You close the 2xDC meta (am not opposed to this btw) and another meta will pop up within a week and people will be back complaining about the same thing.
No I don´t want to close only double DC. I also want to close triple to quattro supporter runs, because I think that´s what actually lead to a severe loss of geared player ingame (might be wrong, if so I apologize). I also wrote in several post that my intention is no band aid, I also pointed at the need to address stacking multiplier maybe 100 times? Actual content is not accessable for striker same way as for supporter, relation 1: 4. Even being a supporter you need >1000 runs or about 100 years of gameplay to earn those UE´s. If my class can´t even earn one of them, why should i even log in and play this game in this mod?
When double DC is closed, next meta will be case 4 and case 6 I guess, look above, the sheet @micky1p00 posted. My personal meta will be my AC/DC spamming double daily AA/HG (all in all dpsx5), not 100% though and only at some encounter. DC same as OP is set in stone in any meta, that class has nothing to fear if played correct.
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
I have no problem creating groups with my OP as the only tank and a single AC/DC, the circles I run in often frown on my need for AC/DC asserting that DO/DC's can do just as well a job. I just don't need organise TONG runs myself as I 1) get plenty of invites 2) have plenty to do 3) I can be lazy and can just go + TONG in channels to get an invite.
You close the 2xDC meta (am not opposed to this btw) and another meta will pop up within a week and people will be back complaining about the same thing.
No I don´t want to close only double DC. I also want to close triple to quattro supporter runs, because I think that´s what actually lead to a severe loss of geared player ingame (might be wrong, if so I apologize). I also wrote in several post that my intention is no band aid, I also pointed at the need to address stacking multiplier maybe 100 times? Actual content is not accessable for striker same way as for supporter, relation 1: 4. Even being a supporter you need >1000 runs or about 100 years of gameplay to earn those UE´s. If my class can´t even earn one of them, why should i even log in and play this game in this mod?
When double DC is closed, next meta will be case 4 and case 6 I guess, look above, the sheet @micky1p00 posted. My personal meta will be my AC/DC spamming double daily AA/HG (all in all dpsx5), not 100% though and only at some encounter. DC same as OP is set in stone in any meta, that class has nothing to fear if played correct.
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
I have no problem creating groups with my OP as the only tank and a single AC/DC, the circles I run in often frown on my need for AC/DC asserting that DO/DC's can do just as well a job. I just don't need organise TONG runs myself as I 1) get plenty of invites 2) have plenty to do 3) I can be lazy and can just go + TONG in channels to get an invite.
Its easier to said than done. It might seem possible now but in the long run, with evey striker class is to follow this advice, there wont be enough support class for everyone anyway at the end because the meta need more support than striker. I tried make my own with msva back in mod 10 then quickly realize everyone is fighting for support class. It still come down to whoever who gets them get to play. 4 support in a party is too much. We could start a normal 3dps 1 tank 1 healer setup but who is gonna join when everyone is looking for speed run? U can try atm tho but it will soon get harder when every striker class begin to create their own party and the situation will still be the same.
1
jumpingmorksMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 876Arc User
You close the 2xDC meta (am not opposed to this btw) and another meta will pop up within a week and people will be back complaining about the same thing.
No I don´t want to close only double DC. I also want to close triple to quattro supporter runs, because I think that´s what actually lead to a severe loss of geared player ingame (might be wrong, if so I apologize). I also wrote in several post that my intention is no band aid, I also pointed at the need to address stacking multiplier maybe 100 times? Actual content is not accessable for striker same way as for supporter, relation 1: 4. Even being a supporter you need >1000 runs or about 100 years of gameplay to earn those UE´s. If my class can´t even earn one of them, why should i even log in and play this game in this mod?
When double DC is closed, next meta will be case 4 and case 6 I guess, look above, the sheet @micky1p00 posted. My personal meta will be my AC/DC spamming double daily AA/HG (all in all dpsx5), not 100% though and only at some encounter. DC same as OP is set in stone in any meta, that class has nothing to fear if played correct.
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
I have no problem creating groups with my OP as the only tank and a single AC/DC, the circles I run in often frown on my need for AC/DC asserting that DO/DC's can do just as well a job. I just don't need organise TONG runs myself as I 1) get plenty of invites 2) have plenty to do 3) I can be lazy and can just go + TONG in channels to get an invite.
Its easier to said than done. It might seem possible now but in the long run, with evey striker class is to follow this advice, there wont be enough support class for everyone anyway at the end because the meta need more support than striker. I tried make my own with msva back in mod 10 then quickly realize everyone is fighting for support class. It still come down to whoever who gets them get to play. 4 support in a party is too much. We could start a normal 3dps 1 tank 1 healer setup but who is gonna join when everyone is looking for speed run? U can try atm tho but it will soon get harder when every striker class begin to create their own party and the situation will still be the same.
That's a reasonable expectation, but if the next 'ideal' group comes a long that is say 4xCW 1xDC as it was once, things will not have improved, this has been menetioned several times by others in this thread.
I do not have solutions, because how do you persuade a community of players that they can run something outside an optimal group? This isn't a meta issue because it will always be a meta issue. Devs can force 1 DC per group but it will not solve anything, it will just move the problem on to someone else when a new optimal group appears.
Thes best we can do is be honest about how a current situation applies to us, give our feedback sincerely and let the people that run the game do what we hope they do best and make the changes the game needs when it needs it.
You close the 2xDC meta (am not opposed to this btw) and another meta will pop up within a week and people will be back complaining about the same thing.
No I don´t want to close only double DC. I also want to close triple to quattro supporter runs, because I think that´s what actually lead to a severe loss of geared player ingame (might be wrong, if so I apologize). I also wrote in several post that my intention is no band aid, I also pointed at the need to address stacking multiplier maybe 100 times? Actual content is not accessable for striker same way as for supporter, relation 1: 4. Even being a supporter you need >1000 runs or about 100 years of gameplay to earn those UE´s. If my class can´t even earn one of them, why should i even log in and play this game in this mod?
When double DC is closed, next meta will be case 4 and case 6 I guess, look above, the sheet @micky1p00 posted. My personal meta will be my AC/DC spamming double daily AA/HG (all in all dpsx5), not 100% though and only at some encounter. DC same as OP is set in stone in any meta, that class has nothing to fear if played correct.
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
I have no problem creating groups with my OP as the only tank and a single AC/DC, the circles I run in often frown on my need for AC/DC asserting that DO/DC's can do just as well a job. I just don't need organise TONG runs myself as I 1) get plenty of invites 2) have plenty to do 3) I can be lazy and can just go + TONG in channels to get an invite.
Its easier to said than done. It might seem possible now but in the long run, with evey striker class is to follow this advice, there wont be enough support class for everyone anyway at the end because the meta need more support than striker. I tried make my own with msva back in mod 10 then quickly realize everyone is fighting for support class. It still come down to whoever who gets them get to play. 4 support in a party is too much. We could start a normal 3dps 1 tank 1 healer setup but who is gonna join when everyone is looking for speed run? U can try atm tho but it will soon get harder when every striker class begin to create their own party and the situation will still be the same.
That's a reasonable expectation, but if the next 'ideal' group comes a long that is say 4xCW 1xDC as it was once, things will not have improved, this has been menetioned several times by others in this thread.
I do not have solutions, because how do you persuade a community of players that they can run something outside an optimal group? This isn't a meta issue because it will always be a meta issue. Devs can force 1 DC per group but it will not solve anything, it will just move the problem on to someone else when a new optimal group appears.
Thes best we can do is be honest about how a current situation applies to us, give our feedback sincerely and let the people that run the game do what we hope they do best and make the changes the game needs when it needs it.
Class balance are just but numbers to the developer. If the developer could create a set of numbers that make the current 2dc meta as ideal, i m sure they could make any composition into meta. It just boils down on whether they want it or not. Or are their staff smart enough to do it without messing up other things.
0
jumpingmorksMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 876Arc User
You close the 2xDC meta (am not opposed to this btw) and another meta will pop up within a week and people will be back complaining about the same thing.
No I don´t want to close only double DC. I also want to close triple to quattro supporter runs, because I think that´s what actually lead to a severe loss of geared player ingame (might be wrong, if so I apologize). I also wrote in several post that my intention is no band aid, I also pointed at the need to address stacking multiplier maybe 100 times? Actual content is not accessable for striker same way as for supporter, relation 1: 4. Even being a supporter you need >1000 runs or about 100 years of gameplay to earn those UE´s. If my class can´t even earn one of them, why should i even log in and play this game in this mod?
When double DC is closed, next meta will be case 4 and case 6 I guess, look above, the sheet @micky1p00 posted. My personal meta will be my AC/DC spamming double daily AA/HG (all in all dpsx5), not 100% though and only at some encounter. DC same as OP is set in stone in any meta, that class has nothing to fear if played correct.
