ...... and rage that people crafted / bought the wrong gear .. power crit .. when it should have been power armor pen (if armor pen requirements are harder to stack ).
the new content will require 70%-80%-90% resistance ignored ..we assume bosses already do ... meaning a pve player would still have to step up thier armor pen a bit not not nearly as much as proposed
I was not fan of this line either . -1 "Remove 'second layer' defenses like gf shield and cw shield, and instead make these be DR buffs"
0
josiahiyonMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 396Arc User
edited June 2017
Per the discussion on NWO's discord, we have summarized some potential fixes as follows:
make arpen in pvp work like it does in pve. And rework classes entirely to avoid class balance issues. Removes pve/pvp build gap difference.
make arpen in pve work like it does in pvp. And rework pve mobs entirely to avoid big nerf to pve damage. Removes pve/pvp build gap difference.
keep arpen different in pve and pvp, avoid reworks, but keeps the 'build difference'.
The first is half of what is on the ptr. The PTR misses the rework classes for pvp.
The second basically means make arpen 300:1 (rather than 100:1) for pvp and pve, decreases pve mob dr, and removes arpen tenacity.
The third is the most simple: keeps arpen tenacity and thus doesn't require a pve or pvp rework, but doesn't solve the pvp/pve build difference.
Still brainstorming other ideas in the hopes to find 1 that is simple and also solves the pvp/pve build difference.
Here are my thoughts based on what I'm seeing so far: 1) Lots of complaints about piercing abilities (HR and TR being the focus).
I also don't like where piercing is right now.
Looking at how it's implemented, the first thing that jumps out at me is that it really doesn't work the way the tooltip says, which is "Piercing damage cannot be deflected and ignores armor". The part about deflection is true, but really piercing damage is built to ignore any kind of damage mod on the target at all. So if the if the target is vulnerable due to Lantern of Revelation, piercing doesn't get the bonus. And if the target has damage resist from Tenacity, piercing ignores that as well. It ignores pretty much everything but GF/P shields (which are built in a completely different way -- they are not technically a kind of damage resist, so piercing doesn't get a chance to ignore them).
I'd like to make piercing work like the tooltip says, and just ignore deflection and armor (as opposed to ignoring almost everything). That will make it worse (but, I suspect, still good, given the underlying numbers on a lot of these powers) in PvP, where Tenacity is such a huge factor. It will make it better in PvE, where there's no Tenacity, but damage vulnerability stacking is very important. When the smoke clears, it might also make sense to tweak the numbers on some individual powers (the one that comes to mind is the +50% from Piercing Blade, which might turn out to be high in a world where you get normal bonus damage also). But I think if piercing had this basic functionality (as described in the tooltips) it would be a core mechanic that could work with some number tuning -- as it is, it's just messed up in its underlying logic.
2) Much discussion on the net effect of the changes as far as how good AP is.
People shouldn't forget that fixing the AP overdamage bug is a big deal. It wasn't hard to stack enough AP to be getting that AP damage bonus. And the super-heavy AP build absolutely was (is, on live) a thing. So I think the jury is still out whether AP is much better now or not.
That said, I agree with what people are saying that it's weird for 100 points of AP to counter 400 points of Defense. In general, it's a game design principle that answers need to be stronger than threats (because a threat without an answer is still good, but an answer with no threat is useless -- so the answer needs a buff to make up for that fundamental asymmetry). But four times better? My feeling is something like 200 AP = 1% increase to Resistance Ignored would make more sense (or maybe 300, but I'd start out at 200). Also, it's a bit too easy to get AP right now in PvE, compared to how much you actually need, and rather than make everyone's gear give less, I think it's better to make people need more! However, I also agree with those who think it's too big a change to make right now. For the Chult release, I don't want to do anything so drastic, but in a future release I'd be willing to consider going to 200 AP = 1% RI, with a more-or-less corresponding reduction in monster resistances (these are templated, so a rework isn't as terrifying as it might sound). We'll be thinking about that some more on our end.
Here are my thoughts based on what I'm seeing so far: 1) Lots of complaints about piercing abilities (HR and TR being the focus).
I also don't like where piercing is right now.
Looking at how it's implemented, the first thing that jumps out at me is that it really doesn't work the way the tooltip says, which is "Piercing damage cannot be deflected and ignores armor". The part about deflection is true, but really piercing damage is built to ignore any kind of damage mod on the target at all. So if the if the target is vulnerable due to Lantern of Revelation, piercing doesn't get the bonus. And if the target has damage resist from Tenacity, piercing ignores that as well. It ignores pretty much everything but GF/P shields (which are built in a completely different way -- they are not technically a kind of damage resist, so piercing doesn't get a chance to ignore them).
I'd like to make piercing work like the tooltip says, and just ignore deflection and armor (as opposed to ignoring almost everything). That will make it worse (but, I suspect, still good, given the underlying numbers on a lot of these powers) in PvP, where Tenacity is such a huge factor. It will make it better in PvE, where there's no Tenacity, but damage vulnerability stacking is very important. When the smoke clears, it might also make sense to tweak the numbers on some individual powers (the one that comes to mind is the +50% from Piercing Blade, which might turn out to be high in a world where you get normal bonus damage also). But I think if piercing had this basic functionality (as described in the tooltips) it would be a core mechanic that could work with some number tuning -- as it is, it's just messed up in its underlying logic.
2) Much discussion on the net effect of the changes as far as how good AP is.
People shouldn't forget that fixing the AP overdamage bug is a big deal. It wasn't hard to stack enough AP to be getting that AP damage bonus. And the super-heavy AP build absolutely was (is, on live) a thing. So I think the jury is still out whether AP is much better now or not.
