@asterdahl said: I can't go into a lot of specifics because we're still discussing the details—and there won't be any major overhauls for 12B—but there is one area I would like to address: the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. This was a recent introduction when an attempt was made to make Divine Oracle a competitive paragon path. The designer who worked on those updates did not intend for it to become optimal to run 2 clerics in a 5 man.
The meta encouraging bringing 2 clerics to a 5 man is not something we are happy with for various reasons and so that is something we plan to address sooner rather than later. When we do make changes, we will absolutely attempt to ensure DO and AC are both viable builds, and that in a 10 man it would be best to have 1 of each. This is just a heads up that the days are numbered on 2 cleric groups.
One final thing I'd like to say on the topic as there is sometimes an adversarial feeling when we come out and talk about changes to a build or meta you might currently be using, and I'd like to dispel that as much as possible. Obviously there will be those that really love the way something currently works, and no explanation will be sufficient to lighten the blow. But—we aren't specifically out to ruin something you might be enjoying. The design team is responsible for creating things like the 2 cleric meta, and we absolutely don't blame everyone for taking advantage of it.
It's just not ideal that in a game with as many classes as we have that an optimal group setup involves bringing 2 of the same class, and 2 healer roles. We don't have anything against people wanting to bring their own interesting group comps into private queues, but bringing a 2nd healer should not beat out bringing another DPS for kill speed.
The way the game stands right now, classes can not be strictly defined by tank, healer, DPS roles anymore. A hexagon of tanking, mitigation, buffs, debuffs, healing, and DPS would better represent what's essential for current end game contents.
It's been made very clear that you are unhappy about the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. Would you care to share what kind of meta you would be happy about?
@asterdahl NWO players are mind washed to see DPS as the most important thing in the game, if you ever want to do anything with Life steal consider make it something like life craving, instead of healing a full hit like now now, hit again for a % of the base damage and heal the player for that hit, this way people will feel the lack of survival but will be presented with more damage, which will make them less revolted. Now when it comes to solo content, I've heard people say "so just because I'm full dps i will need a healers companion to do campaign of my IL", of course yes, it makes sence, healer companion supports big dps player that cannot take much damage as big dps companions support low dps tanky characters because if we take a big picture of the 3 main protective stats some classes life steal contributes way more to solo survival than either defense or hit points, tuning it down will only make it on pair.
Ageed, his or just use 2 loudouts , one for dungeons and another oe for solo, being solo a less dps and more survival playset... is not that hard btw...
> @polarp178 said: > @asterdahl said: > I can't go into a lot of specifics because we're still discussing the details—and there won't be any major overhauls for 12B—but there is one area I would like to address: the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. This was a recent introduction when an attempt was made to make Divine Oracle a competitive paragon path. The designer who worked on those updates did not intend for it to become optimal to run 2 clerics in a 5 man. > > The meta encouraging bringing 2 clerics to a 5 man is not something we are happy with for various reasons and so that is something we plan to address sooner rather than later. When we do make changes, we will absolutely attempt to ensure DO and AC are both viable builds, and that in a 10 man it would be best to have 1 of each. This is just a heads up that the days are numbered on 2 cleric groups. > > One final thing I'd like to say on the topic as there is sometimes an adversarial feeling when we come out and talk about changes to a build or meta you might currently be using, and I'd like to dispel that as much as possible. Obviously there will be those that really love the way something currently works, and no explanation will be sufficient to lighten the blow. But—we aren't specifically out to ruin something you might be enjoying. The design team is responsible for creating things like the 2 cleric meta, and we absolutely don't blame everyone for taking advantage of it. > > It's just not ideal that in a game with as many classes as we have that an optimal group setup involves bringing 2 of the same class, and 2 healer roles. We don't have anything against people wanting to bring their own interesting group comps into private queues, but bringing a 2nd healer should not beat out bringing another DPS for kill speed. > > > > The way the game stands right now, classes can not be strictly defined by tank, healer, DPS roles anymore. > A hexagon of tanking, mitigation, buffs, debuffs, healing, and DPS would better represent what's essential for current end game contents. > > It's been made very clear that you are unhappy about the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. Would you care to share what kind of meta you would be happy about?
Take this hexagon party role idea a step further which would also ameliorate the pain of the bonding stone nerf: Change party size to 6. Op, gf, 2dc, 2dps. Non-gwf would have an improved chance to get in groups as well. Discuss....
one of the main reasons why private queue is so much more popular than public queue atm on live, and will definitly be far more popular than random queue, is that public/random queue enforces the obsolete assignment of roles by class alone, and then forces a certain ratio. Imho you should either drop role requirements altogether, or change the system so players can q their characters as what theiy built them to be ( f.e devotion OP or healing SW[forgot what the paragon path is called] as a healer, sentinel GWF as a tank[that feat path looks like its designed to fill the tank role, but needs some buffs to be able to succseed at it] righteous DC or conqueror GF as a DPS[if built, specced and geared to be one] and so on)
7
Options
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc User
Quote : "The meta encouraging bringing 2 clerics to a 5 man is not something we are happy with for various reasons and so that is something we plan to address sooner rather than later. When we do make changes, we will absolutely attempt to ensure DO and AC are both viable builds, and that in a 10 man it would be best to have 1 of each. This is just a heads up that the days are numbered on 2 cleric groups. "
This is completely disrespectful towards the players. DEVs do not play this game, players do. Intelligent players put time to run the last dungeon in the best way possible and Cryptic dont want us to play like we want to play. So with this, I can not run the last dungeon with my friends. This is completely moronic from their part. I never seen this level of stupidity in a game. I never seen this level of stupid decisions.
Paladins and CWs can heal, with life steal stats, DC as a healer is not necessary. DC will be needed to proc gift and that's it. Why to I write this, Neverwinter could have potential, but patch note after patch note the DEVs mess it up every time. DEVs should stop listening to their stupid friends to get stupid ideas and create group of high end players of each class and have honest discussion with them.
All classes viable . I have 4 cw friends and i am cw too. With the same logic i want the 5 cw back but not that is not good. Also bring other classes on dc level would not be so good too since dc has already everything.
The proposed changes are a number of steps forward, address a number of current issues and offer solutions as well. Even though many players dislike the changes the overall scope is noble and shows effort to rectify problems. The players in the mix of the changes may not "see the light" as the changes are breaking ground and take more shape though newer players are seen to be able to come into a more robust game overall.
Some players from this end had been concerned for some time about some of the various issues that these changes aim to rectify, thank you.
There are some out there who might find the current landscape of focusing on buffs and debuffs fun—and we don't want to destroy the idea that some builds might be more support focused—but we do think that overall the game would be in a better place, and most players would actually prefer it, if using abilities that heal or deal damage directly was more effective.
Agreed.
