Hello! Thanks for the feedback, I can assure you we are dedicated to ensuring that everyone playing as a DPS will have as equal a consideration as possible in group content.
With Mendicant's Judgement now being reworked for DPS Clerics (as it should - it is too crazy good), their DPS in groups will drop significantly. Will there be some other change to compensate for that? If not, there are Zero reasons to bring a Cleric in a DPS slot, as opposed to a "real" DPSer.
To be clear, you'll still be able to change loadouts, but the loadout must match the role you queued as. (Loadouts now clearly have the role marked on them in your loadout list as as well.)
That's good at least ... that means that people can switch to a "single target" loadout before bosses.
The restriction on switching paragons is going to be somewhat inconvenient, though. Let's say you are a Cleric who actually wants to get into a random group as a healer. This means that you have to switch loadouts to Devout, before queueing up - but previously you could for example spend your time while you waited for the queue to pop playing aas a solo DPS, and then switch paragons/loadouts at the initial campfire.
Nothing people cannot work around....just an annoyance.
Why would I not take... Paladin + 2 from Barbarian/Fighter + 2 from Cleric/Warlock (Or just one of each). That gives 3 Healers, 3 Tanks, 4 DPS that can be organised into any combination of 5 to suit the situation in a given dungeon?
Simple solution is no switching after entering an instance.
Entirely defeats the purpose of having "AoE" vs "Single Target" builds on load out hampering DPS who use those variants to switch between mob and boss encounters.
But u still able to store build and switch between them for free. Compared to the past, u'll need to pay each time u switch build.
0
adinosiiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,294Arc User
Entirely defeats the purpose of having "AoE" vs "Single Target" builds on load out hampering DPS who use those variants to switch between mob and boss encounters.
Not an issue, because those are both DPS loadouts, and you can switch between those just as before.
I see this more of an issue with, say a Cleric that wants to use a DPS loadout in CN before going through one of the 5 portals where the group is split up, but wants to use a Healer loadout for the bosses. That will not be possible.
I mentioned this on the fighter thread, but having given it a bit more thought I'm wondering...
What do Wizards, Rogues and Rangers bring to a Dungeon Group, that Warlocks, Barbarians, Fighters and Clerics don't?
Because I can tell you what those second 4 bring that the first 3 don't... the flexibility to change into a support role at any Camp Fire along the dungeon.
Balance in role v role performance seems to be one of the main thrusts of the overhaul. What you might be forgetting is that (particularly end-game) dungeon groups look to extract every single perceived benefit they can when tackling the toughest content.
I'm sitting here thinking, "If a Barbarian's DPS build is as DPS valid as a Rogue, why not take a Barbarian for the extra Tanking if we need it?" Same with say... Ranger vs Cleric, or Wizard vs Fighter...
Why take something that has the same capacity in one role as its alternatives, but lacks the versatility of a second entire role within the party?
(And a third load out answers the "Single Target vs AoE" argument.)
Why would I not take... Paladin + 2 from Barbarian/Fighter + 2 from Cleric/Warlock (Or just one of each). That gives 3 Healers, 3 Tanks, 4 DPS that can be organised into any combination of 5 to suit the situation in a given dungeon?
This isn't a moan, or a complaint, by the way. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you've gone about making sure pure DPS classes will be just as eagerly required in end game content as DPS/Support hybrids.
I hope you don't get stuck in the long grass of the statistical tweaks and bugs to not get the chance to keep ALL classes "in the loop" as it were as. For me, getting rid of the 2/2/1 "meta" group from end game was just as important as anything else in the overhaul.
Hello! Thanks for the feedback, I can assure you we are dedicated to ensuring that everyone playing as a DPS will have as equal a consideration as possible in group content.
One of the ways we will avoid the problem you are describing is: you will be unable to change paragon paths in queued content. So you won't be taking a barbarian swordmaster over a rogue because the barbarian has the option to switch to a tank if needed.
I am actually not certain if this change is in the preview build that is up right now, I apologize and I can't check at the moment. There also may be some issues and ways to circumvent this at the moment, but over the next few weeks we'll be closing any holes.
To be clear, you'll still be able to change loadouts, but the loadout must match the role you queued as. (Loadouts now clearly have the role marked on them in your loadout list as as well.)
Hopefully this answers your question and your concerns!
Wait wait wait... I hope you mean that if the queue asks for 1 tank 3 dps and 1 healer, the TANK will not be able to switch to DPS, or the HEALER will not be able to switch to DPS, resulting in 5 x DPS, so if they do so the instance can have a timer to kick them out, but if for example the 1x TANK wants to switch to DPS, and one of the 3x DPS wants to replace the TANK, i hope you can let that happen, right? i mean i dont understand the complain about Barbarian and Fighter having 2 paths of TANK and DPS, and a Rogue having 2 Paths of DPS, what is the complain here? there are some advantages and disadvantages... But if the queue instance is asking for 3 DPS and 1 TANK and 1 HEALER, wouldn't that be disadvantageous to the classes that do not have 2x DPS paths? because the slots for TANK and HEALER will always be 1, while the DPS classes will always have 3 spots saved for them in the group. I do not think that the classes should be penalized if they choose to go 2x Healer or 2x TANK, some people might choose this option, and as for the Loadouts thats even more ridiculous, we should be able to switch loadouts even when we aren't at Campfire.
So imo you should just set the Queuegroup as follow: Set a requirment that a instance isn't allowed to have less than 1 Healer and less than 1 TANK less than 1 DPS, and leave the 2 DPS spots to be Flexible.. Also i dont kno where i read or seen but the Rainbow idea to give a buff is a excelent one (party composition of 1 of each class)
i think that 1 tank 1 healer 3 dps are only required for pugs , private queue i guess u can go in as anything , like every other mmorpg .
and i guess that u can queue as tank GWF while on DPS path while questing , and once queue pops forced to change to a loadout with tank path before accepting queue ?
Started a lowbie Cleric on live. Ran through the preliminary stuff, claimed a couple of companions when I got into Neverwinter proper, then transferred the character over to test and continued my missions with "Finding Honor".
My companions are doing 1 damage per attack. That's it.
I know that they are low level just like I am, but 1 damage?
The companions are the Storm Rider and Renegade Illusionist.
Is there some minimum level you must be in order for companions to matter in Mod16? Like, only after you get the companion mission from Sgt. Knox or something?
I mentioned this on the fighter thread, but having given it a bit more thought I'm wondering...
What do Wizards, Rogues and Rangers bring to a Dungeon Group, that Warlocks, Barbarians, Fighters and Clerics don't?
Because I can tell you what those second 4 bring that the first 3 don't... the flexibility to change into a support role at any Camp Fire along the dungeon.
Balance in role v role performance seems to be one of the main thrusts of the overhaul. What you might be forgetting is that (particularly end-game) dungeon groups look to extract every single perceived benefit they can when tackling the toughest content.
I'm sitting here thinking, "If a Barbarian's DPS build is as DPS valid as a Rogue, why not take a Barbarian for the extra Tanking if we need it?" Same with say... Ranger vs Cleric, or Wizard vs Fighter...
Why take something that has the same capacity in one role as its alternatives, but lacks the versatility of a second entire role within the party?
(And a third load out answers the "Single Target vs AoE" argument.)
Why would I not take... Paladin + 2 from Barbarian/Fighter + 2 from Cleric/Warlock (Or just one of each). That gives 3 Healers, 3 Tanks, 4 DPS that can be organised into any combination of 5 to suit the situation in a given dungeon?
This isn't a moan, or a complaint, by the way. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you've gone about making sure pure DPS classes will be just as eagerly required in end game content as DPS/Support hybrids.
I hope you don't get stuck in the long grass of the statistical tweaks and bugs to not get the chance to keep ALL classes "in the loop" as it were as. For me, getting rid of the 2/2/1 "meta" group from end game was just as important as anything else in the overhaul.
Hello! Thanks for the feedback, I can assure you we are dedicated to ensuring that everyone playing as a DPS will have as equal a consideration as possible in group content.
One of the ways we will avoid the problem you are describing is: you will be unable to change paragon paths in queued content. So you won't be taking a barbarian swordmaster over a rogue because the barbarian has the option to switch to a tank if needed.
I am actually not certain if this change is in the preview build that is up right now, I apologize and I can't check at the moment. There also may be some issues and ways to circumvent this at the moment, but over the next few weeks we'll be closing any holes.
To be clear, you'll still be able to change loadouts, but the loadout must match the role you queued as. (Loadouts now clearly have the role marked on them in your loadout list as as well.)
Hopefully this answers your question and your concerns!
It does, thank you.
I kind of hoped it wouldn't be the solution despite it probably being the most efficient. As someone who's spent the past few months since my TR got... toned down... playing a Paladin main, I've occasionally found the need to temporarily switch Paragon in, for example, FBI and MSPC PUGs and lend a hand when our Tank wasn't fully equipped to get us through, I have a pinch of regret that I won't be able to do that in future, but appreciate the greater need of balance being maintained.
As long as complimentary Paragon load outs still work I agree that it seems the best solution.
Entirely defeats the purpose of having "AoE" vs "Single Target" builds on load out hampering DPS who use those variants to switch between mob and boss encounters.
Not an issue, because those are both DPS loadouts, and you can switch between those just as before.
I see this more of an issue with, say a Cleric that wants to use a DPS loadout in CN before going through one of the 5 portals where the group is split up, but wants to use a Healer loadout for the bosses. That will not be possible.
Yeah, I got that from asterdahl's reply, but wasn't initially clear on the "no paragon switching". I agree about the inconveniences associated with the limitation to switching paragon loadouts, but I also don't see a better solution that prevents a new meta of "No pure DPS" arising.
If someone has a better idea, I would LOVE to see it.
Will there be some kind of patchnote for preview shard? Would be good to know what was changed during each update.
Master Boon, I dont like how it works. Player can choose 1 boon there and each have 3 ranks but every rank is different, does that mean on rank one only first effect will have a chance to take effect and at 3rd rank one of all 3? Or perhaps only last effect on rank 3? What if I like rank one effect, I can't distribute remaining points among other boons of that tier, and if I add more points in selected boon effect will change. ( atleast that how i understand tooltips there)
You could make it like this:
rank 1 -> 1st effect rank 2 -> 1st and 2nd effect rank 3 -> all 3 effects are applied
If it works like this, my bad i might be unlucky enough that to not activate it or didn't noticed debuff/buff indicators on target dummy or myself.
:Bug: ( i can't seem to get it to highlight so emoji it is ) my level 70 character has not received the mission "an important invitation" that will let me access the yawning portal and the content i am meant to be previewing. From my understanding all should level 70s automatically recieve this so it doubt it is working as intended.
Hey Bpstuart, can you post your character's name so we can take a look?