That said, I agree with what people are saying that it's weird for 100 points of AP to counter 400 points of Defense. In general, it's a game design principle that answers need to be stronger than threats (because a threat without an answer is still good, but an answer with no threat is useless -- so the answer needs a buff to make up for that fundamental asymmetry). But four times better? My feeling is something like 200 AP = 1% increase to Resistance Ignored would make more sense (or maybe 300, but I'd start out at 200). Also, it's a bit too easy to get AP right now in PvE, compared to how much you actually need, and rather than make everyone's gear give less, I think it's better to make people need more! However, I also agree with those who think it's too big a change to make right now. For the Chult release, I don't want to do anything so drastic, but in a future release I'd be willing to consider going to 200 AP = 1% RI, with a more-or-less corresponding reduction in monster resistances. We'll be thinking about that some more on our end.
Thanks for the response!
Interesting thoughts on piercing. That's a very touchy subject, and I think you will find strong opinions on both sides of that spectrum. No doubt some will be posted here shortly.
I agree that moving to 200:1 or 300:1 is too drastic a change in pve right now. The problem, however, is that removing arpen tenacity without doing something like 200:1 or 300:1 is too drastic a change in pvp right now. So, rock meet hard place. A short term solution that could work and give time to ease in the 200:1 / 300:1 : don't remove arpen tenacity in pvp yet. Keep it at something between 60% and 75%. For everyone, until you are able to transition to 200:1 or 300:1 for pve and pvp.
I'd like to make piercing work like the tooltip says, and just ignore deflection and armor (as opposed to ignoring almost everything). That will make it worse (but, I suspect, still good, given the underlying numbers on a lot of these powers) in PvP, where Tenacity is such a huge factor. It will make it better in PvE, where there's no Tenacity, but damage vulnerability stacking is very important. When the smoke clears, it might also make sense to tweak the numbers on some individual powers (the one that comes to mind is the +50% from Piercing Blade, which might turn out to be high in a world where you get normal bonus damage also). But I think if piercing had this basic functionality (as described in the tooltips) it would be a core mechanic that could work with some number tuning -- as it is, it's just messed up in its underlying logic.
So, to clarify, "piercing damage" will respect tenacity and merely bypass "damage resistance" as well as "deflect"? This would be a HUGE HUGE QOL increase. Piercing damage has been a huge thorn in this game for YEARS... This would be awesome and much needed. Basically it would attack with "100% Armor penetration" in a way - so any and all armor wouldnt impact it (but values like tenacity and crit resistance would!)
I LOVE this change, massive QOL improvement and should have happened years ago. Kudos!!!!
2) Much discussion on the net effect of the changes as far as how good AP is.
People shouldn't forget that fixing the AP overdamage bug is a big deal. It wasn't hard to stack enough AP to be getting that AP damage bonus. And the super-heavy AP build absolutely was (is, on live) a thing. So I think the jury is still out whether AP is much better now or not.
That said, I agree with what people are saying that it's weird for 100 points of AP to counter 400 points of Defense. In general, it's a game design principle that answers need to be stronger than threats (because a threat without an answer is still good, but an answer with no threat is useless -- so the answer needs a buff to make up for that fundamental asymmetry). But four times better? My feeling is something like 200 AP = 1% increase to Resistance Ignored would make more sense (or maybe 300, but I'd start out at 200). Also, it's a bit too easy to get AP right now in PvE, compared to how much you actually need, and rather than make everyone's gear give less, I think it's better to make people need more! However, I also agree with those who think it's too big a change to make right now. For the Chult release, I don't want to do anything so drastic, but in a future release I'd be willing to consider going to 200 AP = 1% RI, with a more-or-less corresponding reduction in monster resistances. We'll be thinking about that some more on our end.
We are debating this back and forth...
Fixing ARP overdamage is a good thing yes, this will stop players from stacking insane amounts of it in PVP (a problem as it creates a divide between PVE and PVP builds which the goal should be to minimize this) however it also has a very negative rammification in removing ARP resistance.... You made all DR worthless.
Azure defensive enchants? worthless for PVP Negation Enchant? Worthless for PVP Armor Class? Worthless in PVP.
In fact, looking at the GWF class, lets say you add up all the damage resistance he can muster. - 25% base DR (probably a little high but whatever). - 30% Unstoppable - 30 % negation...
He sits at 85% DR. Will this matter? Nope. Because a player can grab ~9k ARP and completely mitigate it all. Even things like damage Resistance Buffs (such as Daring Shout) now becomes worthless because the DR provided is so easily mooted out.
So the GOOD in this change is that now players dont need much ARP in PVP. Around 9k or 10k should do the trick to moot out any and all PVP DR an enemy might have which alligns nicely with what PVE players usually have - around 8k ARP I believe.
The BAD here? Youve completely made any and all DR (with maybe the exception of DCs AS) worthless as I listed above.
Now, there are "bandaid fixes" for classes like GWF who got a pretty raw deal here, we can start adding special DR layers to sprint/unstoppable so they work like GF's block. However you still have made all those other things worthless.
I do disagree that "its too big a change to make right now". Frankly, I think now is a PERFECT time to make that change. Swap ARP to a 200:1 scaler. Atleast now all players will have to stack more like 18k or 20k ARP to moot out 100% of players DR which comes at the cost of crit/power stacking which now provides a much harder tradeoff and choice between maximizing for less DR targets or higher DR targets and frankly I dont think you NEED to reduce PVE monsters DR %.
Getting 16k or 18k ARP is not hard to do these days. Companion + SH boon + Mount would pretty much get you there....
Dont get me wrong, I really like this idea of removing tenacity as a stat and start removing these "layers", these "barriers" however there really isnt an easy way to do this without drastically breaking the game.
My FEAR in all this is: You guys will spend DEV time, making a few adjustments in PVP, that are not enough and not what the player base NEEDS, which will end up not giving you a good ROI for your time and then use that lack of ROI on PVP to justify not spending more time to actually fix PVP.
If, on the OTHER hand, you want to spend time, to get a ROI from the player base, then you have to "do it justice" not just poke and pick at PVP changes over several modules. Players will be unwilling to come back to PVP if they have left the game without some meaningful changes to how PVP works. This change frankly did NOTHING to really adjust the "gear gap" average players vs BIS players have in PVP.
