test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

OFFICIAL M17: Tower of the Mad Mage Feedback

189111314

Comments

  • mongol69mongol69 Member Posts: 347 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    Great to discover after upgrading my warlock over 200k power with capped stats, all comps, enchants, etc maxed and have my wizard with 160k power do more damage.

    Even better to discover warlock dps role even at complete maxed endgame will be unable to run tomm....endgame content...

    Why develope a class as dps for all these mods and have still have a dps role but make only soulweaver, the new role only viable.

    With that logic, since wizards had renegade and could heal also(unreliably), they should have made it dps/healer also and make the dps side nonviable for tomm?

    If dps role is available to the class, it should be competitive and viable. When the warlock class first became available, no one chose to run warlocks as a healer, they couldn't even que as healer. They were listed as dps.
  • ramesh84ramesh84 Member Posts: 133 Arc User
    > @theskall said:
    > Thank you, I'm currently happy with how paladins are at the moment as a full support class. I just think that warlocks, fighters, barbarians and clerics shouldn't cry about their dps being low and ask to increase it to be able to compete with an actual dps class

    speaking for class i play the most, was same for others but have no competencies to talk about them: plenty of feedback has been posted since m16 came out on preview about reasons why warlock severely underperforms in many circumstance as dps and healer, have to admit ppl ranting/insulting devs on trollposts prly didnt help, but that's not an issue I can take charge of. and its' about a month that i started "cry" on forums about balancing. Im quite happy about soulweaver, even tho i find a bad design choice having a top tier healer, because of no timing is needed to place a shield that can outheal target max hp, but I can stand on that, because still 2 healers are needed and a full rework would have taken forever.
    tanks are fine as well, dps balance could have been managed as the issue showed, instead of polishing rotation on a trial that looked way better than any previous once since the very first release, all we got since now is thaumaturge not dealing insane dmg just smashing random buttons on a keyboard and rangers being on par with wizzies and rogues, still wondering how as no patch notes released about that. now its prly too late, will i have to wait for a more apologise stream and mantle to all skilled endgamers taken out of trial just because playing the wrong class? being generous it takes half a day of coding job to change cooldowns and magnitude, spend it please! They are as easily reverteable as more fixes/QoL changes will come.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    This balance discussion is all off topic in the tomm thread.
  • schietindebuxschietindebux Member Posts: 4,292 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    Maybe those comments then could get switched over to: Mod 17-official feedback to classes and balancing
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    ramesh84 said:

    > @thefabricant said:

    > This balance discussion is all off topic in the tomm thread.



    It is if I rephrase: "I tried to run the trial and found it too hard to beat, party comp was (..) hellbringer-arbiter-blademaster-dreadnought (..) as damage dealers".

    It is on topic if the proposed solution involves changing the trial and off topic if the proposed solution involves changing the class. Since this is clearly in the realm of class balance and not content balance, it is off topic.
  • ramesh84ramesh84 Member Posts: 133 Arc User
    > @tom#6998 said:
    > it would be cool if @asterdahl could coment on what they think about the current situation and if they have plans to change smth. So we can end this discussion for now.

    plans and timing please. Anything is on plan needs to came along with trial on live.
  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,441 Arc User
    micky1p00 said:

    theskall said:

    Hybrid class on a dps role should not be able to compete with a class which had 2 dps paths. I'm not sure how you think that it makes sense to give a class 2 roles and make them best on both.

    If they make cleric best both on dps and on healing how do you think it's going to look in the game? Yea, everyone will play a cleric. If you want to play support and dps on the same class, you shouldn't be able to be best on both, and not close to best. If you're good at healing, you should be bad on dps. If you're good on dps, you should be bad on tanking/healing. That's how it works.

    A role is not a hybrid class, when a class swap roles they swap roles, in that specific roles, they should be extremely bad at whatever other roles does (if it is unique) and equal to other roles of the type, a DPS cleric should be equal to DPS Wizard.
    Otherwise, what is the point of the roles, that you need to gear for them and can swap only god knows where.