You may have missed my other post in which i reported the bug has been resolved by itself. I re logged after a break and it showed in my quests journal when it had not before. i guess i just didn't trigger but did the next day. The yellow text for it also displayed in the middle of the screen so i don't think i just missed it in my journal, but the amount of time the text appeared was so brief i am not sure it was that quest or momma Knox's brownie recipe. I have deleted my Test Server character and have reetransfered him to see if i can reproduce the bug, will get back to you later.
Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
I'm hoping @asterdahl doesn't get sick of hearing from me, but something that started over in Fighter would actually apply pretty well to most classes:
( In order to improve build variety,) perhaps some of the feats that create a synergy between two specific powers, particularly when at-wills are involved(since we only get two) could have a secondary, conceptually linked effect that is active when the recipient power isn't slotted. Using Cleaving Bull as an example, adding the following effect when triggered: "When Cleave is not slotted, your at-will powers inflict damage on enemies near your target" (I don't have access to game right now, so I don't have numbers like radius or magnitude, but I'm picturing something comparable to an unbuffed Cleave hit with a 90-120 degree arc centered on the target, adjusted for the speed of the powers in question), essentially redefining the purpose of the feat " to "Bull Charge buffs your at-will AoE damage," so that the feat is reliant on you having one particular power slotted, rather than two.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of using feats to create power synergies, I just don't like the idea of your feat choices potentially locking up both of your at-will slots and 2/3 of your Encounter slots.
I've given a fair bit of thought to this; because the broader effect is contingent on the more powerful effect not being available, it's not actually increasing the power of the feat at all, simply creating less of a gulf between the character's power level when they can do what they want vs. when circumstances call for one or more specific powers. It makes it harder to make "wrong choices" and more about choosing how to focus your character's aptitudes. The feat for the Dreadnaught that makes Brazen Slash buff Heavy Slash is particularly worrisome, since by its nature it locks up both of your at-will slots. Again, I'd propose a concept nudge from "Brazen Slash buffs Heavy Slash" to "Brazen Slash encourages mixing up your at-will powers," with the main function unchanged, but perhaps offering bonus damage to your next hit from a different at-will after finishing a Brazen Slash combo when Heavy Slash isn't slotted. Perhaps renaming the feat to "Brazen Aggression," to reflect that functionality, as well?
I wouldn't encourage doing this with feats that don't interact with specific powers, or even with most feats that only interact with one power; my goal here is twofold: to increase overall build variety by reducing the number of "incompatible" power/feat combinations, and to reduce that feeling of player aggravation when circumstances force you to "turn off" one of your feats by unslotting one of the two powers it affects. Much like negative ability score modifiers, bonuses that you sometimes have to "choose" to lose just feel bad, man, and while building around very specific power synergies is flavorful, it definitely reduces build diversity. This suggestion is inherently unstackable (so it won't induce power creep, merely narrow the power gap), takes away none of the original flavor of those feats by continuing to incentivize the original combo over its alternatives, and honestly makes a nice nod to the creativity-driven combat of 5e (where what you can do with a d20 roll begins, not ends, with "hit it with my sword")
Please don't level lock Yawning Portal. Please make it a place like the Moonstone mask, and later add third level as Vip! It would be a perfert place to roleplay and I would like to be able to acess it with all my characters no matter the level. Even if you have to level lock undermountain you do not need to level lock the travel option to get to the Yawning Portal. Please consider changing this to allow any level to go there.
So it can be a hub for yet more sexual flirting like MM? Please, no. Just. No.
Of course not and also Moonstone is mild depending on the people. This is a roleplaying game and I really would like to see more roleplay in other locations. They way they designed it makes it harder to see rp outside the moonstone mask, and the problem is many see it as a brothel lorewise and basically pretty much is one. There is many that possibly avoid roleplaying because its confined to one place, and having an non brothel roleplay hub would really be beneficial to the roleplay community.
Have you looked at the Moonstone Mask compared to the other tavern lol. It IS a brothel.
0
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
So here's a thought:
Since our total number of feats has plummeted like a stone falling from heaven ... maybe each character should get a third passive power option.
Because powers aren't mutually exclusive build wise (no power points), this avoids making things a "trap" option because there's no cost to trading out your feature. You can give people slightly more room to customize, and give builds back some of the complexity they lost from losing all those feats. I also *assume* it wouldn't be difficult to code.
There could be some game balance concerns though, if any class features were programmed assuming a particular combination of 3 class features are never all going to be active at the same time.
An addendum, since editing posts makes them disappear: Any gameplay suggestions or iterations I propose on this forum may be adopted by Cryptic and the Neverwinter team for use in game, in whole or in part, at their discretion and with no risk of subsequent claim of ownership or request for compensation on my part.
(apologies if this is a duplicate, I'm having a baatezu's own time trying to get the forum to let me post after trying to edit) I'm hoping @asterdahl doesn't get sick of hearing from me, but something that started over in Fighter would actually apply pretty well to most classes:
( In order to improve build variety,) perhaps some of the feats that create a synergy between two specific powers, particularly when at-wills are involved(since we only get two) could have a secondary, conceptually linked effect that is active when the recipient power isn't slotted. Using Cleaving Bull as an example, adding the following effect when triggered: "When Cleave is not slotted, your at-will powers inflict damage on enemies near your target" (I don't have access to game right now, so I don't have numbers like radius or magnitude, but I'm picturing something comparable to an unbuffed Cleave hit with a 90-120 degree arc centered on the target, adjusted for the speed of the powers in question), essentially redefining the purpose of the feat " to "Bull Charge buffs your at-will AoE damage," so that the feat is reliant on you having one particular power slotted, rather than two.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of using feats to create power synergies, I just don't like the idea of your feat choices potentially locking up both of your at-will slots and 2/3 of your Encounter slots.
I've given a fair bit of thought to this; because the broader effect is contingent on the more powerful effect not being available, it's not actually increasing the power of the feat at all, simply creating less of a gulf between the character's power level when they can do what they want vs. when circumstances call for one or more specific powers. It makes it harder to make "wrong choices" and more about choosing how to focus your character's aptitudes. The feat for the Dreadnaught that makes Brazen Slash buff Heavy Slash is particularly worrisome, since by its nature it locks up both of your at-will slots. Again, I'd propose a concept nudge from "Brazen Slash buffs Heavy Slash" to "Brazen Slash encourages mixing up your at-will powers," with the main function unchanged, but perhaps offering bonus damage to your next hit from a different at-will after finishing a Brazen Slash combo when Heavy Slash isn't slotted. Perhaps renaming the feat to "Brazen Aggression," to reflect that functionality, as well?
I wouldn't encourage doing this with feats that don't interact with specific powers, or even with most feats that only interact with one power; my goal here is twofold: to increase overall build variety by reducing the number of "incompatible" power/feat combinations, and to reduce that feeling of player aggravation when circumstances force you to "turn off" one of your feats by unslotting one of the two powers it affects. Much like negative ability score modifiers, bonuses that you sometimes have to "choose" to lose just feel bad, man, and while building around very specific power synergies is flavorful, it definitely reduces build diversity. This suggestion is inherently unstackable (so it won't induce power creep, merely narrow the power gap), takes away none of the original flavor of those feats by continuing to incentivize the original combo over its alternatives, and honestly makes a nice nod to the creativity-driven combat of 5e (where what you can do with a d20 roll begins, not ends, with "hit it with my sword")
Unless they're going to add more feats such that all powers have a potential "feat buff", they absolutely need to address this. Right now we either slot the at-will and encounters dictated by feats, or we essentially have NO feats because we don't use them. And that's a pretty sucky place to be.
4
minotaur2857Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,141Arc User
I mentioned this on the fighter thread, but having given it a bit more thought I'm wondering...
What do Wizards, Rogues and Rangers bring to a Dungeon Group, that Warlocks, Barbarians, Fighters and Clerics don't?
Because I can tell you what those second 4 bring that the first 3 don't... the flexibility to change into a support role at any Camp Fire along the dungeon.
Balance in role v role performance seems to be one of the main thrusts of the overhaul. What you might be forgetting is that (particularly end-game) dungeon groups look to extract every single perceived benefit they can when tackling the toughest content.
I'm sitting here thinking, "If a Barbarian's DPS build is as DPS valid as a Rogue, why not take a Barbarian for the extra Tanking if we need it?" Same with say... Ranger vs Cleric, or Wizard vs Fighter...
Why take something that has the same capacity in one role as its alternatives, but lacks the versatility of a second entire role within the party?
(And a third load out answers the "Single Target vs AoE" argument.)
Why would I not take... Paladin + 2 from Barbarian/Fighter + 2 from Cleric/Warlock (Or just one of each). That gives 3 Healers, 3 Tanks, 4 DPS that can be organised into any combination of 5 to suit the situation in a given dungeon?
This isn't a moan, or a complaint, by the way. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you've gone about making sure pure DPS classes will be just as eagerly required in end game content as DPS/Support hybrids.
I hope you don't get stuck in the long grass of the statistical tweaks and bugs to not get the chance to keep ALL classes "in the loop" as it were as. For me, getting rid of the 2/2/1 "meta" group from end game was just as important as anything else in the overhaul.
Hello! Thanks for the feedback, I can assure you we are dedicated to ensuring that everyone playing as a DPS will have as equal a consideration as possible in group content.
One of the ways we will avoid the problem you are describing is: you will be unable to change paragon paths in queued content. So you won't be taking a barbarian swordmaster over a rogue because the barbarian has the option to switch to a tank if needed.
I am actually not certain if this change is in the preview build that is up right now, I apologize and I can't check at the moment. There also may be some issues and ways to circumvent this at the moment, but over the next few weeks we'll be closing any holes.
To be clear, you'll still be able to change loadouts, but the loadout must match the role you queued as. (Loadouts now clearly have the role marked on them in your loadout list as as well.)
Hopefully this answers your question and your concerns!
Except this means you can't have pally switch from heal to tank, cleric from DPS to heal and (G)F from tank to DPS if you want to try a different configuration for a particular fight because people are having issues.
There needs to be a way of taking a time out to make the changes and only checking AFTER.
New posters who edit posts get them flagged for review because that's a common spam vector - once the moderators review it, it reappears - usually now as a duplicate because you've reposted it in the mean time. @frozenfirevr@kreatyve@tripsofthrymr , can one of you help Fenrir out with this?
Of course not and also Moonstone is mild depending on the people. This is a roleplaying game and I really would like to see more roleplay in other locations. They way they designed it makes it harder to see rp outside the moonstone mask, and the problem is many see it as a brothel lorewise and basically pretty much is one. There is many that possibly avoid roleplaying because its confined to one place, and having an non brothel roleplay hub would really be beneficial to the roleplay community.
But we have the Driftwood Tavern in Protector's Enclave, and there's also the Broken Crown in Blackdagger and the Fallen Tower in the Tower District as potential gathering spaces for lower-level characters, and those are just off the top of my head.
If people want to gather their RP groups in other places there are places that they can go to other than the Moonstone Mask. The Mask is certainly the most convenient (what, with direct VIP transport possible), but it's far from the only place. And if people think that all the RP happens at the Moonstone Mask then I think that the RP community should change that by advertising gatherings on the forum and in the game when they want to gather somewhere.
Want to gather at the Fallen Tower? Send someone to shout it out in PE "RP gathering at Fallen Tower. Everybody welcome". Maybe even stick their head in the Moonstone Mask to let those folks know, too.
While the Yawning Portal is designed as a mission hub for 70+ level characters, keeping it set aside as a higher level social hub isn't the worst idea either.
Sometimes a group of higher level players might enjoy the semi-exclusivity of such a hub.
A masaive amount of feedback is concerned with the lack of build option and i see NO responce whatsoever to tha subject.
Is there any talk among you to remedy this part or is everything set in stone already(usually is at this time when it hit preview).
I see some feedback on tweeks, like aggro, a bit more damage with at wills but absolutly no answer to ANYTHING concerning this MAJOR outcry about limiting people into certain builds(with a comment about not wanting bad builds ??? isent that part of the game not to hand out premade characters...)
There has been several good suggestions about how to make character creation more varied but you stay silent on the matter can you please at least comment this.
Best
I have responded to this feedback quite a bit in the various class threads I am handling (Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, and Cleric.) I will try to address the topic more directly in this thread in the near future.
You're welcome! Alright, let me try to address your original concern and questions about build diversity.
First of all, yes, we absolutely did simplify build diversity at the base class level. Both by isolating more powers to the paragon paths, and by reducing the number of feat choices.
These changes were made for two reasons: First, to make it possible for more classes to support two different roles. Many of the classes have since launch had feat trees dedicated to roles they could not play, and we finally wanted to make these options viable. Unfortunately, working with only a handful of powers unique to each paragon path, it would have been incredibly difficult to offer more roles for most classes.
Second, we wanted to reduce the number of wrong choices you could make when building your character. When compared with other MMOs where any attempt is made to balance classes, you still have a tremendous amount of freedom when building your character, in the form of boons, companions, mounts, insignias, gems, and equipment. There are opportunities to fail there, but we didn't think it was a great experience to fail before you even leave your character sheet.
I understand some players enjoy an underdog build. I have seen the argument that players who are in favor of less chances for players to fail; and thus an increase in the effectiveness of the average player in random content, are elitist. I would challenge this notion a bit. A system whereby it is possible to have a build that is superior in orders of magnitude when compared with another is a system which fosters and appeals to true elitism much more. Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time.
That said, setting aside the goals for a moment. We did set out to offer more varied gameplay styles, and to make sure that the limited choices you do have are much more impactful than most of the choices in the old system. Some feats have missed the mark there, and we're working on reviewing those, and I hope you'll keep an eye on the changes in the coming weeks and continue to provide feedback.
If you wanted to minimize wrong choices then implementing a "Suggested build" or "Quick build" option that leads to the builds you feel are ideal. As it stands now you are taking away my toolbox and telling me i can only have have half of them back but they aren't going to work the way they used to before.
Part of the fun of the game was trying different situations with different sets of powers but since you are dividing the encounter powers so heavily between the Paragon classes and striping out some of the functions of those powers you have just weakened versatility in the name of "Minimizing wrong choices." Let me to illuminate you on a little D&D secret, any choice that a player has fun with, even if it leads to lower efficiency, is a right choice. And if a player has less fun with their mistakes make retraining tokens readily available. Have a "Optimize for X role" button that builds the optimal whatever.
There are a myriad of ways to address "Wrong choices" that don't involve taking away player agency but i have seen none of them considered. If there is another reason for doing it the way proposed in Mod 16 then i am open to hearing them but the refrain of "Minimizing wrong choices" doesn't seem to hold up to me because i am not the kind of person that finds other people making choices for me to be right unless i choose to let someone decide for me, which is still then my choice, and i doubt i am alone in this.
And before anyone comes out and accuses me of some flavor of elitism, let it be known, that my builds often suuuuuuck. I am by no means an elite player, i am not even a good player. Search my post history, it is often me telling people i am stuck or getting curb stomped, and the community tells me what i am doing wrong and i learn. I have to go back and try again, Sometimes with new characters but more often by switching out powers in my tray. Cause honestly the extensive gating of the encounter powers among the paragon path is the thing that gnaws my Gnolls the worst.
This is like going to a restaurant that used to have a wide drink selection and being told that from unspecified date in the future i will only be able to choose coke or Pepsi because the chef deemed them optimal calorie and caffeine delivery vessels when by the beholder's nonexistent happy sacks i want a fanta.
i know it is going to happen no matter what points i make, how eloquently i phrase things or how high my charisma bonus is. ( its low ) This is a place for feedback and that is what you are getting. I am not leaving or anything because threats like that are ineffective and often empty. I am just telling you that the removal of personal choices in the coming module make neverwinter a lesser product in my eyes and i am sure as sunrise less inclined to spend money on it.
Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
> @minotaur2857 said: > Except this means you can't have pally switch from heal to tank, cleric from DPS to heal and (G)F from tank to DPS if you want to try a different configuration for a particular fight because people are having issues. > > There needs to be a way of taking a time out to make the changes and only checking AFTER.
Private queues can reshuffle the same way as when players swap characters, leave and get reinvited.
"We have always been at war with Dread Vault" ~ Little Brother
I mentioned this on the fighter thread, but having given it a bit more thought I'm wondering...
What do Wizards, Rogues and Rangers bring to a Dungeon Group, that Warlocks, Barbarians, Fighters and Clerics don't?
Because I can tell you what those second 4 bring that the first 3 don't... the flexibility to change into a support role at any Camp Fire along the dungeon.
Balance in role v role performance seems to be one of the main thrusts of the overhaul. What you might be forgetting is that (particularly end-game) dungeon groups look to extract every single perceived benefit they can when tackling the toughest content.
I'm sitting here thinking, "If a Barbarian's DPS build is as DPS valid as a Rogue, why not take a Barbarian for the extra Tanking if we need it?" Same with say... Ranger vs Cleric, or Wizard vs Fighter...
Why take something that has the same capacity in one role as its alternatives, but lacks the versatility of a second entire role within the party?
(And a third load out answers the "Single Target vs AoE" argument.)
Why would I not take... Paladin + 2 from Barbarian/Fighter + 2 from Cleric/Warlock (Or just one of each). That gives 3 Healers, 3 Tanks, 4 DPS that can be organised into any combination of 5 to suit the situation in a given dungeon?
This isn't a moan, or a complaint, by the way. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how you've gone about making sure pure DPS classes will be just as eagerly required in end game content as DPS/Support hybrids.
I hope you don't get stuck in the long grass of the statistical tweaks and bugs to not get the chance to keep ALL classes "in the loop" as it were as. For me, getting rid of the 2/2/1 "meta" group from end game was just as important as anything else in the overhaul.
Hello! Thanks for the feedback, I can assure you we are dedicated to ensuring that everyone playing as a DPS will have as equal a consideration as possible in group content.
One of the ways we will avoid the problem you are describing is: you will be unable to change paragon paths in queued content. So you won't be taking a barbarian swordmaster over a rogue because the barbarian has the option to switch to a tank if needed.
I am actually not certain if this change is in the preview build that is up right now, I apologize and I can't check at the moment. There also may be some issues and ways to circumvent this at the moment, but over the next few weeks we'll be closing any holes.
To be clear, you'll still be able to change loadouts, but the loadout must match the role you queued as. (Loadouts now clearly have the role marked on them in your loadout list as as well.)
Hopefully this answers your question and your concerns!
Ok I understand this in open queu will that be the case in private queu also ? that will be more problematic as when you play with your friends am pretty sure you want to play one role at clearing and one at boss mobs if possible.
A masaive amount of feedback is concerned with the lack of build option and i see NO responce whatsoever to tha subject.
Is there any talk among you to remedy this part or is everything set in stone already(usually is at this time when it hit preview).
I see some feedback on tweeks, like aggro, a bit more damage with at wills but absolutly no answer to ANYTHING concerning this MAJOR outcry about limiting people into certain builds(with a comment about not wanting bad builds ??? isent that part of the game not to hand out premade characters...)
There has been several good suggestions about how to make character creation more varied but you stay silent on the matter can you please at least comment this.
Best
I have responded to this feedback quite a bit in the various class threads I am handling (Paladin, Fighter, Barbarian, and Cleric.) I will try to address the topic more directly in this thread in the near future.
You're welcome! Alright, let me try to address your original concern and questions about build diversity.
First of all, yes, we absolutely did simplify build diversity at the base class level. Both by isolating more powers to the paragon paths, and by reducing the number of feat choices.
These changes were made for two reasons: First, to make it possible for more classes to support two different roles. Many of the classes have since launch had feat trees dedicated to roles they could not play, and we finally wanted to make these options viable. Unfortunately, working with only a handful of powers unique to each paragon path, it would have been incredibly difficult to offer more roles for most classes.
Second, we wanted to reduce the number of wrong choices you could make when building your character. When compared with other MMOs where any attempt is made to balance classes, you still have a tremendous amount of freedom when building your character, in the form of boons, companions, mounts, insignias, gems, and equipment. There are opportunities to fail there, but we didn't think it was a great experience to fail before you even leave your character sheet.
I understand some players enjoy an underdog build. I have seen the argument that players who are in favor of less chances for players to fail; and thus an increase in the effectiveness of the average player in random content, are elitist. I would challenge this notion a bit. A system whereby it is possible to have a build that is superior in orders of magnitude when compared with another is a system which fosters and appeals to true elitism much more. Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time.
That said, setting aside the goals for a moment. We did set out to offer more varied gameplay styles, and to make sure that the limited choices you do have are much more impactful than most of the choices in the old system. Some feats have missed the mark there, and we're working on reviewing those, and I hope you'll keep an eye on the changes in the coming weeks and continue to provide feedback.
Very much tnx for this information and explenation.
I think you are on the right track when it comes to not to confuse the players to much in character building and thereby allow total failiure in builds that simply are totally wrong.
However I do think a bit more flexibility when it comes to playstyle is what most players are looking for(at least I am). If you can reach about the same result by using feats that are more tied to utility and less to powers thereby allowing people more freedom to what kind of character you want to have.
A good example on live is Gf tact that can pick feats from either conq path or protect path making it more dps oriented or more tanky but still keep the main to Buffing.
Another good example is Hr that has a good option to become either semi combat/trapper or semi trapper/combat or even semi archer/trapper.
Locking the initial stats + locking feats to powers and separating so much between the 2 path is ofc a good thing when it comes to prevent people from making wrong shoised but if it is possible to make for more diversity and different playstyles quite a lot of players would be very greatful.
Best
0
minotaur2857Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,141Arc User
> Except this means you can't have pally switch from heal to tank, cleric from DPS to heal and (G)F from tank to DPS if you want to try a different configuration for a particular fight because people are having issues.
>
> There needs to be a way of taking a time out to make the changes and only checking AFTER.
Private queues can reshuffle the same way as when players swap characters, leave and get reinvited.
Yeah, but this sort of frustration is much more likely in a public Q situation where one of the tank or healer is not up to the job, and a cleric or pally of higher IL needs to step up.
Comments
Blood Magic (RELEASED) - NW-DUU2P7HCO
Children of the Fey (RELEASED) - NW-DKSSAPFPF
Buried Under Blacklake (WIP) - NW-DEDV2PAEP
The Redcap Rebels (WIP) - NW-DO23AFHFH
My Foundry playthrough channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Ruskaga/featured
The restriction on switching paragons is going to be somewhat inconvenient, though. Let's say you are a Cleric who actually wants to get into a random group as a healer. This means that you have to switch loadouts to Devout, before queueing up - but previously you could for example spend your time while you waited for the queue to pop playing aas a solo DPS, and then switch paragons/loadouts at the initial campfire.
Nothing people cannot work around....just an annoyance.
I see this more of an issue with, say a Cleric that wants to use a DPS loadout in CN before going through one of the 5 portals where the group is split up, but wants to use a Healer loadout for the bosses. That will not be possible.
i think that 1 tank 1 healer 3 dps are only required for pugs , private queue i guess u can go in as anything , like every other mmorpg .
and i guess that u can queue as tank GWF while on DPS path while questing , and once queue pops forced to change to a loadout with tank path before accepting queue ?
Started a lowbie Cleric on live. Ran through the preliminary stuff, claimed a couple of companions when I got into Neverwinter proper, then transferred the character over to test and continued my missions with "Finding Honor".
My companions are doing 1 damage per attack. That's it.
I know that they are low level just like I am, but 1 damage?
The companions are the Storm Rider and Renegade Illusionist.
Is there some minimum level you must be in order for companions to matter in Mod16? Like, only after you get the companion mission from Sgt. Knox or something?
Thank you.
I kind of hoped it wouldn't be the solution despite it probably being the most efficient.
As someone who's spent the past few months since my TR got... toned down... playing a Paladin main, I've occasionally found the need to temporarily switch Paragon in, for example, FBI and MSPC PUGs and lend a hand when our Tank wasn't fully equipped to get us through, I have a pinch of regret that I won't be able to do that in future, but appreciate the greater need of balance being maintained.
As long as complimentary Paragon load outs still work I agree that it seems the best solution.
I agree about the inconveniences associated with the limitation to switching paragon loadouts, but I also don't see a better solution that prevents a new meta of "No pure DPS" arising.
If someone has a better idea, I would LOVE to see it.
Master Boon, I dont like how it works. Player can choose 1 boon there and each have 3 ranks but every rank is different, does that mean on rank one only first effect will have a chance to take effect and at 3rd rank one of all 3? Or perhaps only last effect on rank 3? What if I like rank one effect, I can't distribute remaining points among other boons of that tier, and if I add more points in selected boon effect will change. ( atleast that how i understand tooltips there)
You could make it like this:
rank 1 -> 1st effect
rank 2 -> 1st and 2nd effect
rank 3 -> all 3 effects are applied
If it works like this, my bad i might be unlucky enough that to not activate it or didn't noticed debuff/buff indicators on target dummy or myself.
I have deleted my Test Server character and have reetransfered him to see if i can reproduce the bug, will get back to you later.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
I'm hoping @asterdahl doesn't get sick of hearing from me, but something that started over in Fighter would actually apply pretty well to most classes:
( In order to improve build variety,) perhaps some of the feats that create a synergy between two specific powers, particularly when at-wills are involved(since we only get two) could have a secondary, conceptually linked effect that is active when the recipient power isn't slotted.
Using Cleaving Bull as an example, adding the following effect when triggered: "When Cleave is not slotted, your at-will powers inflict damage on enemies near your target" (I don't have access to game right now, so I don't have numbers like radius or magnitude, but I'm picturing something comparable to an unbuffed Cleave hit with a 90-120 degree arc centered on the target, adjusted for the speed of the powers in question), essentially redefining the purpose of the feat " to "Bull Charge buffs your at-will AoE damage," so that the feat is reliant on you having one particular power slotted, rather than two.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of using feats to create power synergies, I just don't like the idea of your feat choices potentially locking up both of your at-will slots and 2/3 of your Encounter slots.
I've given a fair bit of thought to this; because the broader effect is contingent on the more powerful effect not being available, it's not actually increasing the power of the feat at all, simply creating less of a gulf between the character's power level when they can do what they want vs. when circumstances call for one or more specific powers. It makes it harder to make "wrong choices" and more about choosing how to focus your character's aptitudes. The feat for the Dreadnaught that makes Brazen Slash buff Heavy Slash is particularly worrisome, since by its nature it locks up both of your at-will slots. Again, I'd propose a concept nudge from "Brazen Slash buffs Heavy Slash" to "Brazen Slash encourages mixing up your at-will powers," with the main function unchanged, but perhaps offering bonus damage to your next hit from a different at-will after finishing a Brazen Slash combo when Heavy Slash isn't slotted. Perhaps renaming the feat to "Brazen Aggression," to reflect that functionality, as well?
I wouldn't encourage doing this with feats that don't interact with specific powers, or even with most feats that only interact with one power; my goal here is twofold: to increase overall build variety by reducing the number of "incompatible" power/feat combinations, and to reduce that feeling of player aggravation when circumstances force you to "turn off" one of your feats by unslotting one of the two powers it affects. Much like negative ability score modifiers, bonuses that you sometimes have to "choose" to lose just feel bad, man, and while building around very specific power synergies is flavorful, it definitely reduces build diversity. This suggestion is inherently unstackable (so it won't induce power creep, merely narrow the power gap), takes away none of the original flavor of those feats by continuing to incentivize the original combo over its alternatives, and honestly makes a nice nod to the creativity-driven combat of 5e (where what you can do with a d20 roll begins, not ends, with "hit it with my sword")
Since our total number of feats has plummeted like a stone falling from heaven ... maybe each character should get a third passive power option.
Because powers aren't mutually exclusive build wise (no power points), this avoids making things a "trap" option because there's no cost to trading out your feature. You can give people slightly more room to customize, and give builds back some of the complexity they lost from losing all those feats. I also *assume* it wouldn't be difficult to code.
There could be some game balance concerns though, if any class features were programmed assuming a particular combination of 3 class features are never all going to be active at the same time.
There needs to be a way of taking a time out to make the changes and only checking AFTER.
If people want to gather their RP groups in other places there are places that they can go to other than the Moonstone Mask.
The Mask is certainly the most convenient (what, with direct VIP transport possible), but it's far from the only place.
And if people think that all the RP happens at the Moonstone Mask then I think that the RP community should change that by advertising gatherings on the forum and in the game when they want to gather somewhere.
Want to gather at the Fallen Tower? Send someone to shout it out in PE "RP gathering at Fallen Tower. Everybody welcome".
Maybe even stick their head in the Moonstone Mask to let those folks know, too.
While the Yawning Portal is designed as a mission hub for 70+ level characters, keeping it set aside as a higher level social hub isn't the worst idea either.
Sometimes a group of higher level players might enjoy the semi-exclusivity of such a hub.
Part of the fun of the game was trying different situations with different sets of powers but since you are dividing the encounter powers so heavily between the Paragon classes and striping out some of the functions of those powers you have just weakened versatility in the name of "Minimizing wrong choices." Let me to illuminate you on a little D&D secret, any choice that a player has fun with, even if it leads to lower efficiency, is a right choice. And if a player has less fun with their mistakes make retraining tokens readily available. Have a "Optimize for X role" button that builds the optimal whatever.
There are a myriad of ways to address "Wrong choices" that don't involve taking away player agency but i have seen none of them considered. If there is another reason for doing it the way proposed in Mod 16 then i am open to hearing them but the refrain of "Minimizing wrong choices" doesn't seem to hold up to me because i am not the kind of person that finds other people making choices for me to be right unless i choose to let someone decide for me, which is still then my choice, and i doubt i am alone in this.
And before anyone comes out and accuses me of some flavor of elitism, let it be known, that my builds often suuuuuuck. I am by no means an elite player, i am not even a good player. Search my post history, it is often me telling people i am stuck or getting curb stomped, and the community tells me what i am doing wrong and i learn. I have to go back and try again, Sometimes with new characters but more often by switching out powers in my tray. Cause honestly the extensive gating of the encounter powers among the paragon path is the thing that gnaws my Gnolls the worst.
This is like going to a restaurant that used to have a wide drink selection and being told that from unspecified date in the future i will only be able to choose coke or Pepsi because the chef deemed them optimal calorie and caffeine delivery vessels when by the beholder's nonexistent happy sacks i want a fanta.
i know it is going to happen no matter what points i make, how eloquently i phrase things or how high my charisma bonus is. ( its low ) This is a place for feedback and that is what you are getting.
I am not leaving or anything because threats like that are ineffective and often empty. I am just telling you that the removal of personal choices in the coming module make neverwinter a lesser product in my eyes and i am sure as sunrise less inclined to spend money on it.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
> Except this means you can't have pally switch from heal to tank, cleric from DPS to heal and (G)F from tank to DPS if you want to try a different configuration for a particular fight because people are having issues.
>
> There needs to be a way of taking a time out to make the changes and only checking AFTER.
Private queues can reshuffle the same way as when players swap characters, leave and get reinvited.
Best
I think you are on the right track when it comes to not to confuse the players to much in character building and thereby allow total failiure in builds that simply are totally wrong.
However I do think a bit more flexibility when it comes to playstyle is what most players are looking for(at least I am).
If you can reach about the same result by using feats that are more tied to utility and less to powers thereby allowing people more freedom to what kind of character you want to have.
A good example on live is Gf tact that can pick feats from either conq path or protect path making it more dps oriented or more tanky but still keep the main to Buffing.
Another good example is Hr that has a good option to become either semi combat/trapper or semi trapper/combat or even semi archer/trapper.
Locking the initial stats + locking feats to powers and separating so much between the 2 path is ofc a good thing when it comes to prevent people from making wrong shoised but if it is possible to make for more diversity and different playstyles quite a lot of players would be very greatful.
Best