After witnessing a number of groups fail to even take off because they were looking for a 2 DC run the above quote is reassuring. Buffing and debuffing content to the point where it is less of a challenge/enjoyable and more a of speed run type thing may appeal to some but "most" prefer otherwise.
Many probally will not be able to due the prereq issues. Dont have mod 10 done? Dont want to grind through it then no random skirimish queve or random epic dungeon queve for you. Even if you have it open on a few alts having enough time to run random queve is another matter. Alot of players dont have the time to play all day. Many log in for short stints of 30 min or so.
@joe123thewayward Normal dungeon RQ will be available simply from leveling and skirmish RQ will be upon unlocking the appropriate content, neither of which currently involves 100%'ing a campaign. How much progress do you think a player will make playing 30 mins to an hour per session? Leveling would take quite some time, running higher content seemingly would as well. Where will they get their refinement? Etc.?
Around 25k RAD pre-Mod 12b would do what for those players? After 30 days that's about 750k AD, what kind of progress will that fund? Asking for comparisons.
I am not sure what you are saying, but the avarage return on the time invested will be lower under random queve because the suboptimal party composition being forced by the queve will slow down the run and because not all dungeon are equal length.
@joe123thewayward Calculate it... would like to see what others have come up with.
Are you stating that players will only RQ epic dungeons or are you only referring to epic RQ's to support your statement?
@arcanjo86 players that successfully can handle RQ'ing content with the classic group composition are rewarded for it, essentially nothing more, nothing less.
@jaime4312 why would other classes need buffs, etc. if the viability of DC 5-man groups are in the process of being changed when there are various tests done that show a RQ acceptable group can effectively handle content?
Clearing content fast is a "player invention", in Neverwinter it's to often compensate for the often negative views of dungeon rewards. Improving dungeon rewards just because they may take longer with a RQ acceptable composition or with 2 DC's (after changes) can arguably encourage the latter. If rewards are increased and a 2 DC group can still be complete content faster than a RQ acceptable group, guess what players will more than likely continue to do?
So many other aspects of the game to earn AD that do not require queuing period... Are those aspects being ignored, consciously lowering AD gains and the blame being placed on the RQ system? Seems like it.
"Ruining" the game for lower level characters is quite the repeat argument here, though arguably a pretty weak one. There are a number of player "types", for simplicity:
1 - "role players", like going through content at level without the "aid" of higher level players. 2 - speed runners, want to clear content as fast as possible and or get the most AD out of the least amount of time. 3 - players with limited play time. 4 - players that essentially run content without emphasis on it being at level or completion time. 5 - AFK farmers, bots, abusers
Suggestion made by either of those "types" (except 5 for the most part) without regard to the others is inconsiderate.
- 1's wanting to exclude higher level players from lower level content will effect 2's/3's. It would more than likely require an additional queue section and essentially another section players will want bonus RAD from (could be handled by implementing a "level range" tick box when queuing below level 70 for 1's to be able to queue with similarly leveled players only, not sure if this will go with or against the want for queues to pop faster). - Level 70 versions of lower level dungeons will effect 2's/3's, increase the amount of AD generated in the market (the separate queue section will need to award bonus RAD) as well as provide more possible AD for 5's. - Adding RQ bonus's on top of the pre-Mod 12b system will allow 5's to gain more RAD faster pushing more AD into the market.
The RQ system "can" respectively effect:
- 1's if they don't queue together. - 2's due to not being able to select the easiest content manually for bonus RAD. - 3's if they queue for epic dungeons/trials (cans till RQ for normal dungeons/skirmishes). - 5's if they don't progress their character(s) to the appreciate points.
The RQ system will effect players of different types to varying degrees though not necessarily pinning any particular type to the wall without giving them options/alternatives and can cover a number of game related issues.
ALL Rights Reserved for any and all suggestions, ideas, etc. from this user.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY "No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
starheretic70Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 52Arc User
edited September 2017
quote from mamalion1234
All classes viable . I have 4 cw friends and i am cw too. With the same logic i want the 5 cw back but not that is not good. Also bring other classes on dc level would not be so good too since dc has already everything. ----
are you on drugs ?? when have you seen a DC as 1st or 2nd DPS in TONG or FBI (equal geared players), I want a screenshot.
We must be able to go 5 CWs in dungeon, 5 DCs ... and be productive... it's a game, it's a mmo, we are suppose to play with friends and have fun.
Lifesteal is fine as it is. Most DPS players do not want to run around with healer pets. The only way to make Lifesteal not be the way DPS classes survive is to improve Defense/DR to actually work, and to lower the damage of some enemies. Some enemies can one-shot you, others melt through your HP like butter.
Defense/DR do actually work, thats why the vast majority of tank guides recommends to cap it(80%+monster RI). That being said, DR has a brutal anti-synergy with the GWF class mechanic, since reducing damage taken also reduces determination gained.
1
Options
mamalion1234Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,415Arc User
All classes viable . I have 4 cw friends and i am cw too. With the same logic i want the 5 cw back but not that is not good. Also bring other classes on dc level would not be so good too since dc has already everything. ----
are you on drugs ?? when have you seen a DC as 1st or 2nd DPS in TONG or FBI (equal geared players), I want a screenshot.
We must be able to go 5 CWs in dungeon, 5 DCs ... and be productive... it's a game, it's a mmo, we are suppose to play with friends and have fun.
Easy answer break the spirit divine glow and general the buff-debuff encounters and dailies they have some good damage but dont expect you will deal damage with them. You seem that you dont deal damage because you boost your teamates with the above.
But if you go with the idea ( creativity ? here you are) to play it full dps and fill the dps slot you would be a great damage dealer. SO instead playing the buffs play your dps encounters like daunting-chains-flame strike etc. etc.
DR works exactly the same for everyone, its not like tanks get a completely different stat xD. Lets assume a GWF in Primal gear, who has otherwise avoided all forms of DR like the plague: thats 13AC(6.5%DR) + 4514defense(roughly 11% DR) = 17.5 DR total. Now most lvl 70+ monsters outside Chult have 15% resistance ignored(in chult higher, but I don´t know the number yet, someone pls enlighten me). yes, that leaves 2.5% DR, thouse won´t save him from anything. An SH lvl 20 boon does add 8000def(~20%DR) for 22.5% total...that should be felt, but would still not suffice as main survival tool...trust me, reaching 80% post monster RI(through stats and or buffs adding the same DR) feels completely different, and does suffice as main survival tool. Please note I´m not saying nerf lifesteal or nerf anything, but denying facts doesn´t support your point, it weakens it.
0
Options
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
but there is one area I would like to address: the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. This was a recent introduction when an attempt was made to make Divine Oracle a competitive paragon path. The designer who worked on those updates did not intend for it to become optimal to run 2 clerics in a 5 man.