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
I have no problem creating groups with my OP as the only tank and a single AC/DC, the circles I run in often frown on my need for AC/DC asserting that DO/DC's can do just as well a job. I just don't need organise TONG runs myself as I 1) get plenty of invites 2) have plenty to do 3) I can be lazy and can just go + TONG in channels to get an invite.
Its easier to said than done. It might seem possible now but in the long run, with evey striker class is to follow this advice, there wont be enough support class for everyone anyway at the end because the meta need more support than striker. I tried make my own with msva back in mod 10 then quickly realize everyone is fighting for support class. It still come down to whoever who gets them get to play. 4 support in a party is too much. We could start a normal 3dps 1 tank 1 healer setup but who is gonna join when everyone is looking for speed run? U can try atm tho but it will soon get harder when every striker class begin to create their own party and the situation will still be the same.
That's a reasonable expectation, but if the next 'ideal' group comes a long that is say 4xCW 1xDC as it was once, things will not have improved, this has been menetioned several times by others in this thread.
I do not have solutions, because how do you persuade a community of players that they can run something outside an optimal group? This isn't a meta issue because it will always be a meta issue. Devs can force 1 DC per group but it will not solve anything, it will just move the problem on to someone else when a new optimal group appears.
Thes best we can do is be honest about how a current situation applies to us, give our feedback sincerely and let the people that run the game do what we hope they do best and make the changes the game needs when it needs it.
Class balance are just but numbers to the developer. If the developer could create a set of numbers that make the current 2dc meta as ideal, i m sure they could make any composition into meta. It just boils down on whether they want it or not. Or are their staff smart enough to do it without messing up other things.
From what I can gather, when DC changes were being made the community warned Cryptic 2xDC meta might become an issue, maybe a DC who was following that discussion could shed more light on it.
I wouldn't normally post or even read threads in DC forum, only reason I am in this thread because the thread I WAS posting in got merged into it.
You close the 2xDC meta (am not opposed to this btw) and another meta will pop up within a week and people will be back complaining about the same thing.
No I don´t want to close only double DC. I also want to close triple to quattro supporter runs, because I think that´s what actually lead to a severe loss of geared player ingame (might be wrong, if so I apologize). I also wrote in several post that my intention is no band aid, I also pointed at the need to address stacking multiplier maybe 100 times? Actual content is not accessable for striker same way as for supporter, relation 1: 4. Even being a supporter you need >1000 runs or about 100 years of gameplay to earn those UE´s. If my class can´t even earn one of them, why should i even log in and play this game in this mod?
When double DC is closed, next meta will be case 4 and case 6 I guess, look above, the sheet @micky1p00 posted. My personal meta will be my AC/DC spamming double daily AA/HG (all in all dpsx5), not 100% though and only at some encounter. DC same as OP is set in stone in any meta, that class has nothing to fear if played correct.
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
I have no problem creating groups with my OP as the only tank and a single AC/DC, the circles I run in often frown on my need for AC/DC asserting that DO/DC's can do just as well a job. I just don't need organise TONG runs myself as I 1) get plenty of invites 2) have plenty to do 3) I can be lazy and can just go + TONG in channels to get an invite.
Its easier to said than done. It might seem possible now but in the long run, with evey striker class is to follow this advice, there wont be enough support class for everyone anyway at the end because the meta need more support than striker. I tried make my own with msva back in mod 10 then quickly realize everyone is fighting for support class. It still come down to whoever who gets them get to play. 4 support in a party is too much. We could start a normal 3dps 1 tank 1 healer setup but who is gonna join when everyone is looking for speed run? U can try atm tho but it will soon get harder when every striker class begin to create their own party and the situation will still be the same.
That's a reasonable expectation, but if the next 'ideal' group comes a long that is say 4xCW 1xDC as it was once, things will not have improved, this has been menetioned several times by others in this thread.
I do not have solutions, because how do you persuade a community of players that they can run something outside an optimal group? This isn't a meta issue because it will always be a meta issue. Devs can force 1 DC per group but it will not solve anything, it will just move the problem on to someone else when a new optimal group appears.
Thes best we can do is be honest about how a current situation applies to us, give our feedback sincerely and let the people that run the game do what we hope they do best and make the changes the game needs when it needs it.
Class balance are just but numbers to the developer. If the developer could create a set of numbers that make the current 2dc meta as ideal, i m sure they could make any composition into meta. It just boils down on whether they want it or not. Or are their staff smart enough to do it without messing up other things.
From what I can gather, when DC changes were being made the community warned Cryptic 2xDC meta might become an issue, maybe a DC who was following that discussion could shed more light on it.
I wouldn't normally post or even read threads in DC forum, only reason I am in this thread because the thread I WAS posting in got merged into it.
Same here. The thread i started were about class balance and its on PVE discussion. The 2 dc meta are just a part of it. Then it gotten mix up some guy topic in DC forum.
Anyway, from what i see the DC changes are meant to balance out between AC and DO by the developer. However like always they mess up and buff them to a level that has more worth than a dps. IMO to realy remove meta group, the developer should make each and every class worth as much as the other. That means if adding a buffer to a party makes no different than adding another dps to a party and same goes to any other role, then any composition could work. Currently buffers have more worth than dps thus creating such meta. Or they could just redefine healer role by removing lifesteal stat from enchant, boon and equiptment so healer role are realy important but 2 healer is not necessary. But that way more things need to balance out. There are alot ways to do it other than the one i suggested, the developer just need to pick one carefully and start from there.
After all this discussion I think the only reasonable answer is - make your own party. Seriously. It's so obvious, so easy, yet people still prefer to come here and cry about the meta instead of making their own party.
Make a meta party, non-meta party, who cares. Just make one and run the content. @kangkeok you said there was a problem in mod10 with MSVA - I don't recall having any diffuculties getting into MSVA parties, since HR was a class in high demand because of Longstriders which is 40% damage buff for 4 seconds to whole party and is pretty much up all the time.
And it's true that MSVA showed a support problem - cause there wasn't enough of them. Let me tell you something, even if the meta would be running 3dps and 2 support, there still isn't enough support players.
My main problem with MSVA was the thing that you had to have r11-12 bondings to be competetive there. This caused lots of unhealthy elitism and disgusting requirement from people to "show your companion" and prove you have good bondings. It found out to be a gate for people without bondings and it was then when we enounctered bonding hype at its most and their prices went crazy high.
Back to the topic.
I barely run any kind of dungeon joining to group. I mostly form my own, that's how I run so much of it. I have a friend who is a 15k gwf and have to yet run this dungeon because no one ever responded to his "+" on public groups when trying to join tong runs. Seriously, it's so easy. Why don't you make your own que, why?
And I will say it again. If you're being kicked out from tong constantly and people don't want to run with you - think maybe you have to do better. After all it shouldn't be for everyone. It's supposed to be hard and not easy to even form a group for it. I like it this way.
If you want a balancing problem, then I would say that low-level content became way too easy for new players. Weapons like Chult ones are available for peanuts on AH and on green lvl they are better than legendary Twisted.
With so much firepower, new players are destroying content with ease. My brother recently started the game and our problem is that I'm a high end player and he's beginner. We don't have a mid-spot when we can play both together and have the same amount of fun.
I'm able to solo dungeons like VT, Elol, KR, Malabogs etc. when this should be his sweet spot now. Even when running things like Etos, Egwd or Ecc I'm being to strong for him.
It's hard to form a group of people that will not destroy content and therefore let my brother to learn the dungeons, his class etc. He learns close to nothing when running with people 15-16k IL. The only thing we can run together and he can swing his sword here and there is CN. I find it really annoying, especially for him.
Make a meta party, non-meta party, who cares. Just make one and run the content. @kangkeok you said there was a problem in mod10 with MSVA - I don't recall having any diffuculties getting into MSVA parties, since HR was a class in high demand because of Longstriders which is 40% damage buff for 4 seconds to whole party and is pretty much up all the time.
Before u link my name, please read what i said and the problem that i mention. Quoting them up everytime for u is begining to frustrates me.
Its easier to said than done. It might seem possible now but in the long run, with evey striker class is to follow this advice, there wont be enough support class for everyone anyway at the end because the meta need more support than striker. I tried make my own with msva back in mod 10 then quickly realize everyone is fighting for support class. It still come down to whoever who gets them get to play. 4 support in a party is too much. We could start a normal 3dps 1 tank 1 healer setup but who is gonna join when everyone is looking for speed run? U can try atm tho but it will soon get harder when every striker class begin to create their own party and the situation will still be the same.
Which u admit it urself? Oh and its also frustrating when they contradict each other.
Make a meta party, non-meta party, who cares. Just make one and run the content. @kangkeok you said there was a problem in mod10 with MSVA - I don't recall having any diffuculties getting into MSVA parties, since HR was a class in high demand because of Longstriders which is 40% damage buff for 4 seconds to whole party and is pretty much up all the time.
And it's true that MSVA showed a support problem - cause there wasn't enough of them. Let me tell you something, even if the meta would be running 3dps and 2 support, there still isn't enough support players.