    Gearing healer DC, and DPS DC is night and day, and the practically the same as having 2 different chars.

    The issue is actually with single role classes, like CW, HR, TR, where in practice only one role is useful, the rest is meaningless and provide nothing except some cosmetic value. Those should be either remade into a viable role/concept (control, tanking, singing in the rain) whatever, or erased from existence, or have significantly different game play to the other path.

    Another option is ofc, to allow swapping roles / loadouts on the fly everywhere, then it is fair game and we can indeed call classes with dual roles somewhat hybrid (still not exactly, but..)
    I'm afraid all this conversation will do is convince them to nerf the cw hr and tr to where the barbie dc and warlock are. because cryptic *eek*


  • rjc9000rjc9000 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 2,310 Arc User
    edited August 2019

    I'm afraid all this conversation will do is convince them to nerf the cw hr and tr to where the barbie dc and warlock are. because cryptic *eek*

    Pfeh, just need to rethink your strategy.
    You could convince Edgelord von Hresvelg, Vroll, Trade Lee, and the other members of the stream team run a 8x GF+2x any healer team.

    They'll inevitably win and then the dev team will just nerf GF, not like it'll matter too much when GF is already the bench lord anyways.
    theskall said:

    I just think that warlocks, fighters, barbarians and clerics shouldn't cry about their dps being low and ask to increase it to be able to compete with an actual dps class

    Well, it's not like there were some lists of feedback created for said classes.

    You'd be hard pressed to find the feedback due to many of the threads devolving into pointing fingers, considerations of the feedback actually being put into the game, and some kinds of twisted jokes.

    Now why does that last sentence sound familiar?
    :trollface:
    Post edited by rjc9000 on

  • cherryman1cherryman1 Member Posts: 337 Arc User

    This balance discussion is all off topic in the tomm thread.

    Actually, it is heavily on point. Unless you think that all classes will be able to get into the trial that are maxed out end game toons. Right now, from looking at how each class performs there are some that will never be able to get into the trial. Barb is a dps class and will never get into the trial as a dps character without a 25% straight increase to their damage. They are only going to be the third option as the tank in the trial and will be just like GF was never used as a tank in mods 15 and earlier on the vast majority of runs. Then you have OP which will be healer in every run because they can make insane shields and the last healer spot will be SW or DC and one of those will be used while the other sits out for this mod. Then the dps side will just be between 3 classes. You won't ever choose anything but those 3 classes in the content. The only reason you would say that everything is fine is if your going to play a Wizard/Rogue/Ranger/Paladin class since they are the tier 1 classes that will always get asked to join the content. In ToMM you will always have a paladin healer and possible paladin tank. The dps classes mentioned are the only choice in this regard since using a dps class that isn't as high of dps will cause you to fail the dps check in the trial. The other 4 classes are fill in classes that will get fill roles for the last spot in the trial. If there is any other possible reason why they should never release another class in the game it is because they can't get everyone into the end game content for the classes they have already created.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 53k : Siren (TR): 52k : Torun (DC): 49k : Siren OP (OP): 52k : Siren SW (SW): 50k : Modern (F): 42k : Cherry1 (CW) : 42k Siren HR (HR): 50k
  • darkheart#6758 darkheart Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    > @theskall said:
    > > @tom#6998 said:
    > > > @schietindebux said:
    > >
    > > > My Paladin is overpowered healing and good in tanking, please devs take notice of building a class with two viable choices, simply lol, nothing else to comment.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Did you test mod17 on preview?
    > >
    > > Healers were nerfed because it was too easy to heal exactly for this reason. And they increased the damage halaster deals because it was too easy to survive it
    > >
    > > by your logic they should make either the Tank paladin or the Heal paladin so bad that u wouldnt ever take that class to run the trial with.
    >
    > The changes were made and I think they were fair. We all agreed that a nerf was needed for the healers.

    Who is the "we" that all agreed that a nerf was needed? And what makes your "we" the decision makers for everyone in the game.
  • cherryman1cherryman1 Member Posts: 337 Arc User
    edited August 2019

    > @cherryman1 said:

    > This balance discussion is all off topic in the tomm thread.

    >

    > Actually, it is heavily on point. Unless you think that all classes will be able to get into the trial that are maxed out end game toons. Right now, from looking at how each class performs there are some that will never be able to get into the trial. Barb is a dps class and will never get into the trial as a dps character without a 25% straight increase to their damage. They are only going to be the third option as the tank in the trial and will be just like GF was never used as a tank in mods 15 and earlier on the vast majority of runs. Then you have OP which will be healer in every run because they can make insane shields and the last healer spot will be SW or DC and one of those will be used while the other sits out for this mod. Then the dps side will just be between 3 classes. You won't ever choose anything but those 3 classes in the content. The only reason you would say that everything is fine is if your going to play a Wizard/Rogue/Ranger/Paladin class since they are the tier 1 classes that will always get asked to join the content. In ToMM you will always have a paladin healer and possible paladin tank. The dps classes mentioned are the only choice in this regard since using a dps class that isn't as high of dps will cause you to fail the dps check in the trial. The other 4 classes are fill in classes that will get fill roles for the last spot in the trial. If there is any other possible reason why they should never release another class in the game it is because they can't get everyone into the end game content for the classes they have already created.



    You are wrong.. Barbarian isnt a 3rd choice for tank, it can tank as good as the other 2 tanks, u can pretty much take up to 4 spirit bombs if u do it right, but its not needed thou, also about DPS, alot of ppl do not know how to build Blademaster, but damage wise its around same place as Rangers, clerics, warlocks and fighters.. there are those bugs with dmg bonuses adding to crit severity/combat advantage, if they get fixed then it will help the class.



    But you still are wrong, but i agree that @asterdahl needs to take a look.

    A barb can tank and survive it just fine. When I mean be a better version of tank I also mean that it has to help the other players survive the damage and not just themselves. When it comes to just tanking all of the classes are similar and will do ok. The problem is that the OP can add heals as well as block damage in a cone effect to reduce damage. The Fighter has the same ability as well as an ability that helps buff the party. The barb doesn't have that ability to help other classes survive the damage or do anything else. This means that if I want the party to make it through the event do I take the two classes that bring more utility to the fight or do I bring the class that brings none? This is why they are the third option.

    EDIT: I just want people to know I'm not advocating for the barbarian to not be in the tank role. I am just telling you why people won't see them as the first option to take between the other classes.
    Post edited by cherryman1 on
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 53k : Siren (TR): 52k : Torun (DC): 49k : Siren OP (OP): 52k : Siren SW (SW): 50k : Modern (F): 42k : Cherry1 (CW) : 42k Siren HR (HR): 50k
  • micky1p00micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,391 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    I agree, there is a fundamental issue here with the dual roles vs single roles.

    In equal 'setting' It creates a set of single role classes who perform equally to another class which is more versatile and can swap to a second role, which they also perform equally to a single role class of that role (if such exists), which if we remove any lore, or specific gameplay, etc.. crates a situation where dual+ role classes are always a better choice to have.

    On the other hand, on non-equal settings, where single role classes have an advantage over dual roles, it creates a set of "jack of all trades, master of none". A player can invest fully into a role (and different roles do require investment) and end up subpar.

    In the current game state, changes and capabilities, I still think that while not the simplest way, but the long term correct one, is to equalize all roles, and start adding significant uniqueness to single role classes.
    If it's adding roles (I can see that happens), either to a class, or in general to the game, or significantly unique game-play that will justify only a single role for a class (I don't see that happens).

    In the case of new roles, a general support role which is not tank or healer, but adding crowd control, mitigation, debuff, and so on, can work in most cases where creativity fails. The content will need to be balanced for this additional role, but without that, all future content, roles, and classes will be bracketed into the same generic dps, tank, and healer. Which is a lousy diversity for a 6 years old game based on decades old IP.

    In practice, personally, I doubt the devs will have a fundamental plan for the roles, so, as much as it hurts to say it, for the sake of balance in this case, I would even agree to tank Rogue / healer Rogue for the second role.
    Guild: The Imaginary Friends
    If you disagree with me: My opinions are my own and do not reflect on my guild and friends.
    If you agree with me: My opinions are totally the guild official policy !
    ;)
  • schietindebuxschietindebux Member Posts: 4,292 Arc User
    Token would be fine in an ideal world of balance.
    But if this is even necessary in a game where a complete healer load out needs to spend millions of AD same as dps or tank path?
    How many Oathkeeper are out there running with 50% outgoing healing same as they have a tank loadout with up to 800 HP+?
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    edited August 2019

    Token would be fine in an ideal world of balance.

    But if this is even necessary in a game where a complete healer load out needs to spend millions of AD same as dps or tank path?

    How many Oathkeeper are out there running with 50% outgoing healing same as they have a tank loadout with up to 800 HP+?

    I can name quite a few and it is still less than making a new character, as dps and healers/tanks can make use of the same mount bonuses.
  • cherryman1cherryman1 Member Posts: 337 Arc User

    Since people seem to be discussing this offtopic topic in this thread, I will give my 0.5 cents on it, even though my opinion does not matter and the devs have made it very clear they share a different opinion to me (fortunately for you). I do not believe a class with multiple roles should be able to perform as well on both roles as a class with only a single role and here is why.

    1. It is unfair for the classes with a single role, another class does with 1 path what you do with 2, its effectively twice as good as a class than a single role class.
    2. It removes any form of specialization. Play any offline games with specialists and generalists, or pretty much any online game as well. The specialist is always better at *their role* than the generalist.
    3. It makes dual role classes cheaper than single role classes. If someone playing a Wizard for example, decides they also want to heal, they have to make a new character, grind out all the boons, buy mounts, etc. At worst, someone playing a dual role has to buy pets for 2 loadouts and grind out a second set of bis gear (which costs nothing but time). Furthermore, they don't need to refine a new weapon set and they can probably share artifacts between 2 loadouts.
    4. The generalist has more choices. Having 10 dead feats instead of 15 dead feats IS an advantage.
    With that being said, I don't think the difference should be as big as the current difference is and here is a list of solutions that would, "work for me."
    1. Both the roles of the generalist always perform 10% worse than the role of a specialist, provided they both play perfectly. 10% is a small enough margin such that a good generalist will still perform better than a bad specialist, but large enough so there is a valid reason to play a specialist. The downside is the generalist feels it is "unfair" to perform worse than someone specialized in something.
    2. The generalist's paths are specialized in how they perform that role. For example, an "AoE healer" vs a "Single target healer" or a dps which is only good on AoE or a DpS which is only good on single target. The specialist would then be good at both. This way, the generalist can compete in some types of content with the specialist, but not in all types of content. The downside of this is, outside of single target specialized content, there is not content specialized to 1 type of dps.
    3. All Single Role classes (pure dps) have 1 of their paragons deleted and get given a hybrid dual role, so everyone is a generalist. Now everyone has the same amount of valid choices. This creates the issue that people who liked the playstyle of 1 particular role are about to get pissed off.
    4. All hybrid classes lose 1 of their roles, this includes paladin, as paladin is not a "pure healer" or "pure tank" (a tank or healer with 2 tank or healer paths) but it is a dual class of tank and healer. They then all become "pure" roles and have a second role of the same type assigned. It has the same problem as #3.
    5. The final solution and the 1 which probably works best was proposed by a friend of mine, where a token is added to the zen store which allows you to lock in your preferred path choice. By default, you perform 10% worse at both paths. By locking in your choice with the token, it sets the value for that path to 100% and lowers the value for the other path to 80%. Consuming another token while on the other path, would set the other path to 100% and the prior path to 80%. Now they are competitive on the path they want to play and at the same time they have as much versatility as the single role classes. By default you would get 3 tokens free, so you could try both paths at their full performance and then decide on the one they like.

    #5 is probably the best solution, as it deals with the problem for all parties involves and it creates a new item for Cryptic to monetize. No class should feel like it is objectively worse than another class and that includes single role dps, who feel worse than a class with 2 roles if both roles perform well.
    So I dislike your opinion on thinking it is fine to have unbalanced classes because you can't do something someone else on another class can do. All it does is hurt the other classes in the game. It also affects the type and how hard the content can be in the game. If they intentionally make classes that are 10% or worse in their roles like you want then they have to make all content 10% easier to complete if not even more. So everyone in this thread has been talking about making hard content and wanting it hard in game. What sense does it make to want hard content but do it at the expense of limiting who can play in it? How many gwfs when they changed to barbarian were tanks in the game? I never once saw a tank gwf in queued game content and when I did outside of it they usually didn't perform well (mod 15 and earlier). How many healer only SW's were in game? Not many if any were in game because they only healed when they did damage and it was a by product of being a dps (mod 15 and earlier). The point being that these individuals didn't get to choose what class they are based on current roles but somehow because they received the ability to tank or heal they need to be less capable in both roles. All that does is kill those classes viability in game in both those classes as well as content that can be created for them. We might as well delete the barbarian and warlock classes from the game since who wants to be last fiddle in all content? Put your class in the same frame of reference your putting the multi classes. Would you like the game if everyone else thought that the Wizard should be 10% worse in the game than all of other classes? Would you play the game if your class based on some vindictive reason was made to perform 10% worse than the other classes?

    If they want to have this "some classes should be good and others bad" then they should also include the ability to change the class you play in game as well as change where things like your legendary mounts are located. This would be the best in game solution to balance.

    The classes if you have a dps role should be balanced to within a variance of 3% damage of all other classes. If your class has a healer role you should be viable to heal in the game as well as any of the other healers. If your a tank same thing. I'm just dumbfounded at the fact that people in here are so vindictive that you would even suggest that a class not be viable in game at a role they are supposed to be able to do.

    All of the other parts you put in there would be like making a new game. There're too many moving parts to it so I'm going to bow out of that discussion.

    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 53k : Siren (TR): 52k : Torun (DC): 49k : Siren OP (OP): 52k : Siren SW (SW): 50k : Modern (F): 42k : Cherry1 (CW) : 42k Siren HR (HR): 50k
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    edited August 2019



    So I dislike your opinion on thinking it is fine to have unbalanced classes because you can't do something someone else on another class can do. All it does is hurt the other classes in the game. It also affects the type and how hard the content can be in the game. If they intentionally make classes that are 10% or worse in their roles like you want then they have to make all content 10% easier to complete if not even more. So everyone in this thread has been talking about making hard content and wanting it hard in game. What sense does it make to want hard content but do it at the expense of limiting who can play in it? How many gwfs when they changed to barbarian were tanks in the game? I never once saw a tank gwf in queued game content and when I did outside of it they usually didn't perform well (mod 15 and earlier). How many healer only SW's were in game? Not many if any were in game because they only healed when they did damage and it was a by product of being a dps (mod 15 and earlier). The point being that these individuals didn't get to choose what class they are based on current roles but somehow because they received the ability to tank or heal they need to be less capable in both roles. All that does is kill those classes viability in game in both those classes as well as content that can be created for them. We might as well delete the barbarian and warlock classes from the game since who wants to be last fiddle in all content? Put your class in the same frame of reference your putting the multi classes. Would you like the game if everyone else thought that the Wizard should be 10% worse in the game than all of other classes? Would you play the game if your class based on some vindictive reason was made to perform 10% worse than the other classes?

    If they want to have this "some classes should be good and others bad" then they should also include the ability to change the class you play in game as well as change where things like your legendary mounts are located. This would be the best in game solution to balance.

    The classes if you have a dps role should be balanced to within a variance of 3% damage of all other classes. If your class has a healer role you should be viable to heal in the game as well as any of the other healers. If your a tank same thing. I'm just dumbfounded at the fact that people in here are so vindictive that you would even suggest that a class not be viable in game at a role they are supposed to be able to do.

    All of the other parts you put in there would be like making a new game. There're too many moving parts to it so I'm going to bow out of that discussion.

    Did you even read my post fully? I addressed all of the concerns in each point and even pointed out that option 5 would likely be the best. It is no more difficult than implementing option 1 and solves the fundamental problem of, "in a world where all specs on all classes can do all things equally, the classes with more than 1 role are fundamentally better than classes with 1 role." If you read my post above, I make the case for why that is. Unless you can either show that this is not the case, your argument has no legs to stand on.
  • cherryman1cherryman1 Member Posts: 337 Arc User
    edited August 2019



    Did you even read my post fully? I addressed all of the concerns in each point and even pointed out that option 5 would likely be the best. It is no more difficult than implementing option 1 and solves the fundamental problem of, "in a world where all specs on all classes can do all things equally, the classes with more than 1 role are fundamentally better than classes with 1 role." If you read my post above, I make the case for why that is. Unless you can either show that this is not the case, your argument has no legs to stand on.

    I read it. I stated that everything your suggesting would be like making another game. While it might help with some of the issues there is just too much to discuss in what you suggested to make a logical opinion on it without having the game setup with your vision to see it. Your argument is to make a new game. Mine is to balance the classes so they are all viable.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 53k : Siren (TR): 52k : Torun (DC): 49k : Siren OP (OP): 52k : Siren SW (SW): 50k : Modern (F): 42k : Cherry1 (CW) : 42k Siren HR (HR): 50k
  • micky1p00micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,391 Arc User
    edited August 2019



    Did you even read my post fully? I addressed all of the concerns in each point and even pointed out that option 5 would likely be the best. It is no more difficult than implementing option 1 and solves the fundamental problem of, "in a world where all specs on all classes can do all things equally, the classes with more than 1 role are fundamentally better than classes with 1 role." If you read my post above, I make the case for why that is. Unless you can either show that this is not the case, your argument has no legs to stand on.

    I read it. I stated that everything your suggesting would be like making another game. While it might help with some of the issues there is just too much to discuss in what you suggested to make a logical opinion on it without having the game setup with your vision to see it. Your argument is to make a new game. Mine is to balance the classes so they are all viable.
    While I will remain neutral to the cons and pros of the solution, creating a token that will add 10% damage, or 10% outgoing healing or add 20% HP (for example), available to dual role classes, and can be one active at a time, is not making a new game. It should be trivial.

    On the other hand simply equalizing all the roles, will create a situation in which unless someone specifically very very fond of a single role class play-style I (and I guess anyone who wants to give advice in good faith) will ALWAYS recommend anyone to main a dual role class.
    Guild: The Imaginary Friends
    If you disagree with me: My opinions are my own and do not reflect on my guild and friends.
    If you agree with me: My opinions are totally the guild official policy !
    ;)
  • cherryman1cherryman1 Member Posts: 337 Arc User
    micky1p00 said:



    Did you even read my post fully? I addressed all of the concerns in each point and even pointed out that option 5 would likely be the best. It is no more difficult than implementing option 1 and solves the fundamental problem of, "in a world where all specs on all classes can do all things equally, the classes with more than 1 role are fundamentally better than classes with 1 role." If you read my post above, I make the case for why that is. Unless you can either show that this is not the case, your argument has no legs to stand on.

    I read it. I stated that everything your suggesting would be like making another game. While it might help with some of the issues there is just too much to discuss in what you suggested to make a logical opinion on it without having the game setup with your vision to see it. Your argument is to make a new game. Mine is to balance the classes so they are all viable.
    While I will remain neutral to the cons and pros of the solution, creating a token that will add 10% damage, or 10% outgoing healing or add 20% HP (for example), available to dual role classes, and can be one active at a time, is not making a new game. It should be trivial.

    On the other hand simply equalizing all the roles, will create a situation in which unless someone specifically very very fond of a single role class play-style I (and I guess anyone who wants to give advice in good faith) will ALWAYS recommend anyone to main a dual role class.
    While the coding is easy on that, it is potentially a very expensive option to have a non viable class have to purchase something to be able to play the game. It also doesn't mean that the other classes who are already at an advantage couldn't buy that to have an extra large advantage. All it introduces is pay to win into the game so I don't see that as a viable option and that fully changes the dynamic of a "free to play" model. The better statement on this would have been to just also say some of the options are just bad options.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 53k : Siren (TR): 52k : Torun (DC): 49k : Siren OP (OP): 52k : Siren SW (SW): 50k : Modern (F): 42k : Cherry1 (CW) : 42k Siren HR (HR): 50k
  • micky1p00micky1p00 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 3,391 Arc User
    edited August 2019

    micky1p00 said:



    Did you even read my post fully? I addressed all of the concerns in each point and even pointed out that option 5 would likely be the best. It is no more difficult than implementing option 1 and solves the fundamental problem of, "in a world where all specs on all classes can do all things equally, the classes with more than 1 role are fundamentally better than classes with 1 role." If you read my post above, I make the case for why that is. Unless you can either show that this is not the case, your argument has no legs to stand on.

    I read it. I stated that everything your suggesting would be like making another game. While it might help with some of the issues there is just too much to discuss in what you suggested to make a logical opinion on it without having the game setup with your vision to see it. Your argument is to make a new game. Mine is to balance the classes so they are all viable.
    While I will remain neutral to the cons and pros of the solution, creating a token that will add 10% damage, or 10% outgoing healing or add 20% HP (for example), available to dual role classes, and can be one active at a time, is not making a new game. It should be trivial.

    On the other hand simply equalizing all the roles, will create a situation in which unless someone specifically very very fond of a single role class play-style I (and I guess anyone who wants to give advice in good faith) will ALWAYS recommend anyone to main a dual role class.
    While the coding is easy on that, it is potentially a very expensive option to have a non viable class have to purchase something to be able to play the game. It also doesn't mean that the other classes who are already at an advantage couldn't buy that to have an extra large advantage. All it introduces is pay to win into the game so I don't see that as a viable option and that fully changes the dynamic of a "free to play" model. The better statement on this would have been to just also say some of the options are just bad options.
    The suggestion is to have limited quantity for free. It is simpler and cheaper than class change tokens you suggested.

    In essence designating a role as main role on said class. You can change the cost to a long cool-down to achieve the same idea.

    There is no perfect solution that is also easy to implement. As I've said before, the simple equalization as aimed by the devs and you ask for, will put all the single role classes at a disadvantage.

    The cons or pros, of said disadvantage, is not the discussion, but the existence of one.
    In my opinion, in the context of ToMM it is the lesser of two evils, as long as that one role functions, but in the overall game, it is not something that can be neglected or disregarded.
    Having said that, think of a class that has single role, and said role under-performs...
    Guild: The Imaginary Friends
    If you disagree with me: My opinions are my own and do not reflect on my guild and friends.
    If you agree with me: My opinions are totally the guild official policy !
    ;)
  • thefabricantthefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,247 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    asterdahl said:



    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.



    I still believe this is a fundamental design flaw, because they are not 2 different classes and by treating 1 class as 2 different classes it creates a situation where the classes which are not treated as 2 different classes have less meaningful choices and are objectively worse.

    Let us assume that a class has 2 dps paths and that both do the same dps, the only difference is the gameplay style. There is no meaningful difference between choosing to play 1 or the other path, so the choice isn't real. You are still competing for the same 3 (or 6) spots in the party and thus there is no advantage to being able to switch. On the other hand, let us assume you are a tank+dps. Both roles are fundamentally different, they do different things and they compete for different party slots. If both of your roles are equally viable to the "pure" versions of those roles (a hypothetical tank+tank) as well as the dps+dps, you now contest for 4 (or 8) party slots.

    This is not balance and it is not equal. The second choice is meaningful, the first choice is not. Classes with more meaningful choices between roles, should have a consequence or malus as a result of this.
  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,441 Arc User
    asterdahl said:

    I do understand those who feel that class balance is directly related to the trial. However, for the purpose of gathering feedback on both topics, having to sift through the same thread for both does make it more time consuming. With that in mind, I would normally consider this level of digression to warrant some moderation. However, seeing as we are closing in on launch and most of the feedback on the trial itself has been collected, and most of the groups finishing/progging the trial now are no longer really sending feedback, I'm amenable to let the balance discussion continue in this thread.

    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.

    That being said, I will be the first to acknowledge that we are absolutely not in a position where the current meta reflects that stance. This is true for a few reasons, but the primary reason is that those classes with two roles were overhauled to a more extreme degree than those with only DPS roles. Although a lot of work was done to remove and reign in problematic powers and mechanics that contributed to the massive runaway damage issues present before Module 16, those classes that were altered less retained more of the launch era design philosophies: featuring powers which alter cooldowns or action point gain in significant ways.

    These powers are more difficult to map into the expected DPS for a class, and contribute to the current imbalance. That being said, we would absolutely prefer not to remove or alter these powers in a significant way. So those who fear that the current top tier classes will be nerfed, we'd like to avoid that. We'd also like to leave those mechanics alone, except in cases where there may be a bug or exploit. We have adjusted our expected DPS values, but those are hypothetical and we want to ensure that we are taking into account real world DPS numbers.

    We do believe that classes are closer together than they were before Module 16, and that more classes are viable than ever for most content. However, by introducing content as difficult as ToMM, we realize that the meta will be even more important than ever, as taking a DPS that is 10% weaker may not just result in a run taking a few more minutes, but may prevent the group from finishing.

    In an effort to ensure we don't buff those classes who are currently weaker in the meta to the point that they exceed the current top tier DPS by a notable margin (which would simply create a new problem) we have begun introducing significantly more data gathering hooks for DPS numbers in queued content. We introduced some during Module 16, and will be introducing more along with Module 17.

    While we certainly appreciate everyone's continued suggestions for how to balance each class, and those logs and examples of various classes' performance; it would ultimately be a mistake to balance around any of those suggestions specifically, without having reliable and substantial data.

    We'd like to make changes ASAP once we have some reasonable confidence in the data. I know that an answer without a date isn't the answer anyone wants to hear, lest of all those who would like to play DPS who are currently viewed as weaker in the meta. But we are planning to make changes. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity, please keep playing the class you like in as much content as possible, as that will help us to make changes with higher confidence.

    I do apologize that I don't have a date to give you right this moment on when to expect changes. I also would like to apologize personally for the difference in DPS between those classes considered viable for ToMM and those considered nonviable. We are working to be able to make the necessary corrections as soon as possible.


    for xbox at least, I don't know how barbies are gearing on other platforms. part of their dps problem is no one is gearing for a dps role by current standards. I've seen 2 maybe 3 barbies with hunt gear in high end parties. they tend to go all in for il even if they can afford high end enchants and pets. those 2 or 3 barbies did fine in damage (for lomm anyway) and were very competitive. the non hunt gear ones.. well they are a bit sad. I don't know what HAMSTER build they're all following but it's all subpar gear. they've all taken off orcus and are running new sets or lostmauth. that will skew the data imo.


Sign In or Register to comment.