The meta encouraging bringing 2 clerics to a 5 man is not something we are happy with for various reasons and so that is something we plan to address sooner rather than later. When we do make changes, we will absolutely attempt to ensure DO and AC are both viable builds, and that in a 10 man it would be best to have 1 of each. This is just a heads up that the days are numbered on 2 cleric groups.
Let me be absolutely blunt here, @asterdahl - this would be a mistake.
My opinion is that you are asking yourself the wrong question - instead of asking "How do we stop people from using two DCs in a 5-man group?", you should ask "Why do people want 2 DCs in a 5-man group?"
There are a few things to consider here.
The recent rework of the DCs was nice and really well executed. Prior to that, the standard had been to use one AC DC for power sharing - DO DCs were really not sought after for the most difficult content. The rework succeeded beautifully in making the DO just as viable as the AC - well, almost - the DO-specific daily is mostly useless HAMSTER, but apart from that DOs and ACs are now about equally viable. Many DCs have bought extra loadout slots, typically to have one DO loadout for solo play and a different DO loadout and an AC loadout for group play. What was done, just works - The DC class is now in a good place, with two viable paragon paths.
If you make some changes to effectively discourage using more than one DC, what will happen is that one paragon will be perceived as "better" than the other. You may not intend/want that to happen, but it will. The "better" paragon will be the one sought after (just as the AC used to be), while the other will be left behind. Note that the "optimal" builds for those two paragons currently demand very different gear - the AC DC is much more focused on Power than the DO DC, for example. This means that if you have focused on "gearing up" your character for one of the paragons, you cannot simply switch over to the other one except at considerable expense. I fear that this would be the last straw for many. If you leave dedicated players feeling "unwanted", they will not just switch to playing trivial content via random queues - they will simply stop playing the class, or maybe stop playing the game altogether.
Now consider why people want 2 DCs. Keep in mind that this is not particularly desired except for ToNG (where it is pretty much the standard). I have also seen 2 DC groups for mSP and FBI, but you don't really need it there. As for ToNG, however - two DCs are simply needed for the buffs they give that enable the boss fights (in particular the Avatar of Orcus) to be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Less buffing simply means the fight takes so long that people get bored. Bored players are not good customers.
There is, however, a way to solve this. Here are three suggestions:
Suggestion 1 - rainbow party bonus
Implement a game-wide "rainbow party" bonus which might work like this:
If a 5 man party has players of 5 different classes, the following bonuses apply:
bonus of X% to outgoing damage reduction of Y% to incoming damage bonus of Z% to incoming/outgoing healing
The beauty of this is that you do not force the players to use particular classes, They have a choice - they can choose to use 2DCs (or 4 CWs which was popular for CN for a while a long time ago, or whatever weird combo they want), but then they would lose out on this particular bonus - or, they can switch to a "rainbow" party and get the bonus, which should be scaled to compensate fairly. Finally, this would also encourage the inclusion of the classes that currently have a harder time getting into the most difficult content - TRs and SWs in particular. So, you would be killing two birds with one stone. I can see this being a popular change, and it should solve the problem.
Suggestion 2 - SW buffer
Scrap the least popular SW feat tree, and rework it to be focused on group buffs. That would make SWs more popular again, and would encourage people to bring a SW instead of a second DC. Again, kill two birds with one stone. (You should probably fix the SW damage a bit as well, though)
Suggestion 3 - The new buffer on the block
I am sort-of expecting a new class with Mod 13. Make sure it has one paragon or a feat tree which is focused on buffing groups. That would encourage people to bring that class instead of a second DC.
No matter what you do, you have to approach this from the perspective of giving people other equally good alternatives ... not just implementing something that will look like a nerf and result in more player frustration - seriously, you cannot afford that.
I played Table Top DnD in the 70's and 80's. I remember when 2nd Edition hit and how it was awesome to have a Dungeon Master's Guide and Players Handbook. To sit with your friends and crawl through a dungeon. Or be the DM and create your world. Then came Gamma World, Middle Earth Role Playing, and lots of other games. Spending time with friends was the important thing. That we all loved Lord of the Rings and other fantasy stuff was what initially brought us together. It was memorable times.
How do you replicated this online? You can't, really. But you can create a space where people slow down a little bit. Where they interact with their group and find out a little about each other. Then figure out how they can best beat the dungeon. It is not about the perfect group. It is about getting the most out of the group you are with. Do you enjoy coordinating, talking and creating some basic bonds of friendship with strangers? Do you enjoy completing difficult content with sub optimal resources?
The biggest issue I see with this change is communication...this is a worldwide MMO and we do not all speak the same language. Do you know how frustrating it is in Thrones when someone keeps killing the Thune Hulks because they do not know how to properly complete the skirmish. And they do not speak English at all. So you cannot help them.
There needs to be a language preference to the Random Q system, since communication and coordination are important for this new system to work.
My complaints about party restrictions were actually unrelated to the 2 DC meta. Yeah that's the current meta, and I would love to run with it as much as possible, but that isn't the issue I have with the queue restrictions.
Lets assume that some players only have one class they can play in end-game (I have a couple friends as well that can only play one class effectively in end-game). Lets also assume that because the AD rewards are now only attached to random queues, that most people will run random queues only until their bonuses have been completed (I don't see this happening, but that is what it looks like their intent is).
So current the restrictions are one Tank (OP, GF), one Healer (DC, OP), and three DPS (HR, SW, GWF, TR, CW). As a new player, the best way to learn is to see someone else play your class (and play it well). All of the DPS classes can have this opportunity in random queue. OP has a small chance of this happening due to how the queue treats Devotion Paladins. However, DC and GF have no chance of this happening. As a matter of fact, they cannot even bring a friend or mentor into the random queue to do this either.
If I have a friend that can only play DC, and I also play a DC, we cannot queue with each other outside of epic trials. Will it be non-optimal one day? Sure. Will it make the group weaker some day? Sure. Would I still want it? Yes. Why? Because I would prefer spending with a friend. I would be willing to play with strangers, but it would be more fun if I had a friend there with me.
Do we really need to enforce 3 DPS? Is it possible to allow one Tank, one Healer, two DPS, and one Wildcard? I don't care if it's not optimal or meta anymore. The inflexibility of the queue restrictions make it very difficult to play with friends, even when the queue really doesn't need a perfect party.
Post edited by darthtzarr on
Signature [WIP] - tyvm John
12
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
My complaints about party restrictions were actually unrelated to the 2 DC meta. Yeah that's the current meta, and I would love to run with it as much as possible, but that isn't the issue I have with the queue restrictions.
Lets assume that some players only have one class they can play in end-game (I have a couple friends as well that can only play one class effectively in end-game). Lets also assume that because the AD rewards are now only attached to random queues, that most people will run random queues only until their bonuses have been completed (I don't see this happening, but that is what it looks like their intent is).
So current the restrictions are one Tank (OP, GF), one Healer (DC, OP), and three DPS (HR, SW, GWF, TR, CW). As a new player, the best way to learn is to see someone else play your class (and play it well). All of the DPS class can have this opportunity in random queue. OP has a small chance of this happening due to how the queue treats Devotion Paladins. However, DC and GF have no chance of this happening. As a matter of fact, they cannot even bring a friend or mentor into the random queue to do this either.
If I have a friend that can only play DC, and I also play a DC, we cannot queue with each other outside of epic trials. Will it be non-optimal one day? Sure. Will it make the group weaker some day? Sure. Would I still want it? Yes. Why? Because I would prefer spending 4 hours in a dungeon with a friend than 15 minutes in the same dungeon with someone flaming me.
Do we really need to enforce 3 DPS? Is it possible to allow one Tank, one Healer, two DPS, and one Wildcard? I don't care if it's not optimal or meta anymore. The inflexibility of the queue restrictions make it very difficult to play with friends, even when the queue really doesn't need a perfect party.
You sure it enforces at = and not minimum of 1 tank, 1 healer and the rest whatever you want ? Obviously it will try to stuff DPS in those slots, and the queue system has more DPS than supports, but now, you can queue premade public queue with 3DC & 2 Tanks for example, it will let you as long as the 1 Healer 1 Tank requirement is met, and the DPS are in practice wildcard spots (on live).
My complaints about party restrictions were actually unrelated to the 2 DC meta. Yeah that's the current meta, and I would love to run with it as much as possible, but that isn't the issue I have with the queue restrictions.
Lets assume that some players only have one class they can play in end-game (I have a couple friends as well that can only play one class effectively in end-game). Lets also assume that because the AD rewards are now only attached to random queues, that most people will run random queues only until their bonuses have been completed (I don't see this happening, but that is what it looks like their intent is).
So current the restrictions are one Tank (OP, GF), one Healer (DC, OP), and three DPS (HR, SW, GWF, TR, CW). As a new player, the best way to learn is to see someone else play your class (and play it well). All of the DPS class can have this opportunity in random queue. OP has a small chance of this happening due to how the queue treats Devotion Paladins. However, DC and GF have no chance of this happening. As a matter of fact, they cannot even bring a friend or mentor into the random queue to do this either.
If I have a friend that can only play DC, and I also play a DC, we cannot queue with each other outside of epic trials. Will it be non-optimal one day? Sure. Will it make the group weaker some day? Sure. Would I still want it? Yes. Why? Because I would prefer spending 4 hours in a dungeon with a friend than 15 minutes in the same dungeon with someone flaming me.
Do we really need to enforce 3 DPS? Is it possible to allow one Tank, one Healer, two DPS, and one Wildcard? I don't care if it's not optimal or meta anymore. The inflexibility of the queue restrictions make it very difficult to play with friends, even when the queue really doesn't need a perfect party.
You sure it enforces at = and not minimum of 1 tank, 1 healer and the rest whatever you want ? Obviously it will try to stuff DPS in those slots, and the queue system has more DPS than supports, but now, you can queue premade public queue with 3DC & 2 Tanks for example, it will let you as long as the 1 Healer 1 Tank requirement is met, and the DPS are in practice wildcard spots (on live).
All the time on live we have 2 DCs in the party or 2 Tanks in the party, and we must switch to private queue in order to queue. I believe it works as you described for trials, and skirmishes, but not dungeons.
On live, you can't public queue with 2 tanks in the group, even if one of them is using a dps build. You have to switch to private queue in order for the check boxes to open.
I've written it before, but they need to let the players decide their role rather than enforcing it by class. Doing so provides a more flexible system that will be more responsive to class changes than the current design. There are lots of non-standard or hybrid builds (and even some standard builds) that perform separate from class assignment (e.g., Conq GF as dps, TempLock as heals, CW heal builds). I've seen TempLocks out-heal DCs in MSVA and edemo, GFs top paingiver in every instance, and DO DCs out-dps pure dps classes. Forcing people into a class role they are not designed for removes some of the flexibility and design options players enjoy. The last thing the game needs is less player enjoyment.
Forcing queue distribution doesn't address underlying class imbalances, which will continue to exist and are why the current meta is the way it is and will continue to be utilized in private queue. Random queue forced distribution just tries to place a bandaid cover on the matter rather than actually fix it. As others have indicated, if you want to fix a group composition, ask why it was being used to begin with and tackle those issues before trying to impose a non-solution that you hope will suddenly result in play parity for less-desirable classes. Doing so just aggravates players and restricts play styles.
4
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
My complaints about party restrictions were actually unrelated to the 2 DC meta. Yeah that's the current meta, and I would love to run with it as much as possible, but that isn't the issue I have with the queue restrictions.
Lets assume that some players only have one class they can play in end-game (I have a couple friends as well that can only play one class effectively in end-game). Lets also assume that because the AD rewards are now only attached to random queues, that most people will run random queues only until their bonuses have been completed (I don't see this happening, but that is what it looks like their intent is).
So current the restrictions are one Tank (OP, GF), one Healer (DC, OP), and three DPS (HR, SW, GWF, TR, CW). As a new player, the best way to learn is to see someone else play your class (and play it well). All of the DPS class can have this opportunity in random queue. OP has a small chance of this happening due to how the queue treats Devotion Paladins. However, DC and GF have no chance of this happening. As a matter of fact, they cannot even bring a friend or mentor into the random queue to do this either.
If I have a friend that can only play DC, and I also play a DC, we cannot queue with each other outside of epic trials. Will it be non-optimal one day? Sure. Will it make the group weaker some day? Sure. Would I still want it? Yes. Why? Because I would prefer spending 4 hours in a dungeon with a friend than 15 minutes in the same dungeon with someone flaming me.
Do we really need to enforce 3 DPS? Is it possible to allow one Tank, one Healer, two DPS, and one Wildcard? I don't care if it's not optimal or meta anymore. The inflexibility of the queue restrictions make it very difficult to play with friends, even when the queue really doesn't need a perfect party.
You sure it enforces at = and not minimum of 1 tank, 1 healer and the rest whatever you want ? Obviously it will try to stuff DPS in those slots, and the queue system has more DPS than supports, but now, you can queue premade public queue with 3DC & 2 Tanks for example, it will let you as long as the 1 Healer 1 Tank requirement is met, and the DPS are in practice wildcard spots (on live).
All the time on live we have 2 DCs in the party or 2 Tanks in the party, and we must switch to private queue in order to queue. I believe it works as you described for trials, and skirmishes, but not dungeons.
hmm you are right, it writes "You have too many healers", didn't remember that it did that.
Shows how much I use the public queue...