Also if running 3dps and 2support is already hard to find support class, dont u think running 1 dps 4 support is harder?
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
Yesterday I run Tong. a) I did my own group, I asked all memeber how they want to run like, I suggested a rainbow setup, all declined, "we want double DC unisono" b) I run a random Heroes Accord, a TR friend and my GF, just for fun. 1 TR, 2GWF, 1 DC, 1GF, we struggled, the 2. GWF dealt the same ammount of dps than our AC/DC, we gave up, that DC got really upset about us, sry for that c) I tried to build a rainbow group, asking in ALL chats (also Elite Channel, lol). Lfg random Heroes Accord. Guess how many replies I got? None. d) I went into Tong with my DC, a group struggled at first boss, that groups was a challenge somehow even tough meta. e)Afterwards I was asked to join for a group, I suggested to build a rainbow party (BIS player and pretty good ones too) ... we did a buffrun 2xDC, 1xOP, 1x mof, 1x SW, the bosses dropped in short, we spend very few time and there was not much of a challenge.
At the end of the day, it was impossible to get player for a rainbow party into Tong or Heroes Accord asking in several channels (>1000 player), not one, nada, and the general answer forming groups was a 100% rejection for a rainbow setup. I don´t blame them because it´s their freetime. This game is a grind and you need to run x times to get y rewards. This is how reality looks like. Some solve this problem by running exclusivley with premades or well performing friends all day long, I don´t and I can´t call this a solution.
Just wanted to add this since I saw one of my old charts posted here. That chart was made very quick for a friend on ps4 and was to show "quick and dirty" the damage of each target group without considering important factors such as damage contribution ( a cw or GF will most likely will do very good dps also) that can alter a group dynamics and completion time.
Also it was made at a time that bondings were at 300% and power share was a guaranteed fact (always on) unlike now that it can often miss, be wrong timed (dc) or go out of range (paladin). The debuffs were also without diminishing returns applied. Also the chart doesn't include other sources of debuff or buff (artifacts, mounts etc) that to my opinion are group depended and can't be easily quantified.
You will find the following chart a bit more accurate for this module as it calculates the diminishing returns on debuffs and also the diminishing returns in power as far as damage goes. Even with that though its still not perfect as individual items can change it a lot. Using buff/debuff artifacts, Buff/debuff uptime (for me more important than what people give credit) and other factors can alter the outcome a lot. After all a companion that is dead or stunned half of the time, its half as effective but not easy to quantify that. I trust tho that most people have experience on runs and can tell.
So please keep in mind its ONLY per encounter/feat/passives only.
Use it as a base or an indicator but not as a "judge tool" and lets be honest.. If a bad player plays the "right class" it wont have the desired outcome. If a class skills aren't used right (or at all) or aren't in time... Well you can guess.
Thx a lot. One question, is that sheet considering powersharing of AC/DC without taking rebound power from companion/bondings into account ? -> 1.25 My AC DC before powersharing 44k basepower, afterwards with all stuff applied 99 up to 134k (insignia+), OP on top peaks arround 170k (+126k power), I do not have any radiants slotted in my companion. My striker is up to 62k power selfbuffed, my AC near doubles his power, >50%+dps But maybe the average buff is smaller concidering positioning etc.
Post edited by schietindebux on
0
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Just wanted to add this since I saw one of my old charts posted here. That chart was made very quick for a friend on ps4 and was to show "quick and dirty" the damage of each target group without considering important factors such as damage contribution ( a cw or GF will most likely will do very good dps also) that can alter a group dynamics and completion time.
Also it was made at a time that bondings were at 300% and power share was a guaranteed fact (always on) unlike now that it can often miss, be wrong timed (dc) or go out of range (paladin). The debuffs were also without diminishing returns applied. Also the chart doesn't include other sources of debuff or buff (artifacts, mounts etc) that to my opinion are group depended and can't be easily quantified.
You will find the following chart a bit more accurate for this module as it calculates the diminishing returns on debuffs and also the diminishing returns in power as far as damage goes. Even with that though its still not perfect as individual items can change it a lot. Using buff/debuff artifacts, Buff/debuff uptime (for me more important than what people give credit) and other factors can alter the outcome a lot. After all a companion that is dead or stunned half of the time, its half as effective but not easy to quantify that. I trust tho that most people have experience on runs and can tell.
So please keep in mind its ONLY per encounter/feat/passives only.
Use it as a base or an indicator but not as a "judge tool" and lets be honest.. If a bad player plays the "right class" it wont have the desired outcome. If a class skills aren't used right (or at all) or aren't in time... Well you can guess.
For me good players are better then good classes.
The relevant part that I was referring too was the buff list, not the rest, I've expressed my concerns over the mentioned in the original thread.
But in any case, may I advice on something, when comparing it's much much easier to use 1 damage hit and not huge numbers. The percents are the same, but mistakes are easier to spot. No one cares if in an example you see billion or something, but intuitively you can spot an error if you see multiplication of 1.8 * 2.5 is over 5 for example.
Also dark fire is a racial trait, and not MoF specific.
And we can't compare bad players, at the same token we can have bad GF, bad OP, bad MoF, and as bad DPS or as they are normally called HorribleDPS (HDPS). So we try to take the optimal scenarios and realistically bring it down a notch to practical levels.
Thx a lot. One question, is that sheet considering powersharing of AC/DC without taking rebound power from companion/bondings into account ? -> 1.25 My AC DC before powersharing 44k basepower, afterwards with all stuff applied 99 up to 134k (insignia+) , I do not have any radiants slotted in my companion.
Its considering the total gain to be about 46k power so yes its considering Bonding procs. The power to damage ratio is 1.25 is 25% damage based on gaining power.
My assumption is that a Main DPS has 80k power already and since paladins power buff is more stable (depends only on distance from the player/companion) while DC is based on cast. If a dc delays its cast or miss the bonding wont transfer the power to player since the refresh rate is about 30 sec. So since a player will have about 144k power from self and paladin, the contribution to damage from powershare of dc can be seen on the Red box to the right side.
Needless to say that if we add the DC 1st and paladin second the % will change but in my experience the average Paladins powershare is way more stable than average DC powershare. Of course the dps plays a role here too (running ahead, out fo range and attacking before AA) but that cant be easily measured.
That's why I said should be used as indicator and not absolute as a lot depends on the quality of the cleric and the amount of power both DC and Paly can share. I try to choose the average based on the runs I did. Other people of course may have different experience. We also need to keep in mind that adding for example 8000 (20%) power isn't 20% damage.
The relevant part that I was referring too was the buff list, not the rest, I've expressed my concerns over the mentioned in the original thread.
But in any case, may I advice on something, when comparing it's much much easier to use 1 damage hit and not huge numbers. The percents are the same, but mistakes are easier to spot. No one cares if in an example you see billion or something, but intuitively you can spot an error if you see multiplication of 1.8 * 2.5 is over 5 for example.
Also dark fire is a racial trait, and not MoF specific.
And we can't compare bad players, at the same token we can have bad GF, bad OP, bad MoF, and as bad DPS or as they are normally called HorribleDPS (HDPS). So we try to take the optimal scenarios and realistically bring it down a notch to practical levels.
Yes I agree with you and actually I have it based on one hit too (near the end of sheet). I just wanted to update with diminishing returns on debuffs (nice work on formula btw) and new power share based on bonding change to be closer to what mod 12b is.
As you see tho I didn't compare good player vs bad (for example to add it as a % factor that one can alter) but they do play a role in the outcome of things inside a real dungeon run. I can do solo cleric with one dc but I cant with another. One DD can d a lot of damage while the other cant. Assuming that all DC are the same buff or all DDs do same damage (even from same class) has its share on the "problem" we have now.
As far darkfire/Faerie Fire yes it isn't a mof thing and I forgot to remove it but wont change much as its 0.8% more or less at that lvl of debuff.