I love you are giving PVP attention, but my enthusiasm for "Yay PVP rework!" has been dwindling the more and more I see how little an impact there is actually going to be, all this seems to do is stir the pot again, making everyone re-gear their toons for PVP and makes 1 class in particular that was already weak (GWF) weaker, and does nothing to actually FIX pvp....
My FEAR in all this is: You guys will spend DEV time, making a few adjustments in PVP, that are not enough and not what the player base NEEDS, which will end up not giving you a good ROI for your time and then use that lack of ROI on PVP to justify not spending more time to actually fix PVP.
If, on the OTHER hand, you want to spend time, to get a ROI from the player base, then you have to "do it justice" not just poke and pick at PVP changes over several modules. Players will be unwilling to come back to PVP if they have left the game without some meaningful changes to how PVP works. This change frankly did NOTHING to really adjust the "gear gap" average players vs BIS players have in PVP.
Totally reasonable fear. I absolutely agree these Chult changes do not constitute a PvP rework. They are just some side effects of the armor pen changes we wanted to make for other reasons. (Although made with an eye towards where we hope to be going with PvP.)
The "where we're going" change list (as described in https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1231984/official-feedback-thread-m12-private-pvp-queues-a-bit-about-where-pvp-is-headed) is what's actually planned as a (admittedly, very basic) "PvP rework". So that's a set of changes that, although it won't make PvP perfect by any means, does need to stand as a reasonable package. The reason for all the feedback threads now is to get info from everyone now to inform those changes (same logic as releasing the PvP Private Queues -- some people here suggested they wait to come out with the rest of the package, but I pushed for them to come out earlier we could benefit from your experiments and feedback).
I should explain that I'm working on that second set of changes right now (Chult is basically done barring bugfixes and number tuning -- that's why it's on preview now). So the "where we're headed" stuff isn't totally pie-in-the-sky. But it's also not something that's coming out right this instant, which is why I'm trying to be cautious. A lot of things can happen between the dev desktop and the live release. But with PvP especially, we really need all of your feedback, which is why we are taking the risk of announcing things way before they are ready.
Also, I 100% agree we need to find the high-ROI things. There are a ton of problems with PvP, and our resources are limited. What are the things that will help the most? Some things, like "balance the classes", would clearly help a lot, but also are a big investment. "Get rid of Tenacity", while not nearly as helpful as "balance everything", is something we can actually do. Similarly for permanent solo queue, diminishing CC, and fixing the leaderboard bug -- while there is work involved for all of these, they are still relatively low-hanging fruit. I'd love more feedback on that thread as to what the best things are to spend our limited (but, thank goodness, no longer zero!) PvP points on.
3
josiahiyonMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 396Arc User
My FEAR in all this is: You guys will spend DEV time, making a few adjustments in PVP, that are not enough and not what the player base NEEDS, which will end up not giving you a good ROI for your time and then use that lack of ROI on PVP to justify not spending more time to actually fix PVP.
If, on the OTHER hand, you want to spend time, to get a ROI from the player base, then you have to "do it justice" not just poke and pick at PVP changes over several modules. Players will be unwilling to come back to PVP if they have left the game without some meaningful changes to how PVP works. This change frankly did NOTHING to really adjust the "gear gap" average players vs BIS players have in PVP.
Totally reasonable fear. I absolutely agree these Chult changes do not constitute a PvP rework. They are just some side effects of the armor pen changes we wanted to make for other reasons. (Although made with an eye towards where we hope to be going with PvP.)
The "where we're going" change list (as described in https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1231984/official-feedback-thread-m12-private-pvp-queues-a-bit-about-where-pvp-is-headed) is what's actually planned as a (admittedly, very basic) "PvP rework". So that's a set of changes that, although it won't make PvP perfect by any means, does need to stand as a reasonable package. The reason for all the feedback threads now is to get info from everyone now to inform those changes (same logic as releasing the PvP Private Queues -- some people here suggested they wait to come out with the rest of the package, but I pushed for them to come out earlier we could benefit from your experiments and feedback).
I should explain that I'm working on that second set of changes right now (Chult is basically done barring bugfixes and number tuning -- that's why it's on preview now). So the "where we're headed" stuff isn't totally pie-in-the-sky. But it's also not something that's coming out right this instant, which is why I'm trying to be cautious. A lot of things can happen between the dev desktop and the live release. But with PvP especially, we really need all of your feedback, which is why we are taking the risk of announcing things way before they are ready.
Also, I 100% agree we need to find the high-ROI things. There are a ton of problems with PvP, and our resources are limited. What are the things that will help the most? Some things, like "balance the classes", would clearly help a lot, but also are a big investment. "Get rid of Tenacity", while not nearly as helpful as "balance everything", is something we can actually do. Similarly for permanent solo queue, diminishing CC, and fixing the leaderboard bug -- while there is work involved for all of these, they are still relatively low-hanging fruit. I'd love more feedback on that thread as to what the best things are to spend our limited (but, thank goodness, no longer zero!) PvP points on.
What types of things could be changed before the changes on the ptr go live? i.e. is the removal of tenacity arpen suppression up for reconsideration? Rather than give everyone 0%, it would be better for balance to give everyone somewhere between 60% and 75% AP suppression.
Absolutely agree on fixing the damage formula such that AP doesn't bring DR below 0. Great high ROI change.
Totally reasonable fear. I absolutely agree these Chult changes do not constitute a PvP rework. They are just some side effects of the armor pen changes we wanted to make for other reasons. (Although made with an eye towards where we hope to be going with PvP.)
Well this change basically made 1 class (GWF) completely worthless - it was already bad for "BIS" premade groups but now its even worse since its entire mechanic (unstoppable) provides DR, that up until now, requires a TON of ARP to get through.
I dont think your prepared to do a class overhaul (what it needs frankly) so I wont waste time even posting about best bang for your buck fixes.. But needless to say, ill personally probably sit this module out since GWF is back to the "mod 4" over-nerfed stat again (I sat that mod out too LOL).