5
Options
treesclimberMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,161Arc User
@asterdahl NWO players are mind washed to see DPS as the most important thing in the game, if you ever want to do anything with Life steal consider make it something like life craving, instead of healing a full hit like now now, hit again for a % of the base damage and heal the player for that hit, this way people will feel the lack of survival but will be presented with more damage, which will make them less revolted. Now when it comes to solo content, I've heard people say "so just because I'm full dps i will need a healers companion to do campaign of my IL", of course yes, it makes sence, healer companion supports big dps player that cannot take much damage as big dps companions support low dps tanky characters because if we take a big picture of the 3 main protective stats some classes life steal contributes way more to solo survival than either defense or hit points, tuning it down will only make it on pair.
So... make it like similar to classic lifesteal?
XDXDXD
I think he has a Lillend Fetish. He will not rest until we all must use one to do our dailies.
Damn you discovered me xD. I don't have same opinion as you, it's true that enemies hit really hard, in case of a TR for example, the class naturally relies on deflection but in endgame content they can be easily 1 shoted but if instead they were hit for, let's say 1/3rd of they're HP they would have 3 times more chance to improve their resistance by deflection. But then they would be alive 24/7 because LS keeps pumping up they're HP by the millions, as a solution either : these hits would need to be very fast or reduce the amount LS can heal, the second is more realistic because it could create windows for DC's to heal, another thing that is very despised. By saying "improve defense" you need to say improve everything else and move with all the stats, probably could work, but would also lead to some things like tanks running with 100% deflect chance and 95% DR and lots of HP just waving at bosses, if content then got harder for those tanks it would make it harder for others, something similar to what happens in endgame now, parties doing a dungeon in 10 minutes and others in 2 hours.
Just a question for some to think on .Do you think they will ever make an improvent to the way that the game makes teams? They show that you must have a Tank and a Healer and 3 DPS ,great . But do they look past the cover to see if that toon is really built to be that role. For some time the game has turned more toward higher hit points and more DPS and every class has made that same shift to keep up . But they have seemed to do little to check that what they place as a Tank or Healer really are a tank and healer. A real QOL idea would be for them to improve how they decide just what really is a tank or healer or DPS .Like an example only, the OP they are able to be either do they get placed in the correct spot when the go healer or tank or and SW do they get to be placed as a DPS or healer or a GF being either a DPS or tank ??? Just wondering if improving this issue might help moving forward. Been seeing alot of talk around this topic .
1
Options
plasticbatMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 12,220Arc User
Just a question for some to think on .Do you think they will ever make an improvent to the way that the game makes teams? They show that you must have a Tank and a Healer and 3 DPS ,great . But do they look past the cover to see if that toon is really built to be that role. For some time the game has turned more toward higher hit points and more DPS and every class has made that same shift to keep up . But they have seemed to do little to check that what they place as a Tank or Healer really are a tank and healer. A real QOL idea would be for them to improve how they decide just what really is a tank or healer or DPS .Like an example only, the OP they are able to be either do they get placed in the correct spot when the go healer or tank or and SW do they get to be placed as a DPS or healer or a GF being either a DPS or tank ??? Just wondering if improving this issue might help moving forward. Been seeing alot of talk around this topic .
The QOL is people can pick their team to go to where they want.
I don't know how they can separate DC to be healer and "non-healer" in practice. They may consider haladin a healer but will he act like one? I have seen tank build tank refused to tank. Healer refused to heal.
One way is let the player to decide who he is. However, that can also be abused.
As a side note, I once went to CN without any tank. It was okay until Orcus. A GWF proposed he switched loadout to tank Orcus and that worked.
*** The game can read your mind. If you want it, you won't get it. If you don't expect to get it, you will. ***
It's nothing to do with broken meta's or anything like that... they don't want the 2DC set up because it limits the available number of DCs for other dungeons.
They want to channel them to where they are "most needed".
This means they will most likely go to FBI and MSP to complete the queues that have been waiting the longest. Sub 11k DCs won't be able to "random" queue, so will either not bother and make groups with friends, or continue to queue as normal for sub 11K dungeons after ram raiding a baby basic for AD, meaning that the sub 11K dungeons will likely continue to pop at the current rate. Because the majority of people who will be queuing non random for FBI and MSP will be the DPS guys who currently scream into the frozen wastes, and Protectors Enclave begging to be invited to a queue for these... THOSE will be the queues that sit waiting the longest. Your Random Queue for an 11K + DC/GF/OP is therefore going to send you to... FBI or MSPC.
First off, we really need to put into perspective how things got to where they are. Originally it seemed like Neverwinter was a game that was mostly about promoting build diversity, so much that in the game's first incarnation there were NO class requirements in dungeons. Obviously too much chaos kinds of defeats the purpose of having the freedom to do what you want (because you wouldn't get anything done when everyone was just kept trying to do their own thing) and so over time boundaries/restrictions started to appear in-game to help facilitate this - starting with the introduction of the "defender" and "leader" roles in group content. I use these terms because a defender is not just a tank, and a leader is just not a healer - a defender is also expected to deal with aggro and cause minor debuffs to monsters, for example, and a leader is as much about buffing allies (damage mitigation) AND healing.
The thing about damage mitigation is that it's basically healing that you do NOT need to cast over and over and over again - it's a form of automatic healing. Now I cannot express to you folks just how REVOLUTIONARY the concept of a class that specializes in cast-and-forget damage mitigation buffs is in MMOs, especially since this mechanic allows the DC to perform other duties like buff, debuff, control or even attack. The original DC was such an interesting class and a refreshing departure from the WoW-clone healer that I spent 8 mods main-ing a DC. The problem is how it was marketed. With all due respect sir, but the reason people are so interested in healing done is BECAUSE THAT DAMN "HEALING DONE" DUNGEON SUMMARY WINDOW. You people ever hear of the simple life hack where you drop a flat red circle at the bottom of a urinal so guys peeing aim for that instead of peeing every which way? It's like that. For the life of me I don't understand why a "damage mitigated through buffs" dungeon summary tab still doesn't exist, because if it did it leader classes would be all over that HAMSTER.
Instead of reworking the classes from the ground up (which frankly would be an impossibly huge undertaking by this point) why not just change the playing field? You guys have all the cards. This way you guys would even have a new meter to help you establish baselines, so you know just how much damage mitigation is too much/too little. This is also especially important since you guys probably intend to add more leader classes in the future.
Which brings me to my next point: Neverwinter has always been a terrible game at establishing baselines. It's not just that mechanics are wonky, but I believe this is a direct result of the "freedom to do what you want" thing the game was supposed to be about. I think it's time that changed - after all, the game already has a TON of content - but I think you should first listen to what good players have to say about what baselines work best for them. Including, for example, the part where you mention using healing done as a baseline (my personal response - HELL NO).
Personal damage done is also a tricky baseline because it precludes the recognition of other important factors that will influence a dungeon run like buffs/debuffs/control(RIP)/aggro management/etc. Seriously, the fact that people cared/focused too much about damage done was one of the reasons we're in this messy out-of-control buffs/debuffs state in the first place. I really wouldn't suggest going down that rabbit hole a second time. Instead, how about using average run time as a baseline? And adding "damage generated through buffs" and "damage generated through debuffs" as extra dungeon summaries? That way if you people think a power is generating too much damage you can simply scale it down, or even prevent multiple instances of it (from the same class) from stacking. This way you also have an idea if certain paragon paths are under/overperforming.
You there. New to the game? Feeling overwhelmed? Maybe you think getting to end-game is impossible for a casual player like yourself, or maybe you just need to be around a community that helps each other stay sane and competitive with the latest news, current trends, random chitchat and most of all LEGIT (that is, we try to keep things fair) gameplay. If you don't mind being around quirky people and the rare occasional drama (one of our prominent TR members is apparently a mafia godfather) join nw_legit_community at http://www.nwlegitcommunity.shivtr.com/forum_threads/2330542.
Scrap the least popular SW feat tree, and rework it to be focused on group buffs. That would make SWs more popular again, and would encourage people to bring a SW instead of a second DC. Again, kill two birds with one stone. (You should probably fix the SW damage a bit as well, though)
SW does particularly need plain power damage buff. It needs speed buff becase low SW speed causes DPS problems now. For SW to start DPS-ing too many and too long rituals are needed: curse, PoP, long cast times, long and little DoTs (for example Fury capstone) and etc. In dungeons before SW starts to dps trash mobs are long dead. For bosses, there are chances to do noticeable damage, but it required BiS equip and specific companions (now nerfed). So SW do not look good on dungeon stats. Before, there were some workarounds like movable TT that made SW reasonable, but now they mostly gone. So please speed up SW. Curse should be instant for example, cast times should be at least on CW level or faster.
Comments
A hexagon of tanking, mitigation, buffs, debuffs, healing, and DPS would better represent what's essential for current end game contents.
It's been made very clear that you are unhappy about the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. Would you care to share what kind of meta you would be happy about?
if lifesteal affects the severity instead of the chance, what should i have to stack for %?
> @asterdahl said:
> I can't go into a lot of specifics because we're still discussing the details—and there won't be any major overhauls for 12B—but there is one area I would like to address: the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. This was a recent introduction when an attempt was made to make Divine Oracle a competitive paragon path. The designer who worked on those updates did not intend for it to become optimal to run 2 clerics in a 5 man.
>
> The meta encouraging bringing 2 clerics to a 5 man is not something we are happy with for various reasons and so that is something we plan to address sooner rather than later. When we do make changes, we will absolutely attempt to ensure DO and AC are both viable builds, and that in a 10 man it would be best to have 1 of each. This is just a heads up that the days are numbered on 2 cleric groups.
>
> One final thing I'd like to say on the topic as there is sometimes an adversarial feeling when we come out and talk about changes to a build or meta you might currently be using, and I'd like to dispel that as much as possible. Obviously there will be those that really love the way something currently works, and no explanation will be sufficient to lighten the blow. But—we aren't specifically out to ruin something you might be enjoying. The design team is responsible for creating things like the 2 cleric meta, and we absolutely don't blame everyone for taking advantage of it.
>
> It's just not ideal that in a game with as many classes as we have that an optimal group setup involves bringing 2 of the same class, and 2 healer roles. We don't have anything against people wanting to bring their own interesting group comps into private queues, but bringing a 2nd healer should not beat out bringing another DPS for kill speed.
>
>
>
> The way the game stands right now, classes can not be strictly defined by tank, healer, DPS roles anymore.
> A hexagon of tanking, mitigation, buffs, debuffs, healing, and DPS would better represent what's essential for current end game contents.
>
> It's been made very clear that you are unhappy about the 2 clerics-in-a-5-man meta. Would you care to share what kind of meta you would be happy about?
Take this hexagon party role idea a step further which would also ameliorate the pain of the bonding stone nerf:
Change party size to 6.
Op, gf, 2dc, 2dps. Non-gwf would have an improved chance to get in groups as well.
Discuss....
one of the main reasons why private queue is so much more popular than public queue atm on live, and will definitly be far more popular than random queue, is that public/random queue enforces the obsolete assignment of roles by class alone, and then forces a certain ratio.
Imho you should either drop role requirements altogether, or change the system so players can q their characters as what theiy built them to be ( f.e devotion OP or healing SW[forgot what the paragon path is called] as a healer, sentinel GWF as a tank[that feat path looks like its designed to fill the tank role, but needs some buffs to be able to succseed at it] righteous DC or conqueror GF as a DPS[if built, specced and geared to be one] and so on)
I have 4 cw friends and i am cw too. With the same logic i want the 5 cw back but not that is not good.
Also bring other classes on dc level would not be so good too since dc has already everything.
I am not sure which lifesteal system is more broken, classic lifesteal, or current lifesteal...
The proposed changes are a number of steps forward, address a number of current issues and offer solutions as well. Even though many players dislike the changes the overall scope is noble and shows effort to rectify problems. The players in the mix of the changes may not "see the light" as the changes are breaking ground and take more shape though newer players are seen to be able to come into a more robust game overall.
Some players from this end had been concerned for some time about some of the various issues that these changes aim to rectify, thank you. Agreed.
After witnessing a number of groups fail to even take off because they were looking for a 2 DC run the above quote is reassuring. Buffing and debuffing content to the point where it is less of a challenge/enjoyable and more a of speed run type thing may appeal to some but "most" prefer otherwise. @joe123thewayward Normal dungeon RQ will be available simply from leveling and skirmish RQ will be upon unlocking the appropriate content, neither of which currently involves 100%'ing a campaign. How much progress do you think a player will make playing 30 mins to an hour per session? Leveling would take quite some time, running higher content seemingly would as well. Where will they get their refinement? Etc.?
Around 25k RAD pre-Mod 12b would do what for those players? After 30 days that's about 750k AD, what kind of progress will that fund? Asking for comparisons. @joe123thewayward Calculate it... would like to see what others have come up with.
Are you stating that players will only RQ epic dungeons or are you only referring to epic RQ's to support your statement?
@arcanjo86 players that successfully can handle RQ'ing content with the classic group composition are rewarded for it, essentially nothing more, nothing less.
@jaime4312 why would other classes need buffs, etc. if the viability of DC 5-man groups are in the process of being changed when there are various tests done that show a RQ acceptable group can effectively handle content?
Clearing content fast is a "player invention", in Neverwinter it's to often compensate for the often negative views of dungeon rewards. Improving dungeon rewards just because they may take longer with a RQ acceptable composition or with 2 DC's (after changes) can arguably encourage the latter. If rewards are increased and a 2 DC group can still be complete content faster than a RQ acceptable group, guess what players will more than likely continue to do?
"Ruining" the game for lower level characters is quite the repeat argument here, though arguably a pretty weak one. There are a number of player "types", for simplicity:
1 - "role players", like going through content at level without the "aid" of higher level players.
2 - speed runners, want to clear content as fast as possible and or get the most AD out of the least amount of time.
3 - players with limited play time.
4 - players that essentially run content without emphasis on it being at level or completion time.
5 - AFK farmers, bots, abusers
Suggestion made by either of those "types" (except 5 for the most part) without regard to the others is inconsiderate.
- 1's wanting to exclude higher level players from lower level content will effect 2's/3's. It would more than likely require an additional queue section and essentially another section players will want bonus RAD from (could be handled by implementing a "level range" tick box when queuing below level 70 for 1's to be able to queue with similarly leveled players only, not sure if this will go with or against the want for queues to pop faster).
- Level 70 versions of lower level dungeons will effect 2's/3's, increase the amount of AD generated in the market (the separate queue section will need to award bonus RAD) as well as provide more possible AD for 5's.
- Adding RQ bonus's on top of the pre-Mod 12b system will allow 5's to gain more RAD faster pushing more AD into the market.
The RQ system "can" respectively effect:
- 1's if they don't queue together.
- 2's due to not being able to select the easiest content manually for bonus RAD.
- 3's if they queue for epic dungeons/trials (cans till RQ for normal dungeons/skirmishes).
- 5's if they don't progress their character(s) to the appreciate points.
The RQ system will effect players of different types to varying degrees though not necessarily pinning any particular type to the wall without giving them options/alternatives and can cover a number of game related issues.
“There are changes that can be made that don’t require coding...” - TriNitY
"No amount of coding will change human behavior" - TriNitY
Ongoing Issue: Legitmate Players Banned for Botting (Console) and the Future for "Dedicated" Players
Suggestions: (Implemented) \/\/ Rearrange Character on character Select Screen
All classes viable .
I have 4 cw friends and i am cw too. With the same logic i want the 5 cw back but not that is not good.
Also bring other classes on dc level would not be so good too since dc has already everything.
----
are you on drugs ??
when have you seen a DC as 1st or 2nd DPS in TONG or FBI (equal geared players), I want a screenshot.
We must be able to go 5 CWs in dungeon, 5 DCs ... and be productive... it's a game, it's a mmo, we are suppose to play with friends and have fun.
That being said, DR has a brutal anti-synergy with the GWF class mechanic, since reducing damage taken also reduces determination gained.
But if you go with the idea ( creativity ? here you are) to play it full dps and fill the dps slot you would be a great damage dealer. SO instead playing the buffs play your dps encounters like daunting-chains-flame strike etc. etc.
Thanks.
Please note I´m not saying nerf lifesteal or nerf anything, but denying facts doesn´t support your point, it weakens it.
My opinion is that you are asking yourself the wrong question - instead of asking "How do we stop people from using two DCs in a 5-man group?", you should ask "Why do people want 2 DCs in a 5-man group?"
There are a few things to consider here.
- The recent rework of the DCs was nice and really well executed. Prior to that, the standard had been to use one AC DC for power sharing - DO DCs were really not sought after for the most difficult content. The rework succeeded beautifully in making the DO just as viable as the AC - well, almost - the DO-specific daily is mostly useless HAMSTER, but apart from that DOs and ACs are now about equally viable. Many DCs have bought extra loadout slots, typically to have one DO loadout for solo play and a different DO loadout and an AC loadout for group play. What was done, just works - The DC class is now in a good place, with two viable paragon paths.
- If you make some changes to effectively discourage using more than one DC, what will happen is that one paragon will be perceived as "better" than the other. You may not intend/want that to happen, but it will. The "better" paragon will be the one sought after (just as the AC used to be), while the other will be left behind. Note that the "optimal" builds for those two paragons currently demand very different gear - the AC DC is much more focused on Power than the DO DC, for example. This means that if you have focused on "gearing up" your character for one of the paragons, you cannot simply switch over to the other one except at considerable expense. I fear that this would be the last straw for many. If you leave dedicated players feeling "unwanted", they will not just switch to playing trivial content via random queues - they will simply stop playing the class, or maybe stop playing the game altogether.
- Now consider why people want 2 DCs. Keep in mind that this is not particularly desired except for ToNG (where it is pretty much the standard). I have also seen 2 DC groups for mSP and FBI, but you don't really need it there. As for ToNG, however - two DCs are simply needed for the buffs they give that enable the boss fights (in particular the Avatar of Orcus) to be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Less buffing simply means the fight takes so long that people get bored. Bored players are not good customers.
There is, however, a way to solve this. Here are three suggestions:Suggestion 1 - rainbow party bonus
Implement a game-wide "rainbow party" bonus which might work like this:If a 5 man party has players of 5 different classes, the following bonuses apply:
bonus of X% to outgoing damage
reduction of Y% to incoming damage
bonus of Z% to incoming/outgoing healing
The beauty of this is that you do not force the players to use particular classes, They have a choice - they can choose to use 2DCs (or 4 CWs which was popular for CN for a while a long time ago, or whatever weird combo they want), but then they would lose out on this particular bonus - or, they can switch to a "rainbow" party and get the bonus, which should be scaled to compensate fairly. Finally, this would also encourage the inclusion of the classes that currently have a harder time getting into the most difficult content - TRs and SWs in particular. So, you would be killing two birds with one stone. I can see this being a popular change, and it should solve the problem.
Suggestion 2 - SW buffer
Scrap the least popular SW feat tree, and rework it to be focused on group buffs. That would make SWs more popular again, and would encourage people to bring a SW instead of a second DC. Again, kill two birds with one stone. (You should probably fix the SW damage a bit as well, though)Suggestion 3 - The new buffer on the block
I am sort-of expecting a new class with Mod 13. Make sure it has one paragon or a feat tree which is focused on buffing groups. That would encourage people to bring that class instead of a second DC.No matter what you do, you have to approach this from the perspective of giving people other equally good alternatives ... not just implementing something that will look like a nerf and result in more player frustration - seriously, you cannot afford that.
How do you replicated this online? You can't, really. But you can create a space where people slow down a little bit. Where they interact with their group and find out a little about each other. Then figure out how they can best beat the dungeon. It is not about the perfect group. It is about getting the most out of the group you are with. Do you enjoy coordinating, talking and creating some basic bonds of friendship with strangers? Do you enjoy completing difficult content with sub optimal resources?
The biggest issue I see with this change is communication...this is a worldwide MMO and we do not all speak the same language. Do you know how frustrating it is in Thrones when someone keeps killing the Thune Hulks because they do not know how to properly complete the skirmish. And they do not speak English at all. So you cannot help them.
There needs to be a language preference to the Random Q system, since communication and coordination are important for this new system to work.
Lets assume that some players only have one class they can play in end-game (I have a couple friends as well that can only play one class effectively in end-game). Lets also assume that because the AD rewards are now only attached to random queues, that most people will run random queues only until their bonuses have been completed (I don't see this happening, but that is what it looks like their intent is).
So current the restrictions are one Tank (OP, GF), one Healer (DC, OP), and three DPS (HR, SW, GWF, TR, CW). As a new player, the best way to learn is to see someone else play your class (and play it well). All of the DPS classes can have this opportunity in random queue. OP has a small chance of this happening due to how the queue treats Devotion Paladins. However, DC and GF have no chance of this happening. As a matter of fact, they cannot even bring a friend or mentor into the random queue to do this either.
If I have a friend that can only play DC, and I also play a DC, we cannot queue with each other outside of epic trials. Will it be non-optimal one day? Sure. Will it make the group weaker some day? Sure. Would I still want it? Yes. Why? Because I would prefer spending with a friend. I would be willing to play with strangers, but it would be more fun if I had a friend there with me.
Do we really need to enforce 3 DPS? Is it possible to allow one Tank, one Healer, two DPS, and one Wildcard? I don't care if it's not optimal or meta anymore. The inflexibility of the queue restrictions make it very difficult to play with friends, even when the queue really doesn't need a perfect party.
Signature [WIP] - tyvm John
Obviously it will try to stuff DPS in those slots, and the queue system has more DPS than supports, but now, you can queue premade public queue with 3DC & 2 Tanks for example, it will let you as long as the 1 Healer 1 Tank requirement is met, and the DPS are in practice wildcard spots (on live).
Signature [WIP] - tyvm John
I've written it before, but they need to let the players decide their role rather than enforcing it by class. Doing so provides a more flexible system that will be more responsive to class changes than the current design. There are lots of non-standard or hybrid builds (and even some standard builds) that perform separate from class assignment (e.g., Conq GF as dps, TempLock as heals, CW heal builds). I've seen TempLocks out-heal DCs in MSVA and edemo, GFs top paingiver in every instance, and DO DCs out-dps pure dps classes. Forcing people into a class role they are not designed for removes some of the flexibility and design options players enjoy. The last thing the game needs is less player enjoyment.
Forcing queue distribution doesn't address underlying class imbalances, which will continue to exist and are why the current meta is the way it is and will continue to be utilized in private queue. Random queue forced distribution just tries to place a bandaid cover on the matter rather than actually fix it. As others have indicated, if you want to fix a group composition, ask why it was being used to begin with and tackle those issues before trying to impose a non-solution that you hope will suddenly result in play parity for less-desirable classes. Doing so just aggravates players and restricts play styles.
Shows how much I use the public queue...
I don't know how they can separate DC to be healer and "non-healer" in practice.
They may consider haladin a healer but will he act like one?
I have seen tank build tank refused to tank. Healer refused to heal.
One way is let the player to decide who he is. However, that can also be abused.
As a side note, I once went to CN without any tank. It was okay until Orcus. A GWF proposed he switched loadout to tank Orcus and that worked.
They want to channel them to where they are "most needed".
This means they will most likely go to FBI and MSP to complete the queues that have been waiting the longest.
Sub 11k DCs won't be able to "random" queue, so will either not bother and make groups with friends, or continue to queue as normal for sub 11K dungeons after ram raiding a baby basic for AD, meaning that the sub 11K dungeons will likely continue to pop at the current rate.
Because the majority of people who will be queuing non random for FBI and MSP will be the DPS guys who currently scream into the frozen wastes, and Protectors Enclave begging to be invited to a queue for these... THOSE will be the queues that sit waiting the longest.
Your Random Queue for an 11K + DC/GF/OP is therefore going to send you to... FBI or MSPC.
First off, we really need to put into perspective how things got to where they are. Originally it seemed like Neverwinter was a game that was mostly about promoting build diversity, so much that in the game's first incarnation there were NO class requirements in dungeons. Obviously too much chaos kinds of defeats the purpose of having the freedom to do what you want (because you wouldn't get anything done when everyone was just kept trying to do their own thing) and so over time boundaries/restrictions started to appear in-game to help facilitate this - starting with the introduction of the "defender" and "leader" roles in group content. I use these terms because a defender is not just a tank, and a leader is just not a healer - a defender is also expected to deal with aggro and cause minor debuffs to monsters, for example, and a leader is as much about buffing allies (damage mitigation) AND healing.
The thing about damage mitigation is that it's basically healing that you do NOT need to cast over and over and over again - it's a form of automatic healing. Now I cannot express to you folks just how REVOLUTIONARY the concept of a class that specializes in cast-and-forget damage mitigation buffs is in MMOs, especially since this mechanic allows the DC to perform other duties like buff, debuff, control or even attack.
The original DC was such an interesting class and a refreshing departure from the WoW-clone healer that I spent 8 mods main-ing a DC.
The problem is how it was marketed. With all due respect sir, but the reason people are so interested in healing done is BECAUSE THAT DAMN "HEALING DONE" DUNGEON SUMMARY WINDOW. You people ever hear of the simple life hack where you drop a flat red circle at the bottom of a urinal so guys peeing aim for that instead of peeing every which way? It's like that. For the life of me I don't understand why a "damage mitigated through buffs" dungeon summary tab still doesn't exist, because if it did it leader classes would be all over that HAMSTER.
Instead of reworking the classes from the ground up (which frankly would be an impossibly huge undertaking by this point) why not just change the playing field? You guys have all the cards. This way you guys would even have a new meter to help you establish baselines, so you know just how much damage mitigation is too much/too little. This is also especially important since you guys probably intend to add more leader classes in the future.
Which brings me to my next point: Neverwinter has always been a terrible game at establishing baselines. It's not just that mechanics are wonky, but I believe this is a direct result of the "freedom to do what you want" thing the game was supposed to be about. I think it's time that changed - after all, the game already has a TON of content - but I think you should first listen to what good players have to say about what baselines work best for them. Including, for example, the part where you mention using healing done as a baseline (my personal response - HELL NO).
Personal damage done is also a tricky baseline because it precludes the recognition of other important factors that will influence a dungeon run like buffs/debuffs/control(RIP)/aggro management/etc. Seriously, the fact that people cared/focused too much about damage done was one of the reasons we're in this messy out-of-control buffs/debuffs state in the first place.
I really wouldn't suggest going down that rabbit hole a second time.
Instead, how about using average run time as a baseline? And adding "damage generated through buffs" and "damage generated through debuffs" as extra dungeon summaries? That way if you people think a power is generating too much damage you can simply scale it down, or even prevent multiple instances of it (from the same class) from stacking. This way you also have an idea if certain paragon paths are under/overperforming.