The meta doesnt define wat u run, sure ppl like to run 2 dc, sure ur invite to que doesnt work, nerf 1 dc they take a healadin, templock, or mof cw, dps are always plentyful the meta does call for more support. Imo, u shouldnt call a nerf on something that hurts someone elses character that theyve spent ad and time on, it petty and pointless devs will balance their game how they see fit, forums are just here to see our thoughts and opinions. How many of those that dont believe in 2 dc actually run 3 dps 2 support anyways? No? U go along with it anyways, if u dont show ppl its possible and not that bad then they never know. Thats how it works, ppl saw speedruns of the "meta" and everyone wants that type of group. 2 dc is easier and smoother than 1 but that doesnt mean its not impossible, after trying 2 dc why wouldnt they want a dps gf with a pally too? Its a mentality thing, if this is easier then this should be even easier =D. Usually go into fbi as a solo dc, i dont like waiting. Mspc is fine as solo dc , and i hate tong boring and only do it when someone wants help. Have done tong with 2 dc or a dc and templock (dont run with healadins my gf gets competitive when theres another pally and talks HAMSTER in party chat). Also, most supports arent dps orientated the do dc that i run with are built for ac. Ac dc and pally usually focus character sheet after bondings, dps gf is rarier than tac gf (on ps4 anyways) and the investment to make it a dps is in the millions since u are a support character tac and protector buffs dont scale with gear anyways while conqueror does(dps wise), unless u wanna go all in for that 5% for fray be my guest and even then ur basically a dps looking for 2 dc and a pally tank so yeah good luck. The meta is something u choose to run not wat u have to
0
jumpingmorksMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 876Arc User
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
Yesterday I run Tong. a) I did my own group, I asked all memeber how they want to run like, I suggested a rainbow setup, all declined, "we want double DC unisono" b) I run a random Heroes Accord, a TR friend and my GF, just for fun. 1 TR, 2GWF, 1 DC, 1GF, we struggled, the 2. GWF dealt the same ammount of dps than our AC/DC, we gave up, that DC got really upset about us, sry for that c) I tried to build a rainbow group, asking in ALL chats (also Elite Channel, lol). Lfg random Heroes Accord. Guess how many replies I got? None. d) I went into Tong with my DC, a group struggled at first boss, that groups was a challenge somehow even tough meta. e)Afterwards I was asked to join for a group, I suggested to build a rainbow party (BIS player and pretty good ones too) ... we did a buffrun 2xDC, 1xOP, 1x mof, 1x SW, the bosses dropped in short, we spend very few time and there was not much of a challenge.
At the end of the day, it was impossible to get player for a rainbow party into Tong or Heroes Accord asking in several channels (>1000 player), not one, nada, and the general answer forming groups was a 100% rejection for a rainbow setup. I don´t blame them because it´s their freetime. This game is a grind and you need to run x times to get y rewards. This is how reality looks like. Some solve this problem by running exclusivley with premades or well performing friends all day long, I don´t and I can´t call this a solution.
This is most likely what is going on across the board. This is an end game dungeon, for end game players. The reason the players you are trying to recruit only want to run 2xDC meta isn't because they want a quick run, it's because they see it as the ONLY means to complete the dungeon.
I'm not suggesting 2xDC is a good solution, I'm not suggesting any meta is, but if Cryptic choose to use a bandaid fix and force queues to only accept 1xDC in a run a week later you'll have the same story different place scenario and we'll be back here arguing once more.
My suggestion, raise the iLevel requirement to enter TONG, there are players trying to run TONG who shouldn't be running TONG.
Another problem why low iLevel players are having difficulty in TONG is the bloody lag, high level players can survive lag spikes, low iLevel players are gonna drop, plain and simple, it's nothing to do with skill in that scenario, just the level of protection high level gear/enchantments provide.
EDIT: Also, another thing that annoys me, Cryptic can implement what some in the community think is the answer to the TONG issue, but when it doesn't work out or possibly makes things worse, the players here arguing against 2xDC won't accept responsibility for their words, the next threads they make will be to blame Crpytic on how they didn't implement it 'right'.
There is a bigger problem here than 2xDC's and I don'y buy it at all that bandaiding this issue by preventing 2xDC's in a run will fix the issue.
I will be the first to admit I know NOTHING about DC's but from an observer point of view, it looks like you are getting two different sets of buffs/debuffs from 1 class, much like you can have an OP Dev and an OP Prot.
So I'm guessing to fix this issue Cryptic need to address the reasons why people are running ACDC and DODC because I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that 2xDODC's are an issue.
The power sharing issue, I don't have a position on that because I don't understand the issue, if Cryptic feels it needs to tone down the power sharing I'll support it, if not I am non plussed.
At the end of the day I'll support ANY decision Cryptic make that is in the interest of the playing community and make the game more fun for everyone.
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Lets be realistic, 2 DC runs are easier and faster. We can dance around it, deny it, make different parties or whatever, but if we cut the bovine fertilizer out, we can see that DC bring a lot to the table, if it's buffs or mitigation. In most cases even in more practical terms a DC will be worth more than a DPS, as long as the rotation is "meta" and not some obscure healing idea. And more so having 2 can cover up for any non-optimal play or 'screw ups' by either and provide a consistent buff.
Now, can we run 1 DC? ofc we can, but it takes much more experienced (and/or geared) DC to make it smooth. Somewhat similar to DPS. IMO, the most foolproof composition is 2 DPS, 2DC, 1 Tank. DPS can cover each other mistakes (Or I can just be lazy), DC can cover each other, and at the basic level only 1 tank can tank because you don't want aggro war and spinning boss. So if you ask me what should be the 'commoners meta', this is it. And with some versatile classes like CW, that can swap SS/MoF when needed or SW heals/dps or just look pretty, this allows better inclusiveness, stable run times around 25-30min, and you don't need to look for 17k party members.
Now back to our theological discussion, but with less bovine fertilizer. The suggestion to make parties is great, but if you are not FOTM or one of the meta, you are screwed. You either need friends to create the core of the party, or be exceptionally good at your screwed class. How many SW you saw successfully make a party in public channel from scratch? How many anything? What I see is that people PM, get a DC a Tank, mostly using the great 3B method, Beg, Bribe, Blackmail and then try to fill in. If you can't get the starting support, there is nothing for you in the public channels. And if you are one of the supports, GF/OP/DC, you don't need to make a party... really... Just sit around and someone will ask for one of those..
So either you have active guild / friends where the 3B will work, or.... spend hours making a party, that has a higher chance to fail too.
Players will always gravitate to the easier path, which creates a meta. In private groups (guild, channels, friends) we can deviate for other benefits, like running with friends. But dropping it all on the community and saying 'your fault' is like blaming the water for flooding your home in a flood... Water will always flow in a predictable way, it's up to the city planners to design and prepare in such way that our homes will be dry. If the class balance is as such that 20% of the party is allocated to 80% of the population, it's a design issue, and it's not healthy to the game. Telling the players "Make your rainbow parties to fix this" just don't cut it, and simply wont work. Does this sentiment should be an excuse for every 17k group to make 2DC, OP, GF, GWF party? BS, this is as annoying. There isn't a reason that an excessively over-geared / over-skilled party to do so just to cut from 17min run to 15, this is the place to go more rainbow, but in reality it doesn't happen, I don't know why, maybe it's epeen importance with the timer, or to see big hits, or whatever, narrow mindedness...
Bottom line there is enough blame to go around, but if we except any change on the large scale and not on some micro groups like guilds (that will do their less meta things anyway) it's up to the game designers, and not up to players to run with signs in PE and shout "No more 2 DC". Having said that, and with our expiriance of how "class balance" works in NW, it's important to note, that it's not a request to nerf DC. Especially not AC who invested immense amount of resources into narrow specialization -> power to be effective. There are many ways to shift the meta, and a combination of carrots and less sticks should be considered as an umbrella solution. Together with more frequent and more minor class changes that adapt quickly to any unhealthy meta emergence and with less harm to the player base. Meaning "change the f'ing problems, before it becomes so standard that everyone 'have' to invest in it, and then nerf it to the ground when it becomes a plague, and everyone loose their investment'.
Several suggestions were made, combination of such, IMO, is the best approach, with some rework to buffs on one side, to discourage too buff reliant stacks, for example diminishing returns on external buffs, and adding class "aura" buff on the other hand to encourage diversity can be an example of a global solution. In long term, it's up to the devs to be more with the hand on the pulse, and not wait for years over every change. Most of the things were known for a long time, and before it trickled to became a wide spread meta. Agile development is not just a word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development it's actually useful.
3
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
Yesterday I run Tong. a) I did my own group, I asked all memeber how they want to run like, I suggested a rainbow setup, all declined, "we want double DC unisono" b) I run a random Heroes Accord, a TR friend and my GF, just for fun. 1 TR, 2GWF, 1 DC, 1GF, we struggled, the 2. GWF dealt the same ammount of dps than our AC/DC, we gave up, that DC got really upset about us, sry for that c) I tried to build a rainbow group, asking in ALL chats (also Elite Channel, lol). Lfg random Heroes Accord. Guess how many replies I got? None. d) I went into Tong with my DC, a group struggled at first boss, that groups was a challenge somehow even tough meta. e)Afterwards I was asked to join for a group, I suggested to build a rainbow party (BIS player and pretty good ones too) ... we did a buffrun 2xDC, 1xOP, 1x mof, 1x SW, the bosses dropped in short, we spend very few time and there was not much of a challenge.
At the end of the day, it was impossible to get player for a rainbow party into Tong or Heroes Accord asking in several channels (>1000 player), not one, nada, and the general answer forming groups was a 100% rejection for a rainbow setup. I don´t blame them because it´s their freetime. This game is a grind and you need to run x times to get y rewards. This is how reality looks like. Some solve this problem by running exclusivley with premades or well performing friends all day long, I don´t and I can´t call this a solution.
This is most likely what is going on across the board. This is an end game dungeon, for end game players. The reason the players you are trying to recruit only want to run 2xDC meta isn't because they want a quick run, it's because they see it as the ONLY means to complete the dungeon.
I'm not suggesting 2xDC is a good solution, I'm not suggesting any meta is, but if Cryptic choose to use a bandaid fix and force queues to only accept 1xDC in a run a week later you'll have the same story different place scenario and we'll be back here arguing once more.
My suggestion, raise the iLevel requirement to enter TONG, there are players trying to run TONG who shouldn't be running TONG.
Another problem why low iLevel players are having difficulty in TONG is the bloody lag, high level players can survive lag spikes, low iLevel players are gonna drop, plain and simple, it's nothing to do with skill in that scenario, just the level of protection high level gear/enchantments provide.
EDIT: Also, another thing that annoys me, Cryptic can implement what some in the community think is the answer to the TONG issue, but when it doesn't work out or possibly makes things worse, the players here arguing against 2xDC won't accept responsibility for their words, the next threads they make will be to blame Crpytic on how they didn't implement it 'right'.
There is a bigger problem here than 2xDC's and I don'y buy it at all that bandaiding this issue by preventing 2xDC's in a run will fix the issue.
I will be the first to admit I know NOTHING about DC's but from an observer point of view, it looks like you are getting two different sets of buffs/debuffs from 1 class, much like you can have an OP Dev and an OP Prot.
So I'm guessing to fix this issue Cryptic need to address the reasons why people are running ACDC and DODC because I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that 2xDODC's are an issue.
The power sharing issue, I don't have a position on that because I don't understand the issue, if Cryptic feels it needs to tone down the power sharing I'll support it, if not I am non plussed.
At the end of the day I'll support ANY decision Cryptic make that is in the interest of the playing community and make the game more fun for everyone.
Cryptic is not infallible, actually, history teaches us the contrary, but it's not a shame to fail, only those that do not do, do not make mistakes. However, it is an issue to not learn from mistakes, and not to adapt. Since release, all class balance was heavy handed, that Yo-Yoed us from one meta to another, from TRs, to CW, to GWFs, to supports, to whatever next, from augments, to bondings to bondings + a middle finger. This is not normal, this is dounting, discouraging, tiresome, and annoying. If they want to rotate FOTM, ok, please do, then do so in a timely fashion. Set goals, and deadlines and do it. If the aim is actual balance, then clsoing the eyes over issues for years and saying "The class is in a good spot right now" when 90% of the class changed main or quit the game, is a failure of unprecedented scale from the point of analyzing your own game.
Devs are humans like the rest of us, but in relation to the game, some of us have more play time than all the devs combined. Now it doesn't mean that everything that a random forumite says must be done, but it does mean that for a healthy game there must be a working information flow and verification process. In software it's telemetry, it's the ability to gather data, and analyze it correctly, and IMO, it just doesn't happen. The forum issues are not summerzied and passed to the right people, simply because there is no one with the right expertise around that have the knowledge of the issue topics and is objective. On the other hand, the organic data gathering is not existent, do the devs know what happens in the grouping channels? Will someone try to sift through the logs, is there an automated system to try to correlate how much time a person invested to join a party, until a run was made? How this correlate to classes? How many gave up and logged off without managing even to join a run? Don't have an automated system, create a bloody BiS char, join some of the channels, connect XMPP, yes I know you can do it, and watch the chat in your favorite messenger client while doing other stuff. This is with known tools, I'm sure it's possible to monitor enough sample data, to get the trends.
Or even if we completely ignore the "totally insignificant party of actually making a party" Who cares about significant part of the population can't even make to this part. Lets stop for a second looking at average runs. And more at % of active players of classes, and % in the said dungeons. First 2 weeks of tomb we will see that bloody DPS are 1/5 of the party... and most of those GWF... Red flag? System design to Huston, do you copy? Huston we have a problem?
Can't be that it takes months to actually acknowledge a problem, and then months to solve it... When most of the time an early diagnosed problem is much easier to treat.
Edit: And obviously, I forgot why I even started this post, my bottom line, whatever Cryptic tries to do, should be analyzed with critical eye, and pitchforks raised when appropriate. Resisting healthy to game change because it hurts me, my class, or my wealth is a natural response, and most of us will jump on it, but we as a player base should try to be more objective and look at the greater picture and also on the enjoyment of our fellow players who play other classes for example. On the other hand, Cryptic changes are not divine word, Cryptic are not always right, and we shouldn't support it blindly, many of the changes we have warned about, and our worst predictions fulfilled.
I can show a PM I've wrote to the lead designer (robsomething) about SoD minutes after the change was suggested in the forums about the PvP impact.... Now I can only say "I told you so", and as much as I enjoy being right (I do), this is not the desired outcome for the game.
Post edited by micky1p00 on
3
jumpingmorksMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 876Arc User
I don't disagree but I don't completely agree either. We have to work with what we have in any given situation. And while I agree and have said as much in the past that Cryptic don't always make the best decisions, I'm inclined to believe the problem in that department is the bean counters at the top but unfortunately the devs are stuck with making the best of situation as they can, maybe that's just being optimistic or even naiive but it's how I am.
Unforunately, given the severity of the issue with ACDC and ACDO being more of a balance issue, we will likely see them take the quick and easy path and limit queues to 1 DC rather than address whatever the balance issues are at the heart of this problem, DO/AC synergy is too good to pass up and we all know balance issues take them bloody ages to sort out, look at how long TR's and SW's have languished waiting for their time to shine again.
On top of that, I have a sneaking suspicion they've not only got a quick fix lined up with a date set but they've got a planned date for an actual fix that they can continually kick down the street when the target date they've set looms too close and they've been focusing on other things. I suspect this because Mod 13 is going to be pretty close to release, there is already going to be a lot of changes in that mod which will take time for them to see an impact in the game and whenever they are close to releasing a new mod, everything tends to get flung out the window along with the baby, patches and bug fixes are usually the first thing, let alone a needed class rebalance.
0
putzboy78Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,950Arc User
The history on the 2DC thing is long.
Basically with module 6 you ended up with 2 types of DC. A powershare DC who's stats depended on high power and high recovery and a dps DC (focus was high crit) who's focus who relied on synergy with GFs ITF to buff the power. At the time, GF ITF buffed based on their damage resistance. The dps dc would use forsight (powershare DC doesn't have this power), astral shield, diving glow, and hallowed ground to push GF damage resistance which got converted to party buff by ITF.
When ITF got converted to a flat buff the dps DC lost it's niche and became orphaned (noone wanted them and investment to switch to powershare required new equipment, artifacts, and enchants, for many this was cost prohibitive). Then in mod 10 they did a rework of powershare DC to Nerf powershare. In that rework they fixed many DC powers, pull a CD on the daily power Hallowed Ground (force dps DC to invest in recovery), and gave dps DC a flat party DPS boost.
You end up with 2DCs because the class feature for the flat party buff is on. Separate build than the powers and feats for powershare.
BTW, most people need powershare DC for last boss on TONG because this is the only build that gives a CC immunity. The idea of limiting TONG to a single healer role will push dps DC out of the dungeon and healidon still won't be getting any love.
The thread in the temple forum was started around the idea people were pushing for removal of 2xDC but the discussion of course turned to the fact that 2xDC wasn't the issue, 4xSupport is what people are really frustrated about but didn't know how articulate.
A DPS Cleric role is ludicrous at best throughout the history of both DnD as well as games in general.
The Only upper hand where a Cleric would have tremendous power should be against the Undead type enemies. Like a flat-out 5% bonus against the Undead enemies at all times. Same goes for a paladin.
A DC shouldn't strive to be a dps class by any degree.
True Neutral
Left the Game due to heavy Damage Control & Missing Spanish Language
1
putzboy78Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,950Arc User
A DPS Cleric role is ludicrous at best throughout the history of both DnD as well as games in general.
The Only upper hand where a Cleric would have tremendous power should be against the Undead type enemies. Like a flat-out 5% bonus against the Undead enemies at all times. Same goes for a paladin.
A DC shouldn't strive to be a dps class by any degree.
I used "dps" cleric because of the simplicity of description. Would you rather me say Righteous Divine Oracle?
No one thinks that a "dps" cleric in this game is a true dps (unless they are being total asshats and not running Terrifying Insight, Hallowed Ground, Divine Glow, etc). It's called dps because its deals signficantly more dps than a healer or powerbuffer cleric. Glad you were able to take the important information from that post
Each class is doing particular type of a damage. That's a given mechanic.
The topic is self explanatory and nobody needs to articulate how silly it is to have a DPS DC and/or a DC whose primary role will be to use the damaging properties of any kind, as it was with the particular feat during that one time allowing the DC to commit tremendous DPS due to a bug, thus producing actual builds relying on the given feat's damage during the healing processes.
This particular time paved the road for the people to build a DPS sort of a hybrid as a DC and the power creeps later on turned it into a highway for the DC's DPS role due to the insane amounts of the power sharing.
The DC got nerfed reasonably, however the old sense of playing a DC in a DPS sense is still present and can be found on that highway to nowhere. This sort of mentality luckily changed to a degree due to the DCs speccing out for the recovery-intensive builds. (big yay for that)
You are obviously talking from self-motivated reasons somehow getting offended in the process and appearing that you're not seeing the bigger picture which involves all classes. Furthermore the attitude in which you're blaming others for not articulating the 2xDC combo and somehow perpetuating that it is actually " a 4 x support agenda", trying to somehow mitigate the fact that 2x DC is still too good even after the much needed balance, is somewhat cheeky agenda, but a reasonable one since you obviously like playing a DC and quite possibly you liked playing a DPS DC at the given time.
Whatever your reasons may be, a DPS specced DC is a ludicrous idea regardless of the meta for the game. I'm not somehow taking it out of the context of anything, but I am calling it out that it's silly at best.
Yes, the 2xDC needs to die out and, yes, the 4x "support" needs changing. I do not think we'd need to write shakespearesque essays representing the each and 2xDC + 2xOP is part of the bigger problem, but it is not a mistake to strictly talk about the DCs in the Temple section and also sometimes mention that bigger problem to which the 2xDC are also a component/part of.
I hope that's enough articulating for your merits.
True Neutral
Left the Game due to heavy Damage Control & Missing Spanish Language
1
jumpingmorksMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 876Arc User
I think you might just be projecting your expectations on someone I know is prone to arguing in an honest manner because what I read in your post is not the same thing I read in @putzboy78 's post.
If honest arguments are a passion of yours might I suggest passive observation of your own thoughts, you'll find them running to their own conclusions without your intervention and those processes, when observed in the 3rd person can give greater insights into our own motivations. I guarantee though, you'll find more questions than answers.
I stated it before and I state it again, the problem is the player base. I've done two ToNG's yesterday again, 1 Rainbow group (OP, DC, MoF 2 x DPS -32min, and OP, DC, HR, HR, GWF, 31min). DC's where AC/DC 14.5 - 15K. Average group IL 15K. Most importantly players that play their classes 2 years and longer. With the right skilled players you don't even need R13 enchants and bondings, R11 or R12 are more then enough.
You know you have an elitist problem, when you see the call in open channels: lf4m Esot - 16K plus or when they ask for dbl DC in CN. Another example, on off our GF's (16.2K) got kicked from group because his IL is not high enough.
The only people that can change that is the player base. I have 4 toons that would fit above categories, I do not react to inquiries like the above mentioned, the guy that asked for 16+K esot went on to my ignore list immediately.
PzkwVI_Kingtiger - GWF
PMS-Extreme - Moffus Debuffos
Tiamat's Toyboy - OP
Rent-A-DC - 1 GMOP per 30 minutes
Officer at Civil Anarchy, Member of Fabled Alliance
Sure there is also an elitist component, but that's a smaller problem imo. Actual meta is the most safe and fast way at once, that's why we sit here (in short). Water will allways run downhill someone said...or flood the room? Maybe the last one. You can't blame near 100% of this community to farm a dungeon with poor loot and a pretty poor droprate for those UE, running it the most effective and easiest way. I asked enough well geared and good performing player for a rainbow setup, to state that the general attitude towards this dungeon is: "I want it easy and I want it to be a bufferrun !" Simply because everyone knows what happens, if you have 1-2 somehow "underperforming" player in your group.
Another point why DC has nothing to fear about is mitigation. Especially in Tong everone knows why this class is needed at 2.+3. boss. Even without any buffs towards the group most will pick that class (esp if not BIS) , since they simply can´t succeed without tools like AA/HG/DG/AS/Exalt.
Post edited by schietindebux on
1
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
I run ToNG quite a bit. In fact, it is practically the only group content I run these days, as the RQ fiasco has taken all the fun out of running other dungeons for me.
In most cases I run as a part of a 2-DC group, but I have run as a single DC often enough to be able to say that for me, the average run time for a 1-DC group is around 6 minutes longer than for an "equally geared" 2-DC one. That's it, that's all - 30 minutes instead of 24 on the average.
Comments
How many non-meta runs do you create each day? If the answer is none then you are part of the problem. @wizardlvl80 I believe said the same thing in this thread just recently and I see the same response to folks in zerg channels given every day, if you are struggling to find a group, make your own groups.
I have no problem creating groups with my OP as the only tank and a single AC/DC, the circles I run in often frown on my need for AC/DC asserting that DO/DC's can do just as well a job. I just don't need organise TONG runs myself as I 1) get plenty of invites 2) have plenty to do 3) I can be lazy and can just go + TONG in channels to get an invite.
I do not have solutions, because how do you persuade a community of players that they can run something outside an optimal group? This isn't a meta issue because it will always be a meta issue. Devs can force 1 DC per group but it will not solve anything, it will just move the problem on to someone else when a new optimal group appears.
Thes best we can do is be honest about how a current situation applies to us, give our feedback sincerely and let the people that run the game do what we hope they do best and make the changes the game needs when it needs it.
I wouldn't normally post or even read threads in DC forum, only reason I am in this thread because the thread I WAS posting in got merged into it.
Anyway, from what i see the DC changes are meant to balance out between AC and DO by the developer. However like always they mess up and buff them to a level that has more worth than a dps. IMO to realy remove meta group, the developer should make each and every class worth as much as the other. That means if adding a buffer to a party makes no different than adding another dps to a party and same goes to any other role, then any composition could work. Currently buffers have more worth than dps thus creating such meta. Or they could just redefine healer role by removing lifesteal stat from enchant, boon and equiptment so healer role are realy important but 2 healer is not necessary. But that way more things need to balance out. There are alot ways to do it other than the one i suggested, the developer just need to pick one carefully and start from there.
Make a meta party, non-meta party, who cares. Just make one and run the content. @kangkeok you said there was a problem in mod10 with MSVA - I don't recall having any diffuculties getting into MSVA parties, since HR was a class in high demand because of Longstriders which is 40% damage buff for 4 seconds to whole party and is pretty much up all the time.
And it's true that MSVA showed a support problem - cause there wasn't enough of them. Let me tell you something, even if the meta would be running 3dps and 2 support, there still isn't enough support players.
My main problem with MSVA was the thing that you had to have r11-12 bondings to be competetive there. This caused lots of unhealthy elitism and disgusting requirement from people to "show your companion" and prove you have good bondings. It found out to be a gate for people without bondings and it was then when we enounctered bonding hype at its most and their prices went crazy high.
Back to the topic.
I barely run any kind of dungeon joining to group. I mostly form my own, that's how I run so much of it. I have a friend who is a 15k gwf and have to yet run this dungeon because no one ever responded to his "+" on public groups when trying to join tong runs. Seriously, it's so easy. Why don't you make your own que, why?
And I will say it again. If you're being kicked out from tong constantly and people don't want to run with you - think maybe you have to do better. After all it shouldn't be for everyone. It's supposed to be hard and not easy to even form a group for it. I like it this way.
If you want a balancing problem, then I would say that low-level content became way too easy for new players. Weapons like Chult ones are available for peanuts on AH and on green lvl they are better than legendary Twisted.
With so much firepower, new players are destroying content with ease. My brother recently started the game and our problem is that I'm a high end player and he's beginner. We don't have a mid-spot when we can play both together and have the same amount of fun.
I'm able to solo dungeons like VT, Elol, KR, Malabogs etc. when this should be his sweet spot now. Even when running things like Etos, Egwd or Ecc I'm being to strong for him.
It's hard to form a group of people that will not destroy content and therefore let my brother to learn the dungeons, his class etc. He learns close to nothing when running with people 15-16k IL. The only thing we can run together and he can swing his sword here and there is CN. I find it really annoying, especially for him.
Also if running 3dps and 2support is already hard to find support class, dont u think running 1 dps 4 support is harder?
My answer to your problem - don't blame the meta, blame people not playing support classes. Boom. Problem solved.
I am not mad and I sell those stupid stones. Yesterday I run Tong.
a) I did my own group, I asked all memeber how they want to run like, I suggested a rainbow setup, all declined, "we want double DC unisono"
b) I run a random Heroes Accord, a TR friend and my GF, just for fun.
1 TR, 2GWF, 1 DC, 1GF, we struggled, the 2. GWF dealt the same ammount of dps than our AC/DC, we gave up, that DC got really upset about us, sry for that
c) I tried to build a rainbow group, asking in ALL chats (also Elite Channel, lol). Lfg random Heroes Accord. Guess how many replies I got? None.
d) I went into Tong with my DC, a group struggled at first boss, that groups was a challenge somehow even tough meta.
e)Afterwards I was asked to join for a group, I suggested to build a rainbow party (BIS player and pretty good ones too) ... we did a buffrun 2xDC, 1xOP, 1x mof, 1x SW, the bosses dropped in short, we spend very few time and there was not much of a challenge.
At the end of the day, it was impossible to get player for a rainbow party into Tong or Heroes Accord asking in several channels (>1000 player), not one, nada, and the general answer forming groups was a 100% rejection for a rainbow setup.
I don´t blame them because it´s their freetime. This game is a grind and you need to run x times to get y rewards.
This is how reality looks like.
Some solve this problem by running exclusivley with premades or well performing friends all day long, I don´t and I can´t call this a solution.
Also it was made at a time that bondings were at 300% and power share was a guaranteed fact (always on) unlike now that it can often miss, be wrong timed (dc) or go out of range (paladin). The debuffs were also without diminishing returns applied. Also the chart doesn't include other sources of debuff or buff (artifacts, mounts etc) that to my opinion are group depended and can't be easily quantified.
You will find the following chart a bit more accurate for this module as it calculates the diminishing returns on debuffs and also the diminishing returns in power as far as damage goes. Even with that though its still not perfect as individual items can change it a lot. Using buff/debuff artifacts, Buff/debuff uptime (for me more important than what people give credit) and other factors can alter the outcome a lot. After all a companion that is dead or stunned half of the time, its half as effective but not easy to quantify that. I trust tho that most people have experience on runs and can tell.
So please keep in mind its ONLY per encounter/feat/passives only.
Use it as a base or an indicator but not as a "judge tool" and lets be honest.. If a bad player plays the "right class" it wont have the desired outcome. If a class skills aren't used right (or at all) or aren't in time... Well you can guess.
For me good players are better then good classes.
One question, is that sheet considering powersharing of AC/DC without taking rebound power from companion/bondings into account ? -> 1.25
My AC DC before powersharing 44k basepower, afterwards with all stuff applied 99 up to 134k (insignia+), OP on top peaks arround 170k (+126k power), I do not have any radiants slotted in my companion.
My striker is up to 62k power selfbuffed, my AC near doubles his power, >50%+dps
But maybe the average buff is smaller concidering positioning etc.
But in any case, may I advice on something, when comparing it's much much easier to use 1 damage hit and not huge numbers. The percents are the same, but mistakes are easier to spot. No one cares if in an example you see billion or something, but intuitively you can spot an error if you see multiplication of 1.8 * 2.5 is over 5 for example.
Also dark fire is a racial trait, and not MoF specific.
And we can't compare bad players, at the same token we can have bad GF, bad OP, bad MoF, and as bad DPS or as they are normally called HorribleDPS (HDPS). So we try to take the optimal scenarios and realistically bring it down a notch to practical levels.
My assumption is that a Main DPS has 80k power already and since paladins power buff is more stable (depends only on distance from the player/companion) while DC is based on cast. If a dc delays its cast or miss the bonding wont transfer the power to player since the refresh rate is about 30 sec. So since a player will have about 144k power from self and paladin, the contribution to damage from powershare of dc can be seen on the Red box to the right side.
Needless to say that if we add the DC 1st and paladin second the % will change but in my experience the average Paladins powershare is way more stable than average DC powershare. Of course the dps plays a role here too (running ahead, out fo range and attacking before AA) but that cant be easily measured.
That's why I said should be used as indicator and not absolute as a lot depends on the quality of the cleric and the amount of power both DC and Paly can share. I try to choose the average based on the runs I did. Other people of course may have different experience. We also need to keep in mind that adding for example 8000 (20%) power isn't 20% damage.
Yes I agree with you and actually I have it based on one hit too (near the end of sheet). I just wanted to update with diminishing returns on debuffs (nice work on formula btw) and new power share based on bonding change to be closer to what mod 12b is.
As you see tho I didn't compare good player vs bad (for example to add it as a % factor that one can alter) but they do play a role in the outcome of things inside a real dungeon run. I can do solo cleric with one dc but I cant with another. One DD can d a lot of damage while the other cant. Assuming that all DC are the same buff or all DDs do same damage (even from same class) has its share on the "problem" we have now.
As far darkfire/Faerie Fire yes it isn't a mof thing and I forgot to remove it but wont change much as its 0.8% more or less at that lvl of debuff.
I'm not suggesting 2xDC is a good solution, I'm not suggesting any meta is, but if Cryptic choose to use a bandaid fix and force queues to only accept 1xDC in a run a week later you'll have the same story different place scenario and we'll be back here arguing once more.
My suggestion, raise the iLevel requirement to enter TONG, there are players trying to run TONG who shouldn't be running TONG.
Another problem why low iLevel players are having difficulty in TONG is the bloody lag, high level players can survive lag spikes, low iLevel players are gonna drop, plain and simple, it's nothing to do with skill in that scenario, just the level of protection high level gear/enchantments provide.
EDIT:
Also, another thing that annoys me, Cryptic can implement what some in the community think is the answer to the TONG issue, but when it doesn't work out or possibly makes things worse, the players here arguing against 2xDC won't accept responsibility for their words, the next threads they make will be to blame Crpytic on how they didn't implement it 'right'.
There is a bigger problem here than 2xDC's and I don'y buy it at all that bandaiding this issue by preventing 2xDC's in a run will fix the issue.
I will be the first to admit I know NOTHING about DC's but from an observer point of view, it looks like you are getting two different sets of buffs/debuffs from 1 class, much like you can have an OP Dev and an OP Prot.
So I'm guessing to fix this issue Cryptic need to address the reasons why people are running ACDC and DODC because I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that 2xDODC's are an issue.
The power sharing issue, I don't have a position on that because I don't understand the issue, if Cryptic feels it needs to tone down the power sharing I'll support it, if not I am non plussed.
At the end of the day I'll support ANY decision Cryptic make that is in the interest of the playing community and make the game more fun for everyone.
And more so having 2 can cover up for any non-optimal play or 'screw ups' by either and provide a consistent buff.
Now, can we run 1 DC? ofc we can, but it takes much more experienced (and/or geared) DC to make it smooth. Somewhat similar to DPS.
IMO, the most foolproof composition is 2 DPS, 2DC, 1 Tank. DPS can cover each other mistakes (Or I can just be lazy), DC can cover each other, and at the basic level only 1 tank can tank because you don't want aggro war and spinning boss.
So if you ask me what should be the 'commoners meta', this is it. And with some versatile classes like CW, that can swap SS/MoF when needed or SW heals/dps or just look pretty, this allows better inclusiveness, stable run times around 25-30min, and you don't need to look for 17k party members.
Now back to our theological discussion, but with less bovine fertilizer. The suggestion to make parties is great, but if you are not FOTM or one of the meta, you are screwed. You either need friends to create the core of the party, or be exceptionally good at your screwed class. How many SW you saw successfully make a party in public channel from scratch? How many anything?
What I see is that people PM, get a DC a Tank, mostly using the great 3B method, Beg, Bribe, Blackmail and then try to fill in. If you can't get the starting support, there is nothing for you in the public channels.
And if you are one of the supports, GF/OP/DC, you don't need to make a party... really... Just sit around and someone will ask for one of those..
So either you have active guild / friends where the 3B will work, or.... spend hours making a party, that has a higher chance to fail too.
Players will always gravitate to the easier path, which creates a meta. In private groups (guild, channels, friends) we can deviate for other benefits, like running with friends. But dropping it all on the community and saying 'your fault' is like blaming the water for flooding your home in a flood... Water will always flow in a predictable way, it's up to the city planners to design and prepare in such way that our homes will be dry.
If the class balance is as such that 20% of the party is allocated to 80% of the population, it's a design issue, and it's not healthy to the game. Telling the players "Make your rainbow parties to fix this" just don't cut it, and simply wont work. Does this sentiment should be an excuse for every 17k group to make 2DC, OP, GF, GWF party? BS, this is as annoying. There isn't a reason that an excessively over-geared / over-skilled party to do so just to cut from 17min run to 15, this is the place to go more rainbow, but in reality it doesn't happen, I don't know why, maybe it's epeen importance with the timer, or to see big hits, or whatever, narrow mindedness...
Bottom line there is enough blame to go around, but if we except any change on the large scale and not on some micro groups like guilds (that will do their less meta things anyway) it's up to the game designers, and not up to players to run with signs in PE and shout "No more 2 DC".
Having said that, and with our expiriance of how "class balance" works in NW, it's important to note, that it's not a request to nerf DC. Especially not AC who invested immense amount of resources into narrow specialization -> power to be effective.
There are many ways to shift the meta, and a combination of carrots and less sticks should be considered as an umbrella solution. Together with more frequent and more minor class changes that adapt quickly to any unhealthy meta emergence and with less harm to the player base. Meaning "change the f'ing problems, before it becomes so standard that everyone 'have' to invest in it, and then nerf it to the ground when it becomes a plague, and everyone loose their investment'.
Several suggestions were made, combination of such, IMO, is the best approach, with some rework to buffs on one side, to discourage too buff reliant stacks, for example diminishing returns on external buffs, and adding class "aura" buff on the other hand to encourage diversity can be an example of a global solution.
In long term, it's up to the devs to be more with the hand on the pulse, and not wait for years over every change. Most of the things were known for a long time, and before it trickled to became a wide spread meta. Agile development is not just a word
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development
it's actually useful.
However, it is an issue to not learn from mistakes, and not to adapt. Since release, all class balance was heavy handed, that Yo-Yoed us from one meta to another, from TRs, to CW, to GWFs, to supports, to whatever next, from augments, to bondings to bondings + a middle finger. This is not normal, this is dounting, discouraging, tiresome, and annoying. If they want to rotate FOTM, ok, please do, then do so in a timely fashion. Set goals, and deadlines and do it. If the aim is actual balance, then clsoing the eyes over issues for years and saying "The class is in a good spot right now" when 90% of the class changed main or quit the game, is a failure of unprecedented scale from the point of analyzing your own game.
Devs are humans like the rest of us, but in relation to the game, some of us have more play time than all the devs combined. Now it doesn't mean that everything that a random forumite says must be done, but it does mean that for a healthy game there must be a working information flow and verification process.
In software it's telemetry, it's the ability to gather data, and analyze it correctly, and IMO, it just doesn't happen.
The forum issues are not summerzied and passed to the right people, simply because there is no one with the right expertise around that have the knowledge of the issue topics and is objective.
On the other hand, the organic data gathering is not existent, do the devs know what happens in the grouping channels? Will someone try to sift through the logs, is there an automated system to try to correlate how much time a person invested to join a party, until a run was made? How this correlate to classes? How many gave up and logged off without managing even to join a run?
Don't have an automated system, create a bloody BiS char, join some of the channels, connect XMPP, yes I know you can do it, and watch the chat in your favorite messenger client while doing other stuff. This is with known tools, I'm sure it's possible to monitor enough sample data, to get the trends.
Or even if we completely ignore the "totally insignificant party of actually making a party" Who cares about significant part of the population can't even make to this part. Lets stop for a second looking at average runs. And more at % of active players of classes, and % in the said dungeons. First 2 weeks of tomb we will see that bloody DPS are 1/5 of the party... and most of those GWF... Red flag? System design to Huston, do you copy? Huston we have a problem?
Can't be that it takes months to actually acknowledge a problem, and then months to solve it... When most of the time an early diagnosed problem is much easier to treat.
Edit:
And obviously, I forgot why I even started this post, my bottom line, whatever Cryptic tries to do, should be analyzed with critical eye, and pitchforks raised when appropriate. Resisting healthy to game change because it hurts me, my class, or my wealth is a natural response, and most of us will jump on it, but we as a player base should try to be more objective and look at the greater picture and also on the enjoyment of our fellow players who play other classes for example.
On the other hand, Cryptic changes are not divine word, Cryptic are not always right, and we shouldn't support it blindly, many of the changes we have warned about, and our worst predictions fulfilled.
I can show a PM I've wrote to the lead designer (robsomething) about SoD minutes after the change was suggested in the forums about the PvP impact.... Now I can only say "I told you so", and as much as I enjoy being right (I do), this is not the desired outcome for the game.
Unforunately, given the severity of the issue with ACDC and ACDO being more of a balance issue, we will likely see them take the quick and easy path and limit queues to 1 DC rather than address whatever the balance issues are at the heart of this problem, DO/AC synergy is too good to pass up and we all know balance issues take them bloody ages to sort out, look at how long TR's and SW's have languished waiting for their time to shine again.
On top of that, I have a sneaking suspicion they've not only got a quick fix lined up with a date set but they've got a planned date for an actual fix that they can continually kick down the street when the target date they've set looms too close and they've been focusing on other things. I suspect this because Mod 13 is going to be pretty close to release, there is already going to be a lot of changes in that mod which will take time for them to see an impact in the game and whenever they are close to releasing a new mod, everything tends to get flung out the window along with the baby, patches and bug fixes are usually the first thing, let alone a needed class rebalance.
Basically with module 6 you ended up with 2 types of DC. A powershare DC who's stats depended on high power and high recovery and a dps DC (focus was high crit) who's focus who relied on synergy with GFs ITF to buff the power. At the time, GF ITF buffed based on their damage resistance. The dps dc would use forsight (powershare DC doesn't have this power), astral shield, diving glow, and hallowed ground to push GF damage resistance which got converted to party buff by ITF.
When ITF got converted to a flat buff the dps DC lost it's niche and became orphaned (noone wanted them and investment to switch to powershare required new equipment, artifacts, and enchants, for many this was cost prohibitive). Then in mod 10 they did a rework of powershare DC to Nerf powershare. In that rework they fixed many DC powers, pull a CD on the daily power Hallowed Ground (force dps DC to invest in recovery), and gave dps DC a flat party DPS boost.
You end up with 2DCs because the class feature for the flat party buff is on. Separate build than the powers and feats for powershare.
BTW, most people need powershare DC for last boss on TONG because this is the only build that gives a CC immunity. The idea of limiting TONG to a single healer role will push dps DC out of the dungeon and healidon still won't be getting any love.
The thread in the temple forum was started around the idea people were pushing for removal of 2xDC but the discussion of course turned to the fact that 2xDC wasn't the issue, 4xSupport is what people are really frustrated about but didn't know how articulate.
The Only upper hand where a Cleric would have tremendous power should be against the Undead type enemies. Like a flat-out 5% bonus against the Undead enemies at all times. Same goes for a paladin.
A DC shouldn't strive to be a dps class by any degree.
No one thinks that a "dps" cleric in this game is a true dps (unless they are being total asshats and not running Terrifying Insight, Hallowed Ground, Divine Glow, etc). It's called dps because its deals signficantly more dps than a healer or powerbuffer cleric. Glad you were able to take the important information from that post
The topic is self explanatory and nobody needs to articulate how silly it is to have a DPS DC and/or a DC whose primary role will be to use the damaging properties of any kind, as it was with the particular feat during that one time allowing the DC to commit tremendous DPS due to a bug, thus producing actual builds relying on the given feat's damage during the healing processes.
This particular time paved the road for the people to build a DPS sort of a hybrid as a DC and the power creeps later on turned it into a highway for the DC's DPS role due to the insane amounts of the power sharing.
The DC got nerfed reasonably, however the old sense of playing a DC in a DPS sense is still present and can be found on that highway to nowhere. This sort of mentality luckily changed to a degree due to the DCs speccing out for the recovery-intensive builds. (big yay for that)
You are obviously talking from self-motivated reasons somehow getting offended in the process and appearing that you're not seeing the bigger picture which involves all classes. Furthermore the attitude in which you're blaming others for not articulating the 2xDC combo and somehow perpetuating that it is actually " a 4 x support agenda", trying to somehow mitigate the fact that 2x DC is still too good even after the much needed balance, is somewhat cheeky agenda, but a reasonable one since you obviously like playing a DC and quite possibly you liked playing a DPS DC at the given time.
Whatever your reasons may be, a DPS specced DC is a ludicrous idea regardless of the meta for the game. I'm not somehow taking it out of the context of anything, but I am calling it out that it's silly at best.
Yes, the 2xDC needs to die out and, yes, the 4x "support" needs changing. I do not think we'd need to write shakespearesque essays representing the each and 2xDC + 2xOP is part of the bigger problem, but it is not a mistake to strictly talk about the DCs in the Temple section and also sometimes mention that bigger problem to which the 2xDC are also a component/part of.
I hope that's enough articulating for your merits.
If honest arguments are a passion of yours might I suggest passive observation of your own thoughts, you'll find them running to their own conclusions without your intervention and those processes, when observed in the 3rd person can give greater insights into our own motivations. I guarantee though, you'll find more questions than answers.
With the right skilled players you don't even need R13 enchants and bondings, R11 or R12 are more then enough.
You know you have an elitist problem, when you see the call in open channels: lf4m Esot - 16K plus or when they ask for dbl DC in CN. Another example, on off our GF's (16.2K) got kicked from group because his IL is not high enough.
The only people that can change that is the player base. I have 4 toons that would fit above categories, I do not react to inquiries like the above mentioned, the guy that asked for 16+K esot went on to my ignore list immediately.
Actual meta is the most safe and fast way at once, that's why we sit here (in short).
Water will allways run downhill someone said...or flood the room? Maybe the last one.
You can't blame near 100% of this community to farm a dungeon with poor loot and a pretty poor droprate for those UE, running it the most effective and easiest way.
I asked enough well geared and good performing player for a rainbow setup, to state that the general attitude towards this dungeon is:
"I want it easy and I want it to be a bufferrun !"
Simply because everyone knows what happens, if you have 1-2 somehow "underperforming" player in your group.
Another point why DC has nothing to fear about is mitigation.
Especially in Tong everone knows why this class is needed at 2.+3. boss. Even without any buffs towards the group most will pick that class (esp if not BIS) , since they simply can´t succeed without tools like AA/HG/DG/AS/Exalt.
In most cases I run as a part of a 2-DC group, but I have run as a single DC often enough to be able to say that for me, the average run time for a 1-DC group is around 6 minutes longer than for an "equally geared" 2-DC one. That's it, that's all - 30 minutes instead of 24 on the average.