The "where we're going" change list (as described in https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1231984/official-feedback-thread-m12-private-pvp-queues-a-bit-about-where-pvp-is-headed) is what's actually planned as a (admittedly, very basic) "PvP rework". So that's a set of changes that, although it won't make PvP perfect by any means, does need to stand as a reasonable package. The reason for all the feedback threads now is to get info from everyone now to inform those changes (same logic as releasing the PvP Private Queues -- some people here suggested they wait to come out with the rest of the package, but I pushed for them to come out earlier we could benefit from your experiments and feedback).
I should explain that I'm working on that second set of changes right now (Chult is basically done barring bugfixes and number tuning -- that's why it's on preview now). So the "where we're headed" stuff isn't totally pie-in-the-sky. But it's also not something that's coming out right this instant, which is why I'm trying to be cautious. A lot of things can happen between the dev desktop and the live release. But with PvP especially, we really need all of your feedback, which is why we are taking the risk of announcing things way before they are ready.
Also, I 100% agree we need to find the high-ROI things. There are a ton of problems with PvP, and our resources are limited. What are the things that will help the most? Some things, like "balance the classes", would clearly help a lot, but also are a big investment. "Get rid of Tenacity", while not nearly as helpful as "balance everything", is something we can actually do. Similarly for permanent solo queue, diminishing CC, and fixing the leaderboard bug -- while there is work involved for all of these, they are still relatively low-hanging fruit. I'd love more feedback on that thread as to what the best things are to spend our limited (but, thank goodness, no longer zero!) PvP points on.
I appreciate the response. I am not trying to be rude, so sorry if I come across that way.
The #1 biggest" bang for buck ROI item would be removal of tenacity as a stat, and given a flat buff to all players across the board. This is the biggest "gap/divide" in the player base.
After that, the #2 biggest thing to address is power gap in PVP. This may actually be #1. Things like Solo-Q and leaderboard fixes are all good QOL improvements. But it does nothing to REALLY address THE single greatest issue in PVP - power gap.
You take a new lvl 70 who hardly has any boons, maybe in a low level SH, and put him up against a full BIS toon... No amount of "skill" can overcome that gap.
This is why PVP population has dwindled and why PVP is in such a rough state. There are MANY solutions for this. Several players have posted about options. I dont know what is feasible or not. I have offered my time in explaining what I see are the best options to Mimic King, yet to take me up on that mind you.
The most appealing model I have seen is the WoW approach. I have made a thread about this. The SECOND most appealing model I have seen is @josiahiyon post "Keep it Simple Stupid" where you merely create a new "stat formula" for PVP - with severe diminishing returns on stats (which BTW this would fix your ARP issue). So PVE and PVP have different "diminishing return" values - which makes overstacking any stat less rewarding - which means a player with like 30k Power versus a newer player with 8k Power wont be severe as an example.
The THIRD most appealing model I have see would be the removal of all campaign boons (note: not SH or PVP boons) from PVP and treat them like companions. This too, removes "power gap" between the players, the average versus BIS veteran.
Those are my top 3 "best models" I have seen for equalizing PVP power.
Without this, no amount of "Que improvements" or "leaderboard fixes" or even NCL could bring back a healthy PVP community. You need something BIG that not only will attract NEW players to PVP but also would make an old NW player go "you mean I can come back and be competitive in PVP without having to grind for 1-2 months on a bunch of daily quests"? - That is the biggest objection I hear when I try and ask players to come back. Even with a Buyout option - this isnt enough. The "power" all the stuff affords you in PVP is too much.
What NW PVP reminds me of is POE PVP. There is a reason POE PVP isnt popular - gear gap/power issues.
What I think is a GREAT model for NW to follow - World oF warcraft. They have had countless "modules/expansions" and dealt with massive power creep and power gap in PVP that ruined PVP. So they completely re-did PVP and now its HUGELY popular again.
So much info in this thread from players that my mind is blasted. 1. ArP should have been working as 100% - 100% DR and no overpenetration from the beginning (if this was really a bug its funny that this is only being labelled as one now and I haven't heard mention of it before - even BIS players were not using this "overpenetration bug" or maybe there is something I have missed) 2. removal of ArP resist (possibly a step in the right direction though perhaps it should be changed to a higher buff to DR OR pierce resist?) 3. Great suggestions from SaiyajinX - 4. And now this is the main kicker - what exactly is up for discussion and change with these proposed changes? It's no use going into class discussions or even change discussions without knowing exactly what change can possibly be mitigated as this seems more like a "Because im your mom and I said so" sort of change than a discussion around what changes would make it better
There have been alot of proposals for changes to PVP from PVP players and I dont think this is the first step to look at when moving into a better pvp environment. Certain classes can shrug the change off like a fly while other classes are getting bitten by a malaria mosquito and may as well lay down and rot.
When you devs are ready to make changes in PVP please approach the community first on actual proposed changes and take it from there instead of moving ahead with what you feel might be best and end up breaking things further.
BTW: light armored classes are just that - they should have less survivability and heavy armored should have higher survivability - this is BASIC mechanics!
Am I missing something, or is everyone over-thinking this? I'm all for removing Tenacity and agree that "resistance bypass resistance" is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department. Couldn't it just be reworked / reworded into "Armor Penetration is only half (or 1/4th) as effective against other players"? Certain control powers are already presented this way (reduced effectiveness vs. players). Taking this approach could be a seamless way to get rid of Tenacity straight out.
- From the attacking players perspective: "All damage you deal is halved against other players." "Armor Penetration is only half as effective against other players." "Critical Hits and Control effects are only 2/3rds as effective against other players."
Heck, you could still keep the stats where they are, just as ghost stats and you wouldn't even need to display or think about. It's just understood that those things are less effective against other players, kinda like Healing Suppression.
It seems that changing the stat curve is fixing a problem with another problem. Granted, BIS players are already maxed out on effective stats, but when talking about leveling the playing field for PvP, remember that most people are not BIS and don't have 8k SH boons. Those players that don't are the very players we're trying to get back into PvP. Also, asking PvE players to double their ArP for the same effectiveness they have now (for the sake of PvP) is a large nerf to everyone not already facerolling everything.
I do have a question about layers of defense. I know many people are against them and want them gone, but wouldn't giving everyone one extra layer be just as fair? It seems GWFs and SWs are the only ones without atm. GF shield, OP bubble, DC powers, CW Shield, and TR/HR Deflect stacking seem to be working for them. Giving GWFs an extra layer of defense during Unstoppable/Sprinting would help plug the hole and... well, SWs need a good going-over anyway...
On resistance Ignored, I don't think we want to get to a position where players need to stack more in PvP than in PvE (or vice versa) as surely one of the main points of removing tenacity from gear was so players can queue and play without needing a "specialist" set of PvP gear.
One point you didn't cover yet @rgutscheradev was all of the comments about CC. All classes have some form of CC ability but most cannot chain them - the worst type is the 'continuous micro-stun' because CC resist has no impact due to their short duration but fast re-application. The only way to fix that is an immunity period for all players after 'x' stuns.
On piercing damage, we definitely need either a resistance or cap.
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited June 2017
@rgutscheradev I 100% agree this is NOT the time to consider switching to an arp curve of 1:200 or 1:300 and doing so right now would have consequences similar to mod 6.
What a LOT of people in this thread don't get is those of us who play PVE exclusively optimize our stats around hitting the minimum required arp EXACTLY. As in, my toon has 60.1% RI and 100% crit, it does not have excessive amounts. With the change to mob DR coming in mod 12, players in PVE will likely require more arp than players in PVP already, however, if you changed the arp curve to be 1:200 or 1:300, we would need so much RI, that it would quite frankly be ridiculous to the point we would need to change every single piece of gear. To put it simply, the amount of DR monsters have would have to be rebalanced, otherwise players would need in excess of 20k arp for pve. For a fully Bis player sure this is obtainable, but try tell a fresh level 70 toon, a player who has just started playing, "you need 20k arp in order to start dealing normal damage," and see the response. I say this because I am seeing a lot of, "use arp mount+guild boons" but please tell me how many pve players have an arp mount and then after that, tell me, does a fresh level 70 who has just started playing have an 8k arp boon? The current arp requirements are reasonable for a fresh level 70, they CAN hit them, but in the system you are proposing new players would just flat out quit due to doing no damage. The arp requirements for starting out in pve should NOT be balanced around having an expensive mount+a level 20 guild.
It is perfectly fine to make the hardest pve content in the game have a higher arp requirement, as that only impacts the top few % who are running that content and can build around it, it is NOT fine to suddenly triple the arp requirements for everything, an idea like that would have a terrible effect.
The main reason imo arp was designed as being so easy to cap in pve is because new players need to be able to cap it. You can't suddenly raise the arp requirements so high in pve that the only way you can reach it is by exclusively stacking arp and considering pve players have much less arp than pvp players, you can't suddenly set the arp requirements for pve higher than they were for pvp.
If you want to see real chaos and anarchy in the PVE community, mess with Arp.
0
josiahiyonMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 396Arc User
> @niadan said: > If you want to see real chaos and anarchy in the PVE community, mess with Arp.
And that's appropriate. No pve Arpen change should be made without an offsetting change to mob dr. The developer already Said this won't be happening in mod 12, so don't worry
This same principle applies in pvp. Removing Arpen tenacity dr is effectively changing the Arpen stat curve in pvp. This should not happen without significant class reworks, and the developer said no reworks for mod 12. Thus, it is crucial not to remove Arpen tenacity dr in mod 12 without another adjustment.
Give everyone a constant Arpen tenacity dr between 60% and 75%, or remove Arpen tenacity dr and make Arpen 300:1 in pvp.
Comments
So lets say they do what xsayajinx1 proposed. Where does that leave the other classes like OP and DC? I just wanna make sure were not missing the big picture here, by focusing only on the GWF.
▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ Gankdalf The Icehole █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁
I'd rather go back to the beginning. Why try balance around this 0-arpen-tenacity proposal on ptr, when we can just propose something better that doesn't introduce balancing issues? i.e. 50/20/75 or similar. The 0-arpen-tenacity CREATES the class imbalance.. we don't have to try to design other things to fix this imbalance. We can just stop it from occurring to begin with.
Iyon the Dark
do we/ dont we think there is to much healing in pvp ?
Effective hit points might be getting cut on Pally and Dc... however consideration was not made to how many temps hitpoints and DR these classes create from buffs and healing and powers... and spamming of dailies that accomplish the same thing /./
also what were the test conditions for these effective hitpoints ... also considering lots of tiny little hit will procs mount healing bonuses/ boons and there might not be much of a difference only for the large burst hits more then a certain threshold of damage might there be a change in effective hitpoints .. basically a player can withstand less burst damage .
in a 1 v 1 or in a premade how many seconds should these classes be able to survive 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 before help comes??
especially since they can heal themselves ... heck the Dc has one capstone that instantly raises them as soon as they die ... does that not effectively double their hit points lol
we all agree healing is out of control /needs to be toned down.. do we not ?
so your effective hit point pools is down... but sources and ways to heal are still there / over powered
why should classes that can heal themselves have or even need / worry about a higher effective hit point pool anyways ...
as a Bis Cw I have not been able to kill a Bis Pally ever or a Bis DC since like mod 6 (given a 30-45 second exchange in pvp )
way too much healing and layers of protection
your effective hitpoint chart is waaay off and biased and also you play a Dc
did you account that a cws shield can be destablized and is not always giving full dr in your effective hitpoints chart ??
did you account for the player wearing a negation vs an elven as well in your calculations ... .. umm nope ....
▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ Gankdalf The Icehole █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁
however in all fairness ranged classes that are fast will just stay at a distance and slowly burn people away that have no way of closing the gap .. there will be no need to fight on the nodes anymore lol
The last Equally geared Dc I can remember killing solo ( A Guild leader from an infamous guild named after trains) I got told I must have been using Macros on my keyboard
And yes, considerations were made for temp hp, base dr, deflect, deflect severity, dailies, encounters, buffs, different armor enchants, cw shield, gf shield, etc in that chart. You know me well enough Kalina to know that I am looking for truth, not biased results. I can go into more detail on the behind the scenes if you would like (in discord).
Good question on how long 'these classes' (heal op and heal dc, I assume) should last in 1v1, 2v1, 3v1, etc. My premise has always been that heal DCs should survive 1v1 vs all same skill same gear classes (but never kill), but die 2v1 fairly quickly. Others may disagree, but class balancing isn't the purpose of this thread.
Can your BiS CW kill a dps dc 1v1? Now imagine what happens when that DPS dc loses half his hp and your cw gains 15% more hp.
Iyon the Dark
so your bias .. (whether it be right or wrong ) is that a Dc should not be able to be killed 1 V 1 by some one of the same gear regardless of skill level ... counter justified by saying in a 2 v 1 the should die quickly (also neither right or wrong )
Iyon the Dark
if armor pen were increased to 400 = 1% .. they (pve players ) will find thier crit gear basically had to be changed for armor pen gear at huge huge expense ...... and rage that people crafted / bought the wrong gear .. power crit .. when it should have been power armor pen (if armor pen requirements are harder to stack ).
the new content will require 70%-80%-90% resistance ignored ..we assume bosses already do ... meaning a pve player would
still have to step up thier armor pen a bit not not nearly as much as proposed
I was not fan of this line either . -1
"Remove 'second layer' defenses like gf shield and cw shield, and instead make these be DR buffs"
- make arpen in pvp work like it does in pve. And rework classes entirely to avoid class balance issues. Removes pve/pvp build gap difference.
- make arpen in pve work like it does in pvp. And rework pve mobs entirely to avoid big nerf to pve damage. Removes pve/pvp build gap difference.
- keep arpen different in pve and pvp, avoid reworks, but keeps the 'build difference'.
The first is half of what is on the ptr. The PTR misses the rework classes for pvp.The second basically means make arpen 300:1 (rather than 100:1) for pvp and pve, decreases pve mob dr, and removes arpen tenacity.
The third is the most simple: keeps arpen tenacity and thus doesn't require a pve or pvp rework, but doesn't solve the pvp/pve build difference.
Still brainstorming other ideas in the hopes to find 1 that is simple and also solves the pvp/pve build difference.
Iyon the Dark
Here are my thoughts based on what I'm seeing so far:
1) Lots of complaints about piercing abilities (HR and TR being the focus).
I also don't like where piercing is right now.
Looking at how it's implemented, the first thing that jumps out at me is that it really doesn't work the way the tooltip says, which is "Piercing damage cannot be deflected and ignores armor". The part about deflection is true, but really piercing damage is built to ignore any kind of damage mod on the target at all. So if the if the target is vulnerable due to Lantern of Revelation, piercing doesn't get the bonus. And if the target has damage resist from Tenacity, piercing ignores that as well. It ignores pretty much everything but GF/P shields (which are built in a completely different way -- they are not technically a kind of damage resist, so piercing doesn't get a chance to ignore them).
I'd like to make piercing work like the tooltip says, and just ignore deflection and armor (as opposed to ignoring almost everything). That will make it worse (but, I suspect, still good, given the underlying numbers on a lot of these powers) in PvP, where Tenacity is such a huge factor. It will make it better in PvE, where there's no Tenacity, but damage vulnerability stacking is very important. When the smoke clears, it might also make sense to tweak the numbers on some individual powers (the one that comes to mind is the +50% from Piercing Blade, which might turn out to be high in a world where you get normal bonus damage also). But I think if piercing had this basic functionality (as described in the tooltips) it would be a core mechanic that could work with some number tuning -- as it is, it's just messed up in its underlying logic.
2) Much discussion on the net effect of the changes as far as how good AP is.
People shouldn't forget that fixing the AP overdamage bug is a big deal. It wasn't hard to stack enough AP to be getting that AP damage bonus. And the super-heavy AP build absolutely was (is, on live) a thing. So I think the jury is still out whether AP is much better now or not.
That said, I agree with what people are saying that it's weird for 100 points of AP to counter 400 points of Defense. In general, it's a game design principle that answers need to be stronger than threats (because a threat without an answer is still good, but an answer with no threat is useless -- so the answer needs a buff to make up for that fundamental asymmetry). But four times better? My feeling is something like 200 AP = 1% increase to Resistance Ignored would make more sense (or maybe 300, but I'd start out at 200). Also, it's a bit too easy to get AP right now in PvE, compared to how much you actually need, and rather than make everyone's gear give less, I think it's better to make people need more! However, I also agree with those who think it's too big a change to make right now. For the Chult release, I don't want to do anything so drastic, but in a future release I'd be willing to consider going to 200 AP = 1% RI, with a more-or-less corresponding reduction in monster resistances (these are templated, so a rework isn't as terrifying as it might sound). We'll be thinking about that some more on our end.
Interesting thoughts on piercing. That's a very touchy subject, and I think you will find strong opinions on both sides of that spectrum. No doubt some will be posted here shortly.
I agree that moving to 200:1 or 300:1 is too drastic a change in pve right now. The problem, however, is that removing arpen tenacity without doing something like 200:1 or 300:1 is too drastic a change in pvp right now. So, rock meet hard place. A short term solution that could work and give time to ease in the 200:1 / 300:1 : don't remove arpen tenacity in pvp yet. Keep it at something between 60% and 75%. For everyone, until you are able to transition to 200:1 or 300:1 for pve and pvp.
Iyon the Dark
I LOVE this change, massive QOL improvement and should have happened years ago. Kudos!!!!
We are debating this back and forth...
Fixing ARP overdamage is a good thing yes, this will stop players from stacking insane amounts of it in PVP (a problem as it creates a divide between PVE and PVP builds which the goal should be to minimize this) however it also has a very negative rammification in removing ARP resistance.... You made all DR worthless.
Azure defensive enchants? worthless for PVP
Negation Enchant? Worthless for PVP
Armor Class? Worthless in PVP.
In fact, looking at the GWF class, lets say you add up all the damage resistance he can muster.
- 25% base DR (probably a little high but whatever).
- 30% Unstoppable
- 30 % negation...
He sits at 85% DR. Will this matter? Nope. Because a player can grab ~9k ARP and completely mitigate it all.
Even things like damage Resistance Buffs (such as Daring Shout) now becomes worthless because the DR provided is so easily mooted out.
So the GOOD in this change is that now players dont need much ARP in PVP. Around 9k or 10k should do the trick to moot out any and all PVP DR an enemy might have which alligns nicely with what PVE players usually have - around 8k ARP I believe.
The BAD here?
Youve completely made any and all DR (with maybe the exception of DCs AS) worthless as I listed above.
Now, there are "bandaid fixes" for classes like GWF who got a pretty raw deal here, we can start adding special DR layers to sprint/unstoppable so they work like GF's block. However you still have made all those other things worthless.
I do disagree that "its too big a change to make right now". Frankly, I think now is a PERFECT time to make that change. Swap ARP to a 200:1 scaler. Atleast now all players will have to stack more like 18k or 20k ARP to moot out 100% of players DR which comes at the cost of crit/power stacking which now provides a much harder tradeoff and choice between maximizing for less DR targets or higher DR targets and frankly I dont think you NEED to reduce PVE monsters DR %.
Getting 16k or 18k ARP is not hard to do these days. Companion + SH boon + Mount would pretty much get you there....
Dont get me wrong, I really like this idea of removing tenacity as a stat and start removing these "layers", these "barriers" however there really isnt an easy way to do this without drastically breaking the game.
My FEAR in all this is: You guys will spend DEV time, making a few adjustments in PVP, that are not enough and not what the player base NEEDS, which will end up not giving you a good ROI for your time and then use that lack of ROI on PVP to justify not spending more time to actually fix PVP.
If, on the OTHER hand, you want to spend time, to get a ROI from the player base, then you have to "do it justice" not just poke and pick at PVP changes over several modules. Players will be unwilling to come back to PVP if they have left the game without some meaningful changes to how PVP works. This change frankly did NOTHING to really adjust the "gear gap" average players vs BIS players have in PVP.
I love you are giving PVP attention, but my enthusiasm for "Yay PVP rework!" has been dwindling the more and more I see how little an impact there is actually going to be, all this seems to do is stir the pot again, making everyone re-gear their toons for PVP and makes 1 class in particular that was already weak (GWF) weaker, and does nothing to actually FIX pvp....
The "where we're going" change list (as described in https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1231984/official-feedback-thread-m12-private-pvp-queues-a-bit-about-where-pvp-is-headed) is what's actually planned as a (admittedly, very basic) "PvP rework". So that's a set of changes that, although it won't make PvP perfect by any means, does need to stand as a reasonable package. The reason for all the feedback threads now is to get info from everyone now to inform those changes (same logic as releasing the PvP Private Queues -- some people here suggested they wait to come out with the rest of the package, but I pushed for them to come out earlier we could benefit from your experiments and feedback).
I should explain that I'm working on that second set of changes right now (Chult is basically done barring bugfixes and number tuning -- that's why it's on preview now). So the "where we're headed" stuff isn't totally pie-in-the-sky. But it's also not something that's coming out right this instant, which is why I'm trying to be cautious. A lot of things can happen between the dev desktop and the live release. But with PvP especially, we really need all of your feedback, which is why we are taking the risk of announcing things way before they are ready.
Also, I 100% agree we need to find the high-ROI things. There are a ton of problems with PvP, and our resources are limited. What are the things that will help the most? Some things, like "balance the classes", would clearly help a lot, but also are a big investment. "Get rid of Tenacity", while not nearly as helpful as "balance everything", is something we can actually do. Similarly for permanent solo queue, diminishing CC, and fixing the leaderboard bug -- while there is work involved for all of these, they are still relatively low-hanging fruit. I'd love more feedback on that thread as to what the best things are to spend our limited (but, thank goodness, no longer zero!) PvP points on.
Absolutely agree on fixing the damage formula such that AP doesn't bring DR below 0. Great high ROI change.
Iyon the Dark
I dont think your prepared to do a class overhaul (what it needs frankly) so I wont waste time even posting about best bang for your buck fixes.. But needless to say, ill personally probably sit this module out since GWF is back to the "mod 4" over-nerfed stat again (I sat that mod out too LOL). I appreciate the response. I am not trying to be rude, so sorry if I come across that way.
The #1 biggest" bang for buck ROI item would be removal of tenacity as a stat, and given a flat buff to all players across the board. This is the biggest "gap/divide" in the player base.
After that, the #2 biggest thing to address is power gap in PVP. This may actually be #1. Things like Solo-Q and leaderboard fixes are all good QOL improvements. But it does nothing to REALLY address THE single greatest issue in PVP - power gap.
You take a new lvl 70 who hardly has any boons, maybe in a low level SH, and put him up against a full BIS toon... No amount of "skill" can overcome that gap.
This is why PVP population has dwindled and why PVP is in such a rough state. There are MANY solutions for this. Several players have posted about options. I dont know what is feasible or not. I have offered my time in explaining what I see are the best options to Mimic King, yet to take me up on that mind you.
The most appealing model I have seen is the WoW approach. I have made a thread about this.
The SECOND most appealing model I have seen is @josiahiyon post "Keep it Simple Stupid" where you merely create a new "stat formula" for PVP - with severe diminishing returns on stats (which BTW this would fix your ARP issue). So PVE and PVP have different "diminishing return" values - which makes overstacking any stat less rewarding - which means a player with like 30k Power versus a newer player with 8k Power wont be severe as an example.
The THIRD most appealing model I have see would be the removal of all campaign boons (note: not SH or PVP boons) from PVP and treat them like companions. This too, removes "power gap" between the players, the average versus BIS veteran.
Those are my top 3 "best models" I have seen for equalizing PVP power.
Without this, no amount of "Que improvements" or "leaderboard fixes" or even NCL could bring back a healthy PVP community. You need something BIG that not only will attract NEW players to PVP but also would make an old NW player go "you mean I can come back and be competitive in PVP without having to grind for 1-2 months on a bunch of daily quests"? - That is the biggest objection I hear when I try and ask players to come back. Even with a Buyout option - this isnt enough. The "power" all the stuff affords you in PVP is too much.
What NW PVP reminds me of is POE PVP. There is a reason POE PVP isnt popular - gear gap/power issues.
What I think is a GREAT model for NW to follow - World oF warcraft. They have had countless "modules/expansions" and dealt with massive power creep and power gap in PVP that ruined PVP. So they completely re-did PVP and now its HUGELY popular again.
/end rant
1. ArP should have been working as 100% - 100% DR and no overpenetration from the beginning (if this was really a bug its funny that this is only being labelled as one now and I haven't heard mention of it before - even BIS players were not using this "overpenetration bug" or maybe there is something I have missed)
2. removal of ArP resist (possibly a step in the right direction though perhaps it should be changed to a higher buff to DR OR pierce resist?)
3. Great suggestions from SaiyajinX -
4. And now this is the main kicker - what exactly is up for discussion and change with these proposed changes? It's no use going into class discussions or even change discussions without knowing exactly what change can possibly be mitigated as this seems more like a "Because im your mom and I said so" sort of change than a discussion around what changes would make it better
There have been alot of proposals for changes to PVP from PVP players and I dont think this is the first step to look at when moving into a better pvp environment. Certain classes can shrug the change off like a fly while other classes are getting bitten by a malaria mosquito and may as well lay down and rot.
When you devs are ready to make changes in PVP please approach the community first on actual proposed changes and take it from there instead of moving ahead with what you feel might be best and end up breaking things further.
BTW: light armored classes are just that - they should have less survivability and heavy armored should have higher survivability - this is BASIC mechanics!
- From the attacking players perspective:
"All damage you deal is halved against other players."
"Armor Penetration is only half as effective against other players."
"Critical Hits and Control effects are only 2/3rds as effective against other players."
Heck, you could still keep the stats where they are, just as ghost stats and you wouldn't even need to display or think about. It's just understood that those things are less effective against other players, kinda like Healing Suppression.
It seems that changing the stat curve is fixing a problem with another problem. Granted, BIS players are already maxed out on effective stats, but when talking about leveling the playing field for PvP, remember that most people are not BIS and don't have 8k SH boons. Those players that don't are the very players we're trying to get back into PvP. Also, asking PvE players to double their ArP for the same effectiveness they have now (for the sake of PvP) is a large nerf to everyone not already facerolling everything.
I do have a question about layers of defense. I know many people are against them and want them gone, but wouldn't giving everyone one extra layer be just as fair? It seems GWFs and SWs are the only ones without atm. GF shield, OP bubble, DC powers, CW Shield, and TR/HR Deflect stacking seem to be working for them. Giving GWFs an extra layer of defense during Unstoppable/Sprinting would help plug the hole and... well, SWs need a good going-over anyway...
One point you didn't cover yet @rgutscheradev was all of the comments about CC. All classes have some form of CC ability but most cannot chain them - the worst type is the 'continuous micro-stun' because CC resist has no impact due to their short duration but fast re-application. The only way to fix that is an immunity period for all players after 'x' stuns.
On piercing damage, we definitely need either a resistance or cap.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
What a LOT of people in this thread don't get is those of us who play PVE exclusively optimize our stats around hitting the minimum required arp EXACTLY. As in, my toon has 60.1% RI and 100% crit, it does not have excessive amounts. With the change to mob DR coming in mod 12, players in PVE will likely require more arp than players in PVP already, however, if you changed the arp curve to be 1:200 or 1:300, we would need so much RI, that it would quite frankly be ridiculous to the point we would need to change every single piece of gear. To put it simply, the amount of DR monsters have would have to be rebalanced, otherwise players would need in excess of 20k arp for pve. For a fully Bis player sure this is obtainable, but try tell a fresh level 70 toon, a player who has just started playing, "you need 20k arp in order to start dealing normal damage," and see the response. I say this because I am seeing a lot of, "use arp mount+guild boons" but please tell me how many pve players have an arp mount and then after that, tell me, does a fresh level 70 who has just started playing have an 8k arp boon? The current arp requirements are reasonable for a fresh level 70, they CAN hit them, but in the system you are proposing new players would just flat out quit due to doing no damage. The arp requirements for starting out in pve should NOT be balanced around having an expensive mount+a level 20 guild.
It is perfectly fine to make the hardest pve content in the game have a higher arp requirement, as that only impacts the top few % who are running that content and can build around it, it is NOT fine to suddenly triple the arp requirements for everything, an idea like that would have a terrible effect.
The main reason imo arp was designed as being so easy to cap in pve is because new players need to be able to cap it. You can't suddenly raise the arp requirements so high in pve that the only way you can reach it is by exclusively stacking arp and considering pve players have much less arp than pvp players, you can't suddenly set the arp requirements for pve higher than they were for pvp.
Iyon the Dark
> If you want to see real chaos and anarchy in the PVE community, mess with Arp.
And that's appropriate. No pve Arpen change should be made without an offsetting change to mob dr. The developer already Said this won't be happening in mod 12, so don't worry
This same principle applies in pvp. Removing Arpen tenacity dr is effectively changing the Arpen stat curve in pvp. This should not happen without significant class reworks, and the developer said no reworks for mod 12. Thus, it is crucial not to remove Arpen tenacity dr in mod 12 without another adjustment.
Give everyone a constant Arpen tenacity dr between 60% and 75%, or remove Arpen tenacity dr and make Arpen 300:1 in pvp.
Iyon the Dark