OFFICIAL M17: Tower of the Mad Mage Feedback

189101113

Comments

  • schietindebux
    schietindebux Member Posts: 4,292 Arc User
    Honestly I don't think there is any chance to reach balance in this game, where the dev staff melted significant over last years. Simply give me that Token and I can decide to drop a class that sucks for ages. Easy to gear up a weaponset and some armor.
    If this game can only support 3 classes at same time sufficiently and there is no room to fix some stuff in time by simply adding + xy mag to power z, wich might take 5 min, let it be.
  • darkheart#6758
    darkheart#6758 Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    > @schietindebux said:
    > Honestly I don't think there is any chance to reach balance in this game, where the dev staff melted significant over last years. Simply give me that Token and I can decide to drop a class that sucks for ages. Easy to gear up a weaponset and some armor.
    > If this game can only support 3 classes at same time sufficiently and there is no room to fix some stuff in time by simply adding + xy mag to power z, wich might take 5 min, let it be.

    See to me, if they were to implement a class change token, then I would expect my current gear to switch to the new class as well. Just gear, not artifacts, enchants, etc...but weapons and armor should change to the new class.
  • cherryman1
    cherryman1 Member Posts: 347 Arc User


    So what I read your first statement is that it is wrong to have anyone other than the 3 pure dps roles filling the dps slots but it is perfectly fine to have multi classes not be able to get into content because that will never happen?

    Uhm, this is absolutely not what I said. If a multi-role class is bad at both, that means that the class is literally useless and broken and needs fixing. I don't even see how you read it as "perfectly fine". Have you actually read the thing?


    Second statement is wrong in that if your first part of it is true the second part is false and vise versa. Those two events are bound which is why I find this interesting. IE: If dps are all equal then as long as the content needs dps you will get into the content. There isn't any difference in me taking any of the dps classes as all will allow me to finish the content. If the classes are unbalanced or not equals then that is where the not taking a dps class can happen but that isn't because of the other things the multi classes can do it is because they aren't as good of a dps class. The meta is the meta because something is the best to do. If all classes are equal then the meta is all dps are viable in that role. The worst case scenario is that a multi class will change into a healer in content or the tank will be left out. Paladin will always be viable with the shields as is. SW or Cleric are the two classes that might get left out on the heals side. Either the fighter or barb will be left out on the tank side since the paladin is already in as a healer having them in as tank as well is just unfair.

    So, the paradoxon only exists, because you misread the first and probably did not understand the rest, but you have the whole problem backwards:

    -Classes with extra DPS role can literally take the DPS spots away from those who only cannot join the queue in any other way, so there WILL be people left out. You make such a problem about "Cleric are might be left out on healer role" while ignoring that a class can be left out at all, from the only role they have. CW's does not have a backup plan to rely on when the DPS sport are full. TR doesn't really have other utilities, like AoE CC to at least show off something.

    -Meta is the whole game, not just dps. But if the DPS doesn't matter, there are whole classes that just have nothing to show. There will be classes that can do more, because that is the point of multi-role classes.



    The next mod at least doesn't allow for classes to change in it in end game. This means that if a multi class joins they are only able to do that role for that hard content. The thing about these is the healer and tank roles have the same issue as the dps roles. If a tank isn't as good at helping a group finish content as another then the lesser tank class won't get into the content. Same with healer. This is where a multi class if left out of content. Pure dps classes won't be seen in end game in most runs only if they are the lesser of the other classes in their role.

    Same ignorance again, you make it like DPS has it easier because they get absolutely thrown away if they are not the best at the only thing they can, while multi-role classes are in inherent danger of falling out because somehow getting both of it's path wrong is not considered a design failure? You have a safety net, you are in advantage. If you are on a loss with an advantage, your problem is not balance, it's an inherent issue within the class. But you are STILL in advantage.


    The hybrid roles are what? Off tank which doesn't get into end game in any other MMO unless the content requires multi tanks and just getting another tank is a better option. Buffers used to be the thing but they just removed them from the game because things died too fast. I don't see those being added any time soon. Off healers well that is what the OP tank can do so we have that already. Maybe we just need to remove the SW healer side and Barb tank sides and have more dps classes and balance them as full dps.

    Segmenting the roles does not meant to have an off-tank tank or off-heal heal. It's meant that instead of 3 roles, we should have more, to be distributed more easily upon the 16 paragon.


    In part of this are you suggesting to remove classes and paragons? That would be very unpopular if that was done. I do agree that 3 roles and 16 paragons is a lot of filling into spaces.

    So, on the first part, no, you read it wrong again. I don't want to literally remove paragons, but to make less class multi-role. Like, maybe 1 out of 20 of the Warlocks I spoke to actually like being a healer and everyone else hate being forced into it, because "that's their good role". And Clerics don't like to be competed by healer warlocks as well, because they wanted the safe support spot and not competing with thousands of DPS on gear accumulation. It's just a mess.


    Why is balance not to be aimed for? There are studies done in the gaming industry where in LoL they published where if players noticed that there was a difference in their abilities they were less likely to continue playing the character or the game. Why we continue to have players in game stand up for imbalance in game when the result is pushing players away from the game makes no sense. More players in game means a better overall environment.

    Balance should be aimed for. No one said it good for SW to have a bad DPS paragon. And I haven't wrote almost anything you think I wrote. We shouldn't have something bad just to have something.

    But, when the DPS roles of multiclasses gets fixed, we have a new problem, the problem you are just ignoring. And I guess will keep ignoring, because you don't want to acknowledge that being to do one thing only is worse than being to do two. But it is, it's just worse to be a single DPS role class than to have 2 option.
    So one thing to know is that in the discussion there are really only 2 options on the table. Balancing the classes to all be viable in all roles. Yes this will add in more competition for dps roles but also for healers and tanks. The other option is to keep the 3 dps roles as dominate which leads to classes not being brought into content. You attacked the argument of having all classes be equals in all roles and are using the argument for a class or classes to be left out of content because your scared of more competition in dps roles. If you want to discuss about what the second paragon in the pure dps classes can do then that is fine but out of this conversations scope. The idea is to get every class into end game. Leaving things as is isn't a viable option because your argument is to leave classes out of the end game content. The argument that there is more competition for dps slots in game isn't a good argument when the result is classes left out. I'm not ignoring the problem with more competition I am saying it is the lesser of two evils.

    Yes I know tokens were discussed but I just see too many issues with them to be a solution. When they stop/start. Who can use them. What stops and starts them. How much they cost. When you add these things in this option is just doing what a balance should would do in game.

    Lastly, this is an absolute in this discussion. If every class is an equal at what it can do in game, there is ZERO issues with a class playing the role they want to get into based on performance. The other issue is that if you do want a class to do less damage than others their other paragon role needs to be top tier or they will be left out of content. There are bottom tier healers and bottom tier tanks when it comes to being in the meta or best grouping for tanks and healers just like dps.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
  • kingdarien#5736
    kingdarien#5736 Member Posts: 31 Arc User
    Personally, I’m not sure balance is in question here, but rather flat out viability of a class or paragon. For example, what is the point of having a Ranger that is using a ranged build, never have a chance in higher level content, no matter how much you max them out? The answer can’t be to just nerf content or other player classes, but for devs to actually find a way to make all the classes or paragons competitive. Not balanced, but reasonably competitive and not completely unviable. This is the sort of thing that makes people quit. If you are new, build a character up over many months, and find no matter what you do that you can’t make it in end game content, then what’s the point? For example, The difference between my ranged and melee loadouts for Ranger is night and day. It’s over 300% difference in damage, with comparable equipment. This tells me the ranged damage feats are not at the right magnitudes, without even digging into stacking issues. I bet certain other classes and paragons have similar issues.

  • rafamarques#5700
    rafamarques#5700 Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    letme try another point of view...

    someone played as a tank for a group of cws vs a group of "x"? the first one simple dont need you, the other yes because are not able to kill the things more fast than is able to survive. that "gap" between classes created, artificialy, some idea about a importancy to other roles. if everyone back to be a super uper damage dealer, that will be the end of this (false) balance. "oh, but is just the enemies hitting even more hard"; that will be bad for some exposed dps and more than a tank can handle. so, in the end, will be necessary another buff to cover a problem created to another buff.... so, again, or nerf that super dps or give to that dual classes a single role, being one more offensive to the another (if the group and/or content make my main role unecessary, i can put some damage on the table too). the damage gap alread exist.
  • thefiresidecat
    thefiresidecat Member Posts: 4,486 Arc User
    I'd think rather than take a straight up pay cut as either dps or your flipside support role people would probably be a lot happier with actual hybrid classes that they could decide to make more tanky/healy or more dps'y or a good balance. with the main dungeons now being way lower it doesn't really require full on tank or heals except for newest content. the partial heals/dps role would be more popular as a secondary class to have around because having tank/dps as a back up to the main tank isn't going to help a lot. but if they could then for that content spec out as full dps and still do a decent amount of damage they'd still be useful. I know if it were affecting one of my classes that would be more acceptable to me than to have a new designation of second class citizen regardless of my chosen path. I know the new path is to eschew all buff debuff, but giving a single debuff that would not make sense to bring all of that debuff to a party. but would help the party if one person had it there. would still guarantee a place in a party to someone that did less dps than the others. the aggro is because everyone wants a place at the table and right now there is a clear divide.

    but we do need the dps for the new content.. so nerfing is a realllllly bad idea. especially since everyone is pretty much at their last straw with the handling of this game anyway.
  • zerappus
    zerappus Member Posts: 138 Arc User
    asterdahl said:

    Just to clarify a few things that I saw come up in the thread from various posters: we will be comparing both hypothetical magnitude per second as well real data. We are certainly aware that we can't simply look at raw data and make changes based on that data alone. We'll be looking at very specific queues, outliers, etc. to verify certain assumptions and to measure how far real world DPS for a given class drifts from hypothetical.

    I'm confident that we'll be able to get to a better place sooner rather than later. I'd also like to post something that I mentioned in a stream earlier today—we're currently discussing how self buffs will interact with CA/crit, we definitely want to ensure that self buffs do not become effectively weaker as your equipment gets better. We are only focused on ensuring that self-buffs don't become better the more you stack simultaneously.

    Developers need to take these into account when balancing:

    1) Current strongest pre-mod17 classes were Wizard Thaum, Melee Ranger, Rogue Assassin and Barbarian (no idea how much a corrected multiplicative vs. additive standardization will factor into this ranking).

    2) Solo vs. Group

    Weak classes even get weaker in group content. Strong classes have either spammable strong at-will that is double damage than weakest classes, but also their encounter are Burst + Instant cast.
    So 2x player of the top tier DPS class instant cast + burst hitting 10 damage each vs. bottom tier Long caster + slow weak Dots hitting 2+2 and the mobs die. So "calculating" dps over time only a fraction of the damage of that encounter hits will lower the actual dps.

    If it's 10 vs 2+2+2+2+2. Mob dies at 2+2 due to long cast and damage-over-time, then the dps is already depressed.

    Easy to see where the DPS discrepancy is coming from. Thus, the developers need to test on solo content as well. For example on the exact same strength, my 10-11k Rogues clear mobs in Dread Ring 2-4x faster than my 10-11k Archer Wardens, depending on the mob group composition.

    In short, Players are competing on the same mob pies. They get much larger chunk of the mob pies with Burst + Instant cast + spammable double-damage at-will.

    3) Dummy Testing vs. Gameplay Testing

    Moving mobs come from many directions, are hard to target at the same time, they interrupt and damage players.

    Archery for example have weak dodge, bad at crowd control and long combat advantage arc (we can't just swing with one 'dodge'; whereas melee range just dodge/sprint once).

    Easy for an archer to go to the back of dummy and shoot nonstop. Againts moving mobs, we lose a lot dps by just dodging and this especially true with new players. And at that we are far weak at solo.

    4) Lastly, Players who know what their doing DPS vs Players who don't know what they are doing DPS.

    I've seen a 22k Barbarian hit 16.5m ( in Folly I think, not 100% sure) while another 22k Barbarian hit 3.9m on the same instance. My then 16.5k Rogue hit 4.5m. This guy was melting everything and obviously very good in his class.

    There's a huge gap between an expert vs newbie. Either compare experts vs experts or newbie vs. newbie.



  • raziel2004#7353
    raziel2004#7353 Member Posts: 88 Arc User
    If dev want to give pure dps classes slight advantage over hybrid classes can hybrid compensated with additional utility that most welcome in dungeon runs. Btw pure dps classes need to be striped of all group buffs or group synergy.
  • giz#2086
    giz#2086 Member Posts: 190 Arc User

    If dev want to give pure dps classes slight advantage over hybrid classes can hybrid compensated with additional utility that most welcome in dungeon runs. Btw pure dps classes need to be striped of all group buffs or group synergy.

    It's that hard to understand that if a path is DPS it should be as good as any other DPS path? Lot of players with two roles classes want to play DPS, no hybrid, utility, etc, just DPS like any other class. Let's see something, Hunter is a DPS path, and it has more party utilities, encounter buff, damage debuff, defensive and damage mitigation debuffs, Wizard has a class mechanic that is a buff, damage buff and damage debuff encounters, "pure" DPS has more support tools compared with a DPS path like Hellbringer with only a debuff (at-will), Dreadnought has C.Strike, Barbarian has Battle Fury (damage buffs), etc. Who has more utility in a dungeon? a "hybrid" class or a pure DPS? and for some classes when you are in your DPS path you can't heal or tank, I'm glad to be Hellbringer and being unable to heal because this path haven't any healing skill, a Blademaster haven't threat mechanics, so when you play DPS you are a DPS, it's ok with that. I played Templock because i was FORCED to play it to be able to run a dungeon, the good about this new system is the death of 4 Support-1 DPS, i don't want it anymore, if we are building our character for damage, we want to be considered DPS like any other class. Pre mod 16 the game had 5 DPS classes, now we only have 3 true DPS classes, and a couple of useless alternative DPS options? what kind of game do you expect? If a path regardless the class is able to queue as DPS, it's DPS. I don't want to compensate my damage for a buff-utility slave spot.
  • silverwolf#7884
    silverwolf#7884 Member Posts: 182 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    Someone mentioned that a role that has a DPS and Utility role can queue for DPS or utility slots whereas the pure DPS can only queue for DPS slots in queues.

    If queue requirements are 1 Support and 4xDPS then utility toons can queue for all 5 slots depending on their loadout; the DPS can only queue for 4.
    What's not mentioned here is that the DPS classes that have been changed into Utility have to put a lot of resources into speccing up the right comps/gear etc to makea viable support class; an ndertaking that the DPS don't need to do.
    There's a shortage of support toons in the game, you can see that for how long it takes the RAQ queues to pop when queueing as a DPS toon and not be a skirmish; for a suport toon they pop quickly.

    Unfortunately it was propbably required to make some toons hybrids to allow players to queue in the support role but not lose out on all their Bound To Character gear/Mounts/Comps etc if they had to make a new toon should they want to run as support.

    A possible solution mentioned above was that each class only has one DPS side and either a Tank/Heal/Buff side.

    If you were to change dungeon requirements from Tank/Heal/3xDPS to Tank/Heal/Utility/2xDPS this and set pure DPS to DPS/Utility then they could also queue for slots. It's still 3 slots though but the DPS/Heal or DPS/Tank roles can only queue for 3 roles too.

    There's no solution that's going to please everyone.

    Set all classes to have 1 DPS side that can do AoE and ST with both DoT and Burst
    Very difficult to put together and will be a class rework for all classes again; we've just gone through that and it's not yet sorted out, many classes still need to be fixed. Not something that I imagine many in the community will want to go through again so soon.

    Lock-in classes to a path for extra ability
    Whilst paying for a token to make your class more effective in it's specific role sounds interesting - it's another expense for the player and will widen the gulf between the more casual player and the serious gamer. It 'feels' like a solution that doesn't benefit the whole community but a percentage of it. Let's not forget that Mod 17 has very little content for the casual player, the big trial is really only for the real end-gamer; you're not gonna have a bunch of random casual players completing ToMM.

    All classes with a DPS side should be able to compete for top of the murder-board
    Pure DPS vs Hybrid DPS. Let's break this down a little further ... Pure DPS have 2xDPS paths, Hybrid have 1xDPS and 1xUtility

    Pure Hybrid
    DPS vs Utility
    DPS vs DPS

    Pure DPS vs Hybris Utility : No brainer, the DPS will rule the top of the board, especially as the Utility is buffing/debuffing/Healing or Tanking to enable the Pure DPS to slaughter the enemy. Sounds like good teamwork.

    Pure DPS vs Hybrid DPS : What makes any Pure DPS path greater than a Hybrid DPS path ? Why should it ? Why should your dagger deal more damage than my fireball ? There's so much conversation about class balance but then we completely fly in the face of that goal by saying that "All classes are equal - but some are more equal than others" ? Sounds very Orwellian.
    Balance : "A situation in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions."
    By definition of balance - you're wanting correct proportions but what exactly are the proportions ? Where is the calm, reasoned argument for that proportion to exist ? Should a blast of ice deal more damage than being immolated ? If so, why and by how much. These are hard questions to answer when you get down to it and everyone's gonna have their woen opinion and there's not ever gonna be a time or an argument where everyone will walk away happy.


    tl;dr Everyone wants what's best from their perspective, until we can come at the problem with the same perspective and same goals we'll never have a solution which pleases everyone.
    A collaborative effort from Cryptic and the community comprised not just of the elite players but those that also have a more understanding perspective for the common player would be a good first step. Could this be a great endevour for a community manager and a partner program to get their teeth into ?
    Post edited by silverwolf#7884 on
  • mongol69
    mongol69 Member Posts: 407 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    Here's a different outlook of the balance/role issue.

    If warlocks are subpar in both roles and other dps and healers offer more utility plus higher reliability. Most warlocks will leave, a few will try another role but not be endgame and a very small portion then become another viable class instead if they can afford it or stick it out. So now 1/8 the competition/player base for "true" dps/dps and heals/tank gone. Then fighters in same boat leave, theres now 1/4 gone. Then possibly barbies with same dismal outlook follow suit, so now 35% of the "competition" for support and dps gone. Let's say even 10% stay from that 35%. Then still 25% of the playerbase just abandon ship.

    So 5 the 8 original classes left viable are 3 dps 2 support classes left. Now smaller playerbase to support the game and less options for filing groups because very few will ever want to be forced to play a role they didn't want or invest in and rebuild from the ashes. New and mid level players will see the fallout and either quit or file into the last 5 roles that are really viable to advance twords endgame.

    Viable balanced roles are required and especially after player's have put money and time to get where they were before mod 16 and after, just to be nonviable endgame that may possibly fill in support roles as third string for midgame content but not really endgame since the meta will be sought out.

    That philosophy just isn't healthy for the longevity or satisfaction of any game playerbase. Games grow and survive off the playerbase. If 25% of the playerbase loose faith in the game and leave, additional fallout from others will follow, effectively causing a downward spiral..

    I'm here advocating class balance and viability because myself and other used to really enjoy this game, mod 16 hasnt quite lived up to the expectation of alot of players, and just as many have already left as it is. Who would consider even contemplating coming back if they know outright they couldn't pickup and become endgame viable if they are in the 35% of the classes impacted the most.

    Just another possible outlook to consider. I went from 4 to 5 pages of online endgame players that were available at any given time and pages of guild members online last mod, and now lucky to see two pages of friends at most amd lucky to see two pages of guildies online. Most missing are warlocks, fighters, barbarians from those lists. Not too mention full active guild prior and now a good 30% haven't logged on since first week of mod 16 going live requiring housecleaning and bringing in players that are mid level or that left abandoned dead guilds to fill the void.
    Post edited by mongol69 on
  • theraxin#5169
    theraxin#5169 Member Posts: 366 Arc User


    So what I read your first statement is that it is wrong to have anyone other than the 3 pure dps roles filling the dps slots but it is perfectly fine to have multi classes not be able to get into content because that will never happen?

    Uhm, this is absolutely not what I said. If a multi-role class is bad at both, that means that the class is literally useless and broken and needs fixing. I don't even see how you read it as "perfectly fine". Have you actually read the thing?


    Second statement is wrong in that if your first part of it is true the second part is false and vise versa. Those two events are bound which is why I find this interesting. IE: If dps are all equal then as long as the content needs dps you will get into the content. There isn't any difference in me taking any of the dps classes as all will allow me to finish the content. If the classes are unbalanced or not equals then that is where the not taking a dps class can happen but that isn't because of the other things the multi classes can do it is because they aren't as good of a dps class. The meta is the meta because something is the best to do. If all classes are equal then the meta is all dps are viable in that role. The worst case scenario is that a multi class will change into a healer in content or the tank will be left out. Paladin will always be viable with the shields as is. SW or Cleric are the two classes that might get left out on the heals side. Either the fighter or barb will be left out on the tank side since the paladin is already in as a healer having them in as tank as well is just unfair.

    So, the paradoxon only exists, because you misread the first and probably did not understand the rest, but you have the whole problem backwards:

    -Classes with extra DPS role can literally take the DPS spots away from those who only cannot join the queue in any other way, so there WILL be people left out. You make such a problem about "Cleric are might be left out on healer role" while ignoring that a class can be left out at all, from the only role they have. CW's does not have a backup plan to rely on when the DPS sport are full. TR doesn't really have other utilities, like AoE CC to at least show off something.

    -Meta is the whole game, not just dps. But if the DPS doesn't matter, there are whole classes that just have nothing to show. There will be classes that can do more, because that is the point of multi-role classes.



    The next mod at least doesn't allow for classes to change in it in end game. This means that if a multi class joins they are only able to do that role for that hard content. The thing about these is the healer and tank roles have the same issue as the dps roles. If a tank isn't as good at helping a group finish content as another then the lesser tank class won't get into the content. Same with healer. This is where a multi class if left out of content. Pure dps classes won't be seen in end game in most runs only if they are the lesser of the other classes in their role.

    Same ignorance again, you make it like DPS has it easier because they get absolutely thrown away if they are not the best at the only thing they can, while multi-role classes are in inherent danger of falling out because somehow getting both of it's path wrong is not considered a design failure? You have a safety net, you are in advantage. If you are on a loss with an advantage, your problem is not balance, it's an inherent issue within the class. But you are STILL in advantage.


    The hybrid roles are what? Off tank which doesn't get into end game in any other MMO unless the content requires multi tanks and just getting another tank is a better option. Buffers used to be the thing but they just removed them from the game because things died too fast. I don't see those being added any time soon. Off healers well that is what the OP tank can do so we have that already. Maybe we just need to remove the SW healer side and Barb tank sides and have more dps classes and balance them as full dps.

    Segmenting the roles does not meant to have an off-tank tank or off-heal heal. It's meant that instead of 3 roles, we should have more, to be distributed more easily upon the 16 paragon.


    In part of this are you suggesting to remove classes and paragons? That would be very unpopular if that was done. I do agree that 3 roles and 16 paragons is a lot of filling into spaces.

    So, on the first part, no, you read it wrong again. I don't want to literally remove paragons, but to make less class multi-role. Like, maybe 1 out of 20 of the Warlocks I spoke to actually like being a healer and everyone else hate being forced into it, because "that's their good role". And Clerics don't like to be competed by healer warlocks as well, because they wanted the safe support spot and not competing with thousands of DPS on gear accumulation. It's just a mess.


    Why is balance not to be aimed for? There are studies done in the gaming industry where in LoL they published where if players noticed that there was a difference in their abilities they were less likely to continue playing the character or the game. Why we continue to have players in game stand up for imbalance in game when the result is pushing players away from the game makes no sense. More players in game means a better overall environment.

    Balance should be aimed for. No one said it good for SW to have a bad DPS paragon. And I haven't wrote almost anything you think I wrote. We shouldn't have something bad just to have something.

    But, when the DPS roles of multiclasses gets fixed, we have a new problem, the problem you are just ignoring. And I guess will keep ignoring, because you don't want to acknowledge that being to do one thing only is worse than being to do two. But it is, it's just worse to be a single DPS role class than to have 2 option.
    So one thing to know is that in the discussion there are really only 2 options on the table. Balancing the classes to all be viable in all roles. Yes this will add in more competition for dps roles but also for healers and tanks. The other option is to keep the 3 dps roles as dominate which leads to classes not being brought into content. You attacked the argument of having all classes be equals in all roles and are using the argument for a class or classes to be left out of content because your scared of more competition in dps roles. If you want to discuss about what the second paragon in the pure dps classes can do then that is fine but out of this conversations scope. The idea is to get every class into end game. Leaving things as is isn't a viable option because your argument is to leave classes out of the end game content. The argument that there is more competition for dps slots in game isn't a good argument when the result is classes left out. I'm not ignoring the problem with more competition I am saying it is the lesser of two evils.

    Yes I know tokens were discussed but I just see too many issues with them to be a solution. When they stop/start. Who can use them. What stops and starts them. How much they cost. When you add these things in this option is just doing what a balance should would do in game.

    Lastly, this is an absolute in this discussion. If every class is an equal at what it can do in game, there is ZERO issues with a class playing the role they want to get into based on performance. The other issue is that if you do want a class to do less damage than others their other paragon role needs to be top tier or they will be left out of content. There are bottom tier healers and bottom tier tanks when it comes to being in the meta or best grouping for tanks and healers just like dps.
    So, because paragraph-length reasoning that just gets ignored by you is not really something I really want to write anymore, I shorten it up: If a multiclass has a DPS paragon, it should be an actual DPS paragon, with equal damage to an other. You are not arguing with me on that, you just arguing with your generated strawmans that you try to put in my mouth, because then you don't have to understand or acknowledge why having inferior classes with one legs is a disadvantage while you can walk on two. We won't going to reach a solution on that, so further discussion is useless.
  • theraxin#5169
    theraxin#5169 Member Posts: 366 Arc User

    Everyone invents terms of what classes do.. but bruv cant u guys understand that these classes arent hypbrid classes? They are just dual roles and there is no advantage to tha

    t, whats the problem if develooers will make every dps role to perform kinds the same?

    If you can que in for 4 spot instead of 3, that's an advantage. If the role can be changed, so you can optimise your group in mid-content, that's makes the multi-role classes directly better. And making a class do just do everything an other class can do and more is just bad design. And perfect DPS just won't be reached so if a multiparagon class just becomes the best, the only DPS slot classes will be trashed away from endgame content.

    If dev want to give pure dps classes slight advantage over hybrid classes can hybrid compensated with additional utility that most welcome in dungeon runs. Btw pure dps classes need to be striped of all group buffs or group synergy.

    Okay, but you know right that it's the literal opposite of the situation? I quote asterdahl's official response at page 11, but my question: Are you holding up your point now? So, if multi-role classes have a slight advantage they should be stripped all off their group buff or synergy, right? (No, that's stupid, but it's stupid in both ways)
    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.

    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.

  • thefabricant
    thefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User
    edited August 2019



    So, because paragraph-length reasoning that just gets ignored by you is not really something I really want to write anymore, I shorten it up: If a multiclass has a DPS paragon, it should be an actual DPS paragon, with equal damage to an other. You are not arguing with me on that, you just arguing with your generated strawmans that you try to put in my mouth, because then you don't have to understand or acknowledge why having inferior classes with one legs is a disadvantage while you can walk on two. We won't going to reach a solution on that, so further discussion is useless.

    @theraxin#5169 there are 3 groups of people in this thread, the first is those who are unwilling to admit there is a problem on both sides if all dps roles do the same dps. The second are those who are willing to admit it, but feel that balancing the DpS is the, "best of worst solutions." Then there is the third group, which feels that, "the best of worst solutions," is still a failure to address the problems and is not an acceptable resolution.

    How would people like it if in real life they were given 2 crappy solutions and told, "well, 1 of them is less bad than the other, so lets go with that 1." when other solutions exist The fact of the matter is, there are other options here and it is better to discuss and promote them, trying to find an outcome which is suitable to all groups. I proposed 1 above, which nobody has provided a valid reason yet why it could not work. There are probably other solutions besides the token solution which are better and have not been considered. The people promoting this, "leaving the single role classes in the dirt is the most acceptable solution," bs frankly says a lot about this community.
  • rafamarques#5700
    rafamarques#5700 Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    "If the role can be changed, so you can optimise your group in mid-content, that's makes the multi-role classes directly better."

    you cant. the system simply say no when you try.

    "t, whats the problem if develooers will make every dps role to perform kinds the same?"


    for me, iam really think a function dps, more than before, is toxic to the game. at least for barbarians and maybe fignters looks more natural for the original playstyle have one paragon doing the same damage of today (or close), but being a tank (mechanics and role) instead to be a new army of mid-range-nuke machines.

    How would people like it if in real life they were given 2 crappy solutions and told, "well, 1 of them is less bad than the other, so lets go with that 1." when other solutions exist The fact of the matter is, there are other options here and it is better to discuss and promote them, trying to find an outcome which is suitable to all groups. I proposed 1 above, which nobody has provided a valid reason yet why it could not work. There are probably other solutions besides the token solution which are better and have not been considered. The people promoting this, "leaving the single role classes in the dirt is the most acceptable solution," bs frankly says a lot about this community.


    the other solution should be have no dps, but buffers. so, instead to 3 classes doing a amount of damