I want to bring up the difficulty scale for beginner stuff.
Im a console player so i cant just copy past my 19k+ char to perview. I have to lvl every chat i want to test and beg that people give me stuff they judtcan transfer. #ConsoleLivesMatter
That beeing sad i pertty much had not that big a prob with the cleric, but on sw final boss in blacklack district is a pickle if u have nothing. And i had epic comp and mount. Still if i have everything rdy its still very hard.
I cant speak for every class here, but difficulty should be toned down a big bit if u dont want to dicourage Players at lvl 8
2
kieranmtornMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 382Arc User
edited March 2019
Having looked at the changes to weapon enchants, I find some interesting (lifedrinker), and some just a waste of RP (Feytouched, Terror) that were decent or good in the past.
So it looks like Lifedrinker will now be the enchantment of choice for soloing, with my Feytouched and Terror enchantments traded in on something useful.
Why slider? It could just be so if u buy it, all your old seals are changed into new ones. BTW same gose for relic traders in Storm King campagne. We can't trade them (relics) to anyone, not even between characters in the same account so waht;s the point of slider there? I won't mention that this slider is not from 0 to max of owned relics of selected type but 20.
I agree, it could be so much easier. They could even make another spot in the bank so an account could share them. My point was that if they are going to make us exchange them, then don't make us exchange 1200 seals one at a time.
@asterdahl "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."
so asking a handful of best in class folks to determine the proper character build to force on everyone else is actually less elitist because in being prevented from making poor choices, we are all a little closer to best in class??? heck we may even be worth tolerating in a random queue...
"Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time."
so the types of people who deem other people's character build "competent" will have more fun now??? now i understand what you are getting at... mod16 isn't elitist because 19k ilvl act rotation macroers can finally mingle with the common folk knowing that any bad choice they might have made in the name of fun, play style, lore, or role playing will have been eliminated and all they will have to correct is everyone's rotation.
Please read the Barbarian thread, yes a handful of people can determine the proper build, like a handful of people will go and look after the bugs and report them, like a handful of people will actually do proper testing, the question remains if those handful of people are the right people to listen to or not?
imo you should go on preview and bring your feedback here, developers are listening, but no one bothers to listen to them or read their posts, sure it's fine that you complain without looking at the whole picture, but it's not fair for me as another player to see you discouraging developers from doing a proper job. I am happy on how Barbarian thread is going on, and changes are coming on preview every week.
do you really not see any problem saying "proper build"? if a player has fun playing their own way and they are bored to death with the rotation you set up for them then quit which one is proper?
i've tried preview most days until it makes me depressed. then i click the bucket out and game crashes. thats my feedback. the game feels low iq, the combat feels slow, then i crash every time zoning. if tweaking powers or anything else they have acted interested in fixing would do it for me i'd happily do qa work for free... but so far it has been made abundantly clear there will be no choices in builds and 10 seconds on all timers majority of combat. most free time i have now is spent looking for another game.
> @barbie#2808 said: > @asterdahl "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." > > so asking a handful of best in class folks to determine the proper character build to force on everyone else is actually less elitist because in being prevented from making poor choices, we are all a little closer to best in class??? heck we may even be worth tolerating in a random queue... > > "Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time." > > so the types of people who deem other people's character build "competent" will have more fun now??? now i understand what you are getting at... mod16 isn't elitist because 19k ilvl act rotation macroers can finally mingle with the common folk knowing that any bad choice they might have made in the name of fun, play style, lore, or role playing will have been eliminated and all they will have to correct is everyone's rotation. > > hat tip to @dread4moor > > > > > Please read the Barbarian thread, yes a handful of people can determine the proper build, like a handful of people will go and look after the bugs and report them, like a handful of people will actually do proper testing, the question remains if those handful of people are the right people to listen to or not? > > imo you should go on preview and bring your feedback here, developers are listening, but no one bothers to listen to them or read their posts, sure it's fine that you complain without looking at the whole picture, but it's not fair for me as another player to see you discouraging developers from doing a proper job. I am happy on how Barbarian thread is going on, and changes are coming on preview every week. > > > do you really not see any problem saying "proper build"? if a player has fun playing their own way and they are bored to death with the rotation you set up for them then quit which one is proper? > > i've tried preview most days until it makes me depressed. then i click the bucket out and game crashes. thats my feedback. the game feels low iq, the combat feels slow, then i crash every time zoning. if tweaking powers or anything else they have acted interested in fixing would do it for me i'd happily do qa work for free... but so far it has been made abundantly clear there will be no choices in builds and 10 seconds on all timers majority of combat. most free time i have now is spent looking for another game. > > > > Well you realize that preview isn't into a final state, and things are still being changed, but whatever you say, you can do whatever you want if you want to stay away from the game, the developers said if preview is too much for some they should stay away, and maybe you should do the same if you feel depressed, no one is forcing you. Anyway take care.
I always love when someone gives a negative feedback and states they are the leaving the "white knight defender" of the devs or yhe devs themselves say: see ya dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Understand if you run a business and you have 50 regular daily customers, that come in every day for 2 years. After 2 years you makr changes to the business and 30 people state I don't like these changes, please stop or rethink your decision.
Now you can do what you suggested: see ya, and hope you find 30 new clients or your remaining 20 buy more to make up for lost sales of 30, or you go out of business.
You and devs should be less flippant on dismissing a portion of the client base or you may wind up a client base that can't support the game to be profitable.
2
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
> @asterdahl "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."
>
> so asking a handful of best in class folks to determine the proper character build to force on everyone else is actually less elitist because in being prevented from making poor choices, we are all a little closer to best in class??? heck we may even be worth tolerating in a random queue...
>
> "Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time."
>
> so the types of people who deem other people's character build "competent" will have more fun now??? now i understand what you are getting at... mod16 isn't elitist because 19k ilvl act rotation macroers can finally mingle with the common folk knowing that any bad choice they might have made in the name of fun, play style, lore, or role playing will have been eliminated and all they will have to correct is everyone's rotation.
> Please read the Barbarian thread, yes a handful of people can determine the proper build, like a handful of people will go and look after the bugs and report them, like a handful of people will actually do proper testing, the question remains if those handful of people are the right people to listen to or not?
>
> imo you should go on preview and bring your feedback here, developers are listening, but no one bothers to listen to them or read their posts, sure it's fine that you complain without looking at the whole picture, but it's not fair for me as another player to see you discouraging developers from doing a proper job. I am happy on how Barbarian thread is going on, and changes are coming on preview every week.
>
>
> do you really not see any problem saying "proper build"? if a player has fun playing their own way and they are bored to death with the rotation you set up for them then quit which one is proper?
>
> i've tried preview most days until it makes me depressed. then i click the bucket out and game crashes. thats my feedback. the game feels low iq, the combat feels slow, then i crash every time zoning. if tweaking powers or anything else they have acted interested in fixing would do it for me i'd happily do qa work for free... but so far it has been made abundantly clear there will be no choices in builds and 10 seconds on all timers majority of combat. most free time i have now is spent looking for another game.
>
>
>
> Well you realize that preview isn't into a final state, and things are still being changed, but whatever you say, you can do whatever you want if you want to stay away from the game, the developers said if preview is too much for some they should stay away, and maybe you should do the same if you feel depressed, no one is forcing you. Anyway take care.
I always love when someone gives a negative feedback and states they are the leaving the "white knight defender" of the devs or yhe devs themselves say: see ya dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Understand if you run a business and you have 50 regular daily customers, that come in every day for 2 years. After 2 years you makr changes to the business and 30 people state I don't like these changes, please stop or rethink your decision.
Now you can do what you suggested: see ya, and hope you find 30 new clients or your remaining 20 buy more to make up for lost sales of 30, or you go out of business.
You and devs should be less flippant on dismissing a portion of the client base or you may wind up a client base that can't support the game to be profitable.
I mean, I can't speak for the dev team, but I think the majority of people on these forums just call it how they see it, and if they see something that sounds like a bad argument to them, they're going to say as much.
The "hey let's get rid of System Mastery style elitism" thing sounds like a direction that 5th edition D&D deliberately went in (it's why there's not 100 sourcebooks full of feats and HAMSTER), so there may be someone along the dev chain who was inspired and therefore wants to "fix" Neverwinter using the same logic.
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.
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.
This is the problem many of us are trying to explain. Because you have, as you said, "we absolutely did simplify build diversity" that means that very quickly all players will be playing a pretty much the same cookie cutter build out of the gate. Because there will be a single or sometimes two "best builds" that will get sorted out very quickly because with less choices the process or elimination will sort that out fast. Really fast. The only thing left will be sorting out companions because BiS will be obvious and because there is even less choice with enchants and companion gear now even that will get sorted super fast as well. Less is not more no matter how you try to sell it.
How is that fun? This is in no way in the spirit of D&D. (And I have been playing since the early 80's/late 70s). D&D has always been about building our characters from scratch and being able to be different (for better or worse) than the next person and having the freedom to build them as varied as possible. If we follow this logic the next step is pre-made characters because, since we might make "the wrong choices" (as you pointed out). So, just don't allow us to pick anything other than gear, companions and enchants because this feels like where it's going.
I just get this feeling that 2 months or less after mod 16 launch everyone will have the same builds for all classes and we all will just be clones of each other.
And with cooldowns nerfed so bad most solo content will be reduced to people standing around doing at wills over and over and over waiting around for encounters that may not ever come in time to help them with the mobs and much less bosses they are currently fighting. And in group combat, spamming at wills over and over again, with a clone after clone of the same build everyone else will be playing will put people to sleep. (BTW this will be every single battle in the entire game now because of scaling.)
Don't get me wrong, I really hope I am wrong about this but just feels like your dumbing things down too much. And let me be clear, I am not complaining about dealing with the power creep or the buff/debuff situation or trying to make roles more meaningful again. Those are all freaking great! I am so on board with that. I really am! I love that there is a new level cap! But when you had a a system like NW where there really was so much choice and variety of how you could build your character and now sort of confine it to fewer (actually much fewer) choices it doesn't feel right. But, I am hoping you prove me wrong. I really am.
Boudica's Sisters - A Guild For Introverts
2
theycallmetomuMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,861Arc User
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.
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.
This is the problem many of us are trying to explain. Because you have, as you said, "we absolutely did simplify build diversity" that means that very quickly all players will be playing a pretty much the same cookie cutter build out of the gate. Because there will be a single or sometimes two "best builds" that will get sorted out very quickly because with less choices the process or elimination will sort that out fast. Really fast. The only thing left will be sorting out companions because BiS will be obvious and because there is even less choice with enchants and companion gear now even that will get sorted super fast as well. Less is not more no matter how you try to sell it.
How is that fun? This is in no way in the spirit of D&D. (And I have been playing since the early 80's/late 70s). D&D has always been about building our characters from scratch and being able to be different (for better or worse) than the next person and having the freedom to build them as varied as possible. If we follow this logic the next step is pre-made characters because, since we might make "the wrong choices" (as you pointed out). So, just don't allow us to pick anything other than gear, companions and enchants because this feels like where it's going.
I just get this feeling that 2 months or less after mod 16 launch everyone will have the same builds for all classes and we all will just be clones of each other.
And with cooldowns nerfed so bad most solo content will be reduced to people standing around doing at wills over and over and over waiting around for encounters that may not ever come in time to help them with the mobs and much less bosses they are currently fighting. And in group combat, spamming at wills over and over again, with a clone after clone of the same build everyone else will be playing will put people to sleep. (BTW this will be every single battle in the entire game now because of scaling.)
Don't get me wrong, I really hope I am wrong about this but just feels like your dumbing things down too much. And let me be clear, I am not complaining about dealing with the power creep or the buff/debuff situation or trying to make roles more meaningful again. Those are all freaking great! I am so on board with that. I really am! I love that there is a new level cap! But when you had a a system like NW where there really was so much choice and variety of how you could build your character and now sort of confine it to fewer (actually much fewer) choices it doesn't feel right. But, I am hoping you prove me wrong. I really am.
In 5E, feats are optional. There's 11 classes, most of which have 2 or 3 "paths," with Wizard having 8 (I'm excluding Xanathar's and other books). So in the spirit of D&D, you'd expect there to be 40 builds, ignoring racial considerations.
In Neverwinter, there's Cleric, Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Warlock, Wizard, Ranger; each has 2 paragon paths. And for each paragon path, there are 5 sets of 2 feats to choose from. Ergo, you're dealing with 522 possible combinations, over 10 times what core 5E allows for.
That's to say nothing of how players customize their boon structure, companions, enchants, artifacts, and other gear.
There are plenty of ways to customize. The issue isn't that there's not enough-the issue is that there's *less* and people have grown accustomed to things being a certain way and dislike change. Which is understandable, but that's precisely the kind of thinking that you have to barrel through if you want lasting systemic improvements.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that changes should be implemented even if they're obviously bad. The new ability scores system for instance falls into that category.
@asterdahl "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."
so asking a handful of best in class folks to determine the proper character build to force on everyone else is actually less elitist because in being prevented from making poor choices, we are all a little closer to best in class??? heck we may even be worth tolerating in a random queue...
"Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time."
so the types of people who deem other people's character build "competent" will have more fun now??? now i understand what you are getting at... mod16 isn't elitist because 19k ilvl act rotation macroers can finally mingle with the common folk knowing that any bad choice they might have made in the name of fun, play style, lore, or role playing will have been eliminated and all they will have to correct is everyone's rotation.
Please read the Barbarian thread, yes a handful of people can determine the proper build, like a handful of people will go and look after the bugs and report them, like a handful of people will actually do proper testing, the question remains if those handful of people are the right people to listen to or not?
imo you should go on preview and bring your feedback here, developers are listening, but no one bothers to listen to them or read their posts, sure it's fine that you complain without looking at the whole picture, but it's not fair for me as another player to see you discouraging developers from doing a proper job. I am happy on how Barbarian thread is going on, and changes are coming on preview every week.
do you really not see any problem saying "proper build"? if a player has fun playing their own way and they are bored to death with the rotation you set up for them then quit which one is proper?
i've tried preview most days until it makes me depressed. then i click the bucket out and game crashes. thats my feedback. the game feels low iq, the combat feels slow, then i crash every time zoning. if tweaking powers or anything else they have acted interested in fixing would do it for me i'd happily do qa work for free... but so far it has been made abundantly clear there will be no choices in builds and 10 seconds on all timers majority of combat. most free time i have now is spent looking for another game.
proper doesn't mean fun here. proper means the most highly optimized build for damage buffs or whatever. and that's not elitist at all. there always will be one best build for damage or whatnot.
but I do agree. the fun has been taken out with out the potential for all the suboptimal builds or possibly optimal later when the stuff currently considered optimal gets broken. that's what worries me more than anything. weve got these super small trees that allow for very little and they're already filled with useless stuff. what happens when the useful stuff gets broken and we're left with nothing at all.
at this point they might as well take away all pretense of choice and just make it automatic and give you the best build by default. because that's basically what we've got.
I understand the rationale behind the - complete (as far as I can tell) elimination of party buffs (buffs that benefit others than the buffer, if in range of the buffer) - almost complete elimination (=serious nerf) of self-buffs (buffs that only benefit my own character)
Party Buffs were a huge problem in MOD 15 and the MODs before it. Too many different combinations of buffs, leading to multiplicative effects. The result were unexpected combinations that would buff a party up to 1000%, practically impossible to balance.
The new philosophy seems to be: only self buffs (if any at all). I tend to agree, but maybe the Devs have just overdone it a little bit.
With no party buffs at all, we are more or less individualists, that do not bring anything beneficial to the party (except our role). I very much liked the idea, to help out my entire party with buffs. It is sad that this "social" feature is completely gone.
I therefore suggest a very limited version of party buffs, that should not pose any performance issues and that could be beneficial in terms of working together as a team within a party (of five)
SUGGESTION:
Give each class/ paragon path one (just one) unique party buff, that does not stack. - the unique buff should only be applied to a party of five (so maximum number of five buffs). - it can be implemented as a static variable on each character, than only needs to change when the party composition changes (or a team member chooses a new load-out) - in the character power setup it can be implemented as class-icon (of which we can slot two) - the buffs (per class/paragon path) should focus on different aspects of game mechanics, so that they are largely independent and do not lead to any unforeseeable synergies - a nice addition feature would be a choice between a self buff (slightly stronger) and a party buff (weaker for each individual party member, but stronger as a combined party effect), so we have the choice to be "selfish" or "social"
For instance: Pally: 5% faster recharge of encounter powers (scaled down version of aura of wisdom) DPS1: 10% damage increase for all encounter powers DPS2: 10% damage increase for all dailies DPS3: 10% damage increase for all at-wills Tank: 5% reduced damage DC-healer: 5% outgoing healing ...
This would give us meaningful choices, in particular a choice that benefits the party (of five) or ourselves It would retain some good "social" aspects of the previous MODs, without being overpowered or unpredictable due to 100+ different combinations. If you split the benefits (as suggested for the DPS-classes) over all three types of attacks (at-wills, encounters, dailies), it would become beneficial to have different dps classes in a team (not just 3 barbs or whatever the best dps class is atm).
4
dread4moorMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,154Arc User
@asterdahl "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."
so asking a handful of best in class folks to determine the proper character build to force on everyone else is actually less elitist because in being prevented from making poor choices, we are all a little closer to best in class??? heck we may even be worth tolerating in a random queue...
"Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time."
so the types of people who deem other people's character build "competent" will have more fun now??? now i understand what you are getting at... mod16 isn't elitist because 19k ilvl act rotation macroers can finally mingle with the common folk knowing that any bad choice they might have made in the name of fun, play style, lore, or role playing will have been eliminated and all they will have to correct is everyone's rotation.
Please read the Barbarian thread, yes a handful of people can determine the proper build, like a handful of people will go and look after the bugs and report them, like a handful of people will actually do proper testing, the question remains if those handful of people are the right people to listen to or not?
imo you should go on preview and bring your feedback here, developers are listening, but no one bothers to listen to them or read their posts, sure it's fine that you complain without looking at the whole picture, but it's not fair for me as another player to see you discouraging developers from doing a proper job. I am happy on how Barbarian thread is going on, and changes are coming on preview every week.
do you really not see any problem saying "proper build"? if a player has fun playing their own way and they are bored to death with the rotation you set up for them then quit which one is proper?
i've tried preview most days until it makes me depressed. then i click the bucket out and game crashes. thats my feedback. the game feels low iq, the combat feels slow, then i crash every time zoning. if tweaking powers or anything else they have acted interested in fixing would do it for me i'd happily do qa work for free... but so far it has been made abundantly clear there will be no choices in builds and 10 seconds on all timers majority of combat. most free time i have now is spent looking for another game.
proper doesn't mean fun here. proper means the most highly optimized build for damage buffs or whatever. and that's not elitist at all. there always will be one best build for damage or whatnot.
but I do agree. the fun has been taken out with out the potential for all the suboptimal builds or possibly optimal later when the stuff currently considered optimal gets broken. that's what worries me more than anything. weve got these super small trees that allow for very little and they're already filled with useless stuff. what happens when the useful stuff gets broken and we're left with nothing at all.
at this point they might as well take away all pretense of choice and just make it automatic and give you the best build by default. because that's basically what we've got.
Well said, 'cat. It is a misconception that those voicing their concerns and constructive criticism "are stuck in the past".
I agree with the devs (and most players) that class change was needed. I agree with some streamlining of the class trees if the goal is balance (not fewer FTE employees to maintain). I disagree with the current method (not spirit) of implementation. Specifically, I disagree with power/feat combinations that contradict the intended role. (looking at you my beloved Vanguard Fighter, aka GF Protector-Gimp 2.0).
If the goal is to maximize ease of maintenance and simplify choice, I predict this will be the class line-up for the next NW reboot:
Neverwinter Mod 17: Gauntlet!
4 classes. 2 skills each. 16 bit graphics (the cure for all lag).
I don't think I'll play Warrior... ... because too often "Warrior needs food badly."
I am Took.
"Full plate and packing steel" in NW since 2013.
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!
To clarify, for example a wizard can switch from Arcanist to Thaumaturge or Thaumaturge to Arcanist during a dungeon, but a Cleric cannot swap between Devout and Arbiter in a dungeon? Also, does this apply to random queues only or also premades?
There needs clarity over whether it is "Role" or "Paragon" that cannot be switched. However, I hope that if the no swapping rule applies at all, it applies in both random and premade.
The whole point of my initial concern was for the situation where someone is trying to join a group for an endgame dungeon, and their character class is deemed "sub optimal" for the content. If premades can swap at will then the 3/3/4 becomes the new Meta, and surely the whole point of banning Role (/Paragon) swapping mid content is to discourage the evolution of a new Meta. Applying that rule in Random but not Premade takes us back to my question, "What do the DPS only classes bring to the game that DPS/+ Support hybrids don't?" and why would I choose a DPS only when a more diverse option exists.
However, the Meta issue is not the only one. Role swapping poses different issues in both types of queue. As noted, for Premade it risks a new Meta. In Random it risks the situation where people start queuing as Healer or Tank for the faster access and bonus rAD, and then swap immediately to DPS for the better damage and chart position. In the following sequence; Group. Barbarian. Paingiver...FOURTH... is an absolute non sequitur to (most) current GWF players.
ETA: I can't be the only one who has encountered the GF in a random queue who says something like; "sry DPS nt TNK bld lolz" Imagine that situation with four classes.
Some of the respawn rates of foes are a little too high. I got like 3 rooms into the catacombs and bandits would respawn before is could finish dealing with them i had groups i cleared out a few seconds ago respawn and dog pile me while i was dealing with the next group. The build that i was forced into with this update does not have the stats or powers to deal with 3 gangs of bandits back from the dead all shanking me at once. Reduce the respawns to a manageable level.
Ego etiam cupo recrari et amari diu post mortem meam I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
2
dread4moorMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,154Arc 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!
To clarify, for example a wizard can switch from Arcanist to Thaumaturge or Thaumaturge to Arcanist during a dungeon, but a Cleric cannot swap between Devout and Arbiter in a dungeon? Also, does this apply to random queues only or also premades?
There needs clarity over whether it is "Role" or "Paragon" that cannot be switched. However, I hope that if the no swapping rule applies at all, it applies in both random and premade.
The whole point of my initial concern was for the situation where someone is trying to join a group for an endgame dungeon, and their character class is deemed "sub optimal" for the content. If premades can swap at will then the 3/3/4 becomes the new Meta, and surely the whole point of banning Role (/Paragon) swapping mid content is to discourage the evolution of a new Meta, and surely the whole point of banning Role (/Paragon) swapping mid content is to discourage the evolution of a new Meta. Applying that rule in Random but not Premade takes us back to my question, "What do the DPS only classes bring to the game that DPS/+ Support hybrids don't?" and why would I choose a DPS only when a more diverse option exists.
However, the Meta issue is not the only one. Role swapping poses different issues in both types of queue. As noted, for Premade it risks a new Meta. In Random it risks the situation where people start queuing as Healer or Tank for the faster access and bonus rAD, and then swap immediately to DPS for the better damage and chart position. In the following sequence; Group. Barbarian. Paingiver...FOURTH... is an absolute non sequitur to (most) current GWF players.
ETA: I can't be the only one who has encountered the GF in a random queue who says something like; "sry nt DPS TNK bld lolz" Imagine that situation with four classes.
Mordy, in fairness to the dev team, I think @asterdahl was pretty clear on that point: "asterdahl said: 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.)"
Role. For better or worse, the devs intend you to change only to the same role. Is that good or bad? I dunno yet. Will contemplate over second breakfast. Confused Took.
Still testing and processing the permutations.
I am Took.
"Full plate and packing steel" in NW since 2013.
I know you don't want to hear this, but too bad. Either drastically reduce cool downs or reintroduce the recovery stat so we can minimize them ourselves. Cause as it stands now, the build i presented in your optimization plan is weak with slow power output lack luster stamina and is presented with mobs that can not be dealt with with what i am allotted to do so. As it stands now, this is not fun. Everyone has been telling you this, we aren't having fun with your changes. I was never a particularity good player with a maximized build but the only choice i have been presented with is Anemic.
Like I thought if i spent time with it i would adjust to the new system, but i am just coming to hate 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.
I havent found mount specific thread so i write here some of legendary mounts have combat skills tool tip indicating they deal 0 damage (checked in collection page)
also Manticore equip power is unclear to me: "+100 to 1000 power and defence" does that mean +(100 - 1000) to both or +100 for every 1000 to both? i believe there are other mounts that have similar power, can't remember whitch tough.
Give each class/ paragon path one (just one) unique party buff, that does not stack.
This would give us meaningful choices, in particular a choice that benefits the party (of five) or ourselves It would retain some good "social" aspects of the previous MODs, without being overpowered or unpredictable due to 100+ different combinations. If you split the benefits (as suggested for the DPS-classes) over all three types of attacks (at-wills, encounters, dailies), it would become beneficial to have different dps classes in a team (not just 3 barbs or whatever the best dps class is atm).
So these passive buffs don't stack, and now when a queue pops and people see two or three of the same DPS class they all just leave because they "need" the different buffs? Or is the queue now supposed to make sure that not only are the tank, healer, and three DPS roles filled, but that they all come from 5 different classes now, too?
And what happens when people decide that this tank class, that healer class, and those three DPS classes have the "best" buffs when combined, and so everyone starts looking only for those classes to fill out groups?
And any claims that such a system would make characters more unique is just wrong.
You may look different, be a different race, have anywhere from 1 to 7 different powers slotted, pick different feats, use different companions, select different companion buffs, equip different gear, choose different boons, or just have a different sort of playing style... Any of so many different things could differentiate one character of a given paragon path, never mind class, from another character in the same path, but they would all have that exact same buff.
That buff does nothing to set any two members of the same class or paragon path apart from each other.
Mordy, in fairness to the dev team, I think @asterdahl was pretty clear on that point:
Role.For better or worse, the devs intend you to change only to the same role. Is that good or bad? I dunno yet. Will contemplate over second breakfast. Confused Took.
Still testing and processing the permutations.
But some classes can switch paragon paths without changing roles.
This is what people are hung up on.
Yes, it's clear that a Cleric couldn't switch from Arbiter to Devout because that is changing roles, but could a Ranger change from Hunter to Trapper? Both are still DPS roles.
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!
To clarify, for example a wizard can switch from Arcanist to Thaumaturge or Thaumaturge to Arcanist during a dungeon, but a Cleric cannot swap between Devout and Arbiter in a dungeon? Also, does this apply to random queues only or also premades?
There needs clarity over whether it is "Role" or "Paragon" that cannot be switched. However, I hope that if the no swapping rule applies at all, it applies in both random and premade.
The whole point of my initial concern was for the situation where someone is trying to join a group for an endgame dungeon, and their character class is deemed "sub optimal" for the content. If premades can swap at will then the 3/3/4 becomes the new Meta, and surely the whole point of banning Role (/Paragon) swapping mid content is to discourage the evolution of a new Meta, and surely the whole point of banning Role (/Paragon) swapping mid content is to discourage the evolution of a new Meta. Applying that rule in Random but not Premade takes us back to my question, "What do the DPS only classes bring to the game that DPS/+ Support hybrids don't?" and why would I choose a DPS only when a more diverse option exists.
However, the Meta issue is not the only one. Role swapping poses different issues in both types of queue. As noted, for Premade it risks a new Meta. In Random it risks the situation where people start queuing as Healer or Tank for the faster access and bonus rAD, and then swap immediately to DPS for the better damage and chart position. In the following sequence; Group. Barbarian. Paingiver...FOURTH... is an absolute non sequitur to (most) current GWF players.
ETA: I can't be the only one who has encountered the GF in a random queue who says something like; "sry nt DPS TNK bld lolz" Imagine that situation with four classes.
Mordy, in fairness to the dev team, I think @asterdahl was pretty clear on that point: "asterdahl said: 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.)"
Role. For better or worse, the devs intend you to change only to the same role. Is that good or bad? I dunno yet. Will contemplate over second breakfast. Confused Took.
Still testing and processing the permutations.
Yeah, I get it. It's just that in his reply asterdahl alternated between "Role" and "Paragon" in his explanation. I assume as you do that it is by ROLE.
And I promise I'm not trying to be a HAMSTER about this.
But... stating something clearly and it meaning exactly what they say hasn't been an entirely reliable assumption so far in this overhaul. I also assumed that a "+5% bonus by default" to a given chance was a +5% bonus by default to a given chance, not a 2500 pt bonus to one of the initial stats before the chance is actually figured, and rounded up to zero. Cos while they might sound the same, they are two VERY different things, (some oddly Orwellian use of the term "synonymous" not withstanding.)
I don't tend to use memes to make a point, but there have often been instances in the roll out of this overhaul where I have felt tempted to post a fairly well known Inigo Montoya meme...
I havent found mount specific thread so i write here some of legendary mounts have combat skills tool tip indicating they deal 0 damage (checked in collection page)
also Manticore equip power is unclear to me: "+100 to 1000 power and defence" does that mean +(100 - 1000) to both or +100 for every 1000 to both? i believe there are other mounts that have similar power, can't remember whitch tough.
I think that depends on scaling. in a level 5 zone 100 in a level 80 zone 1000
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.
And if they aren't locked to a specific Role then the whole Question that was put up a few posts ago comes up. If you could change, then why would you ask for a Rogue when a Barb can do the Rogue's job AND tank if needed.
So instead because you don't have the safety net of being able to switch, you don't risk the lower IL tank, it's swings and roundabouts.
0
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
edited March 2019
I am of the opinion that dps/support should not be as good dps as a dps/dps. The reason being: it gives them 2 complete "classes", instead of only 1. In order for dps/dps specs to have both paths do something distinct and different, it usually means differentiating between AoE and single target, or the likes. In other words, 1 of the paths fundamentally has a weakness that the other role can fill, thus to play the class properly you are reliant on changing loadouts. In contrast, the dps/support, being good at both in a single loadout means their dps spec is objectively "better" then a dps/dps, which can only dps.
I think a dps/support should only have an AoE dps or only have a single target dps loadout, it should not be able to do both. This way it is as good as a dps in 1 type of combat, but then falls flat otherwise. This makes its roles equal to that of a dps/dps. That, or it should be able to do both at 80-90% of the effectiveness of a dps/dps, but, by design, they should be imo a worse dps then a pure dps, there is always a tradeoff for having 2 roles.
What is the point of being a specialist dps if a support with a dps spec can do the same thing as you and do something else.
This is the second time, when I prepared a lengthy comment, posted it and found that a single word was wrong, edited the word and the entire comment was deleted from the thread with the message "your comment will appear after approved by a moderator". It has been more than 12 hours for my first such comment. No approval yet. No indication if it was rejected. Nothing.
The comment does not contain any attacks (in fact it is rather favorable, except for a small number of suggestions), no rude language what so ever (as all my comments, btw).
There has been moderation of the forums in the past 12 hours (moderators posted own comments), but I cannot find my two lengthy comments. I wonder if these comments are lost for ever. Why should I waste my time commenting at all, if AUTOMATED moderation kicks in after the *change of a single word* (can -> cannot) and the comment seems to be lost forever?
EDIT: Just to be clear, this is not a critique on a moderation decision done by a (real) moderator, nor on the time it takes to scan through posts that are flagged for moderation. Those things are private and should not be openly discussed on the forum. I am well aware what makes sense to be discussed openly and what should not.
This post is a concern about the workings of the automated code the lies behind the forum - obviously the code automatically flags posts as "requiring approval before being shown", merely because the author of the post was extra careful to spot wrong grammar, spelling errors, wrong wording (contrary to intent). In other words, behavior that should be rewarded (being extra careful, being as clear as possible, getting the intent right without any use of bad language, etc.) , gets AUTOMATICALLY punished - it is likely that the posts that were flagged by the AUTOMATED SYSTEM that they "require approval" were not forwarded to the moderator(s), given that the moderators here are doing an excellent job
> 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.
And if they aren't locked to a specific Role then the whole Question that was put up a few posts ago comes up. If you could change, then why would you ask for a Rogue when a Barb can do the Rogue's job AND tank if needed.
So instead because you don't have the safety net of being able to switch, you don't risk the lower IL tank, it's swings and roundabouts.
But that gateway applies to ALL classes, including the lower IL healers and DPS, not just the lower IL tank.
If a meta existed, (which it WON'T now) based on versatility of class in switching DPS/Support, there would be NOTHING a Wizard, Ranger or Rogue could do to push into that meta. Whereas if end game players are (as they always will) looking for high IL characters to join their premade, that IS something characters of ANY class CAN aspire to and achieve.
Comments
I want to bring up the difficulty scale for beginner stuff.
Im a console player so i cant just copy past my 19k+ char to perview.
I have to lvl every chat i want to test and beg that people give me stuff they judtcan transfer.
#ConsoleLivesMatter
That beeing sad i pertty much had not that big a prob with the cleric, but on sw final boss in blacklack district is a pickle if u have nothing. And i had epic comp and mount. Still if i have everything rdy its still very hard.
I cant speak for every class here, but difficulty should be toned down a big bit if u dont want to dicourage Players at lvl 8
So it looks like Lifedrinker will now be the enchantment of choice for soloing, with my Feytouched and Terror enchantments traded in on something useful.
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
do you really not see any problem saying "proper build"? if a player has fun playing their own way and they are bored to death with the rotation you set up for them then quit which one is proper?
i've tried preview most days until it makes me depressed. then i click the bucket out and game crashes. thats my feedback. the game feels low iq, the combat feels slow, then i crash every time zoning. if tweaking powers or anything else they have acted interested in fixing would do it for me i'd happily do qa work for free... but so far it has been made abundantly clear there will be no choices in builds and 10 seconds on all timers majority of combat. most free time i have now is spent looking for another game.
> @asterdahl "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."
>
> so asking a handful of best in class folks to determine the proper character build to force on everyone else is actually less elitist because in being prevented from making poor choices, we are all a little closer to best in class??? heck we may even be worth tolerating in a random queue...
>
> "Players who are happy that more players will have a competent build ultimately want to play with more people and have a good time."
>
> so the types of people who deem other people's character build "competent" will have more fun now??? now i understand what you are getting at... mod16 isn't elitist because 19k ilvl act rotation macroers can finally mingle with the common folk knowing that any bad choice they might have made in the name of fun, play style, lore, or role playing will have been eliminated and all they will have to correct is everyone's rotation.
>
> hat tip to @dread4moor
>
>
>
>
> Please read the Barbarian thread, yes a handful of people can determine the proper build, like a handful of people will go and look after the bugs and report them, like a handful of people will actually do proper testing, the question remains if those handful of people are the right people to listen to or not?
>
> imo you should go on preview and bring your feedback here, developers are listening, but no one bothers to listen to them or read their posts, sure it's fine that you complain without looking at the whole picture, but it's not fair for me as another player to see you discouraging developers from doing a proper job. I am happy on how Barbarian thread is going on, and changes are coming on preview every week.
>
>
> do you really not see any problem saying "proper build"? if a player has fun playing their own way and they are bored to death with the rotation you set up for them then quit which one is proper?
>
> i've tried preview most days until it makes me depressed. then i click the bucket out and game crashes. thats my feedback. the game feels low iq, the combat feels slow, then i crash every time zoning. if tweaking powers or anything else they have acted interested in fixing would do it for me i'd happily do qa work for free... but so far it has been made abundantly clear there will be no choices in builds and 10 seconds on all timers majority of combat. most free time i have now is spent looking for another game.
>
>
>
> Well you realize that preview isn't into a final state, and things are still being changed, but whatever you say, you can do whatever you want if you want to stay away from the game, the developers said if preview is too much for some they should stay away, and maybe you should do the same if you feel depressed, no one is forcing you. Anyway take care.
I always love when someone gives a negative feedback and states they are the leaving the "white knight defender" of the devs or yhe devs themselves say: see ya dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Understand if you run a business and you have 50 regular daily customers, that come in every day for 2 years. After 2 years you makr changes to the business and 30 people state I don't like these changes, please stop or rethink your decision.
Now you can do what you suggested: see ya, and hope you find 30 new clients or your remaining 20 buy more to make up for lost sales of 30, or you go out of business.
You and devs should be less flippant on dismissing a portion of the client base or you may wind up a client base that can't support the game to be profitable.
The "hey let's get rid of System Mastery style elitism" thing sounds like a direction that 5th edition D&D deliberately went in (it's why there's not 100 sourcebooks full of feats and HAMSTER), so there may be someone along the dev chain who was inspired and therefore wants to "fix" Neverwinter using the same logic.
How is that fun? This is in no way in the spirit of D&D. (And I have been playing since the early 80's/late 70s). D&D has always been about building our characters from scratch and being able to be different (for better or worse) than the next person and having the freedom to build them as varied as possible. If we follow this logic the next step is pre-made characters because, since we might make "the wrong choices" (as you pointed out). So, just don't allow us to pick anything other than gear, companions and enchants because this feels like where it's going.
I just get this feeling that 2 months or less after mod 16 launch everyone will have the same builds for all classes and we all will just be clones of each other.
And with cooldowns nerfed so bad most solo content will be reduced to people standing around doing at wills over and over and over waiting around for encounters that may not ever come in time to help them with the mobs and much less bosses they are currently fighting. And in group combat, spamming at wills over and over again, with a clone after clone of the same build everyone else will be playing will put people to sleep. (BTW this will be every single battle in the entire game now because of scaling.)
Don't get me wrong, I really hope I am wrong about this but just feels like your dumbing things down too much. And let me be clear, I am not complaining about dealing with the power creep or the buff/debuff situation or trying to make roles more meaningful again. Those are all freaking great! I am so on board with that. I really am! I love that there is a new level cap! But when you had a a system like NW where there really was so much choice and variety of how you could build your character and now sort of confine it to fewer (actually much fewer) choices it doesn't feel right. But, I am hoping you prove me wrong. I really am.
In Neverwinter, there's Cleric, Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Warlock, Wizard, Ranger; each has 2 paragon paths. And for each paragon path, there are 5 sets of 2 feats to choose from. Ergo, you're dealing with 522 possible combinations, over 10 times what core 5E allows for.
That's to say nothing of how players customize their boon structure, companions, enchants, artifacts, and other gear.
There are plenty of ways to customize. The issue isn't that there's not enough-the issue is that there's *less* and people have grown accustomed to things being a certain way and dislike change. Which is understandable, but that's precisely the kind of thinking that you have to barrel through if you want lasting systemic improvements.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that changes should be implemented even if they're obviously bad. The new ability scores system for instance falls into that category.
proper doesn't mean fun here. proper means the most highly optimized build for damage buffs or whatever. and that's not elitist at all. there always will be one best build for damage or whatnot.
but I do agree. the fun has been taken out with out the potential for all the suboptimal builds or possibly optimal later when the stuff currently considered optimal gets broken. that's what worries me more than anything. weve got these super small trees that allow for very little and they're already filled with useless stuff. what happens when the useful stuff gets broken and we're left with nothing at all.
at this point they might as well take away all pretense of choice and just make it automatic and give you the best build by default. because that's basically what we've got.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1246602/party-buffs-gone-in-mod-16-please-consider-giving-each-class-one-just-one-unique-party-buff
Should probably be moved here
I understand the rationale behind the
- complete (as far as I can tell) elimination of party buffs (buffs that benefit others than the buffer, if in range of the buffer)
- almost complete elimination (=serious nerf) of self-buffs (buffs that only benefit my own character)
Party Buffs were a huge problem in MOD 15 and the MODs before it. Too many different combinations of buffs, leading to multiplicative effects. The result were unexpected combinations that would buff a party up to 1000%, practically impossible to balance.
The new philosophy seems to be: only self buffs (if any at all).
I tend to agree, but maybe the Devs have just overdone it a little bit.
With no party buffs at all, we are more or less individualists, that do not bring anything beneficial to the party (except our role).
I very much liked the idea, to help out my entire party with buffs. It is sad that this "social" feature is completely gone.
I therefore suggest a very limited version of party buffs, that should not pose any performance issues and that could be beneficial in terms of working together as a team within a party (of five)
SUGGESTION:
Give each class/ paragon path one (just one) unique party buff, that does not stack.
- the unique buff should only be applied to a party of five (so maximum number of five buffs).
- it can be implemented as a static variable on each character, than only needs to change when the party composition changes (or a team member chooses a new load-out)
- in the character power setup it can be implemented as class-icon (of which we can slot two)
- the buffs (per class/paragon path) should focus on different aspects of game mechanics, so that they are largely independent and do not lead to any unforeseeable synergies
- a nice addition feature would be a choice between a self buff (slightly stronger) and a party buff (weaker for each individual party member, but stronger as a combined party effect), so we have the choice to be "selfish" or "social"
For instance:
Pally: 5% faster recharge of encounter powers (scaled down version of aura of wisdom)
DPS1: 10% damage increase for all encounter powers
DPS2: 10% damage increase for all dailies
DPS3: 10% damage increase for all at-wills
Tank: 5% reduced damage
DC-healer: 5% outgoing healing
...
This would give us meaningful choices, in particular a choice that benefits the party (of five) or ourselves
It would retain some good "social" aspects of the previous MODs, without being overpowered or unpredictable due to 100+ different combinations.
If you split the benefits (as suggested for the DPS-classes) over all three types of attacks (at-wills, encounters, dailies), it would become beneficial to have different dps classes in a team (not just 3 barbs or whatever the best dps class is atm).
It is a misconception that those voicing their concerns and constructive criticism "are stuck in the past".
I agree with the devs (and most players) that class change was needed.
I agree with some streamlining of the class trees if the goal is balance (not fewer FTE employees to maintain).
I disagree with the current method (not spirit) of implementation.
Specifically, I disagree with power/feat combinations that contradict the intended role.
(looking at you my beloved Vanguard Fighter, aka GF Protector-Gimp 2.0).
If the goal is to maximize ease of maintenance and simplify choice, I predict this will be the class line-up for the next NW reboot:
Neverwinter Mod 17: Gauntlet!
4 classes.
2 skills each.
16 bit graphics (the cure for all lag).
I don't think I'll play Warrior...
... because too often "Warrior needs food badly."
I am Took.
"Full plate and packing steel" in NW since 2013.
However, I hope that if the no swapping rule applies at all, it applies in both random and premade.
The whole point of my initial concern was for the situation where someone is trying to join a group for an endgame dungeon, and their character class is deemed "sub optimal" for the content. If premades can swap at will then the 3/3/4 becomes the new Meta, and surely the whole point of banning Role (/Paragon) swapping mid content is to discourage the evolution of a new Meta.
Applying that rule in Random but not Premade takes us back to my question, "What do the DPS only classes bring to the game that DPS/+ Support hybrids don't?" and why would I choose a DPS only when a more diverse option exists.
However, the Meta issue is not the only one.
Role swapping poses different issues in both types of queue.
As noted, for Premade it risks a new Meta.
In Random it risks the situation where people start queuing as Healer or Tank for the faster access and bonus rAD, and then swap immediately to DPS for the better damage and chart position.
In the following sequence; Group. Barbarian. Paingiver...FOURTH... is an absolute non sequitur to (most) current GWF players.
ETA:
I can't be the only one who has encountered the GF in a random queue who says something like; "sry DPS nt TNK bld lolz"
Imagine that situation with four classes.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
"asterdahl said:
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.)"
Role.
For better or worse, the devs intend you to change only to the same role.
Is that good or bad? I dunno yet.
Will contemplate over second breakfast.
Confused Took.
Still testing and processing the permutations.
I am Took.
"Full plate and packing steel" in NW since 2013.
As it stands now, this is not fun. Everyone has been telling you this, we aren't having fun with your changes. I was never a particularity good player with a maximized build but the only choice i have been presented with is Anemic.
Like I thought if i spent time with it i would adjust to the new system, but i am just coming to hate it.
I too wish to be recreated, and to be loved long after my death.
some of legendary mounts have combat skills tool tip indicating they deal 0 damage (checked in collection page)
also Manticore equip power is unclear to me:
"+100 to 1000 power and defence"
does that mean +(100 - 1000) to both or +100 for every 1000 to both?
i believe there are other mounts that have similar power, can't remember whitch tough.
And what happens when people decide that this tank class, that healer class, and those three DPS classes have the "best" buffs when combined, and so everyone starts looking only for those classes to fill out groups?
And any claims that such a system would make characters more unique is just wrong.
You may look different, be a different race, have anywhere from 1 to 7 different powers slotted, pick different feats, use different companions, select different companion buffs, equip different gear, choose different boons, or just have a different sort of playing style... Any of so many different things could differentiate one character of a given paragon path, never mind class, from another character in the same path, but they would all have that exact same buff.
That buff does nothing to set any two members of the same class or paragon path apart from each other.
But some classes can switch paragon paths without changing roles.
This is what people are hung up on.
Yes, it's clear that a Cleric couldn't switch from Arbiter to Devout because that is changing roles, but could a Ranger change from Hunter to Trapper? Both are still DPS roles.
It's just that in his reply asterdahl alternated between "Role" and "Paragon" in his explanation.
I assume as you do that it is by ROLE.
And I promise I'm not trying to be a HAMSTER about this.
But... stating something clearly and it meaning exactly what they say hasn't been an entirely reliable assumption so far in this overhaul.
I also assumed that a "+5% bonus by default" to a given chance was a +5% bonus by default to a given chance, not a 2500 pt bonus to one of the initial stats before the chance is actually figured, and rounded up to zero. Cos while they might sound the same, they are two VERY different things, (some oddly Orwellian use of the term "synonymous" not withstanding.)
I don't tend to use memes to make a point, but there have often been instances in the roll out of this overhaul where I have felt tempted to post a fairly well known Inigo Montoya meme...
Hence my request for clarification.
I think a dps/support should only have an AoE dps or only have a single target dps loadout, it should not be able to do both. This way it is as good as a dps in 1 type of combat, but then falls flat otherwise. This makes its roles equal to that of a dps/dps. That, or it should be able to do both at 80-90% of the effectiveness of a dps/dps, but, by design, they should be imo a worse dps then a pure dps, there is always a tradeoff for having 2 roles.
What is the point of being a specialist dps if a support with a dps spec can do the same thing as you and do something else.
The comment does not contain any attacks (in fact it is rather favorable, except for a small number of suggestions), no rude language what so ever (as all my comments, btw).
There has been moderation of the forums in the past 12 hours (moderators posted own comments), but I cannot find my two lengthy comments. I wonder if these comments are lost for ever. Why should I waste my time commenting at all, if AUTOMATED moderation kicks in after the *change of a single word* (can -> cannot) and the comment seems to be lost forever?
EDIT:
Just to be clear, this is not a critique on a moderation decision done by a (real) moderator, nor on the time it takes to scan through posts that are flagged for moderation. Those things are private and should not be openly discussed on the forum. I am well aware what makes sense to be discussed openly and what should not.
This post is a concern about the workings of the automated code the lies behind the forum
- obviously the code automatically flags posts as "requiring approval before being shown", merely because the author of the post was extra careful to spot wrong grammar, spelling errors, wrong wording (contrary to intent). In other words, behavior that should be rewarded (being extra careful, being as clear as possible, getting the intent right without any use of bad language, etc.) , gets AUTOMATICALLY punished
- it is likely that the posts that were flagged by the AUTOMATED SYSTEM that they "require approval" were not forwarded to the moderator(s), given that the moderators here are doing an excellent job
If a meta existed, (which it WON'T now) based on versatility of class in switching DPS/Support, there would be NOTHING a Wizard, Ranger or Rogue could do to push into that meta.
Whereas if end game players are (as they always will) looking for high IL characters to join their premade, that IS something characters of ANY class CAN aspire to and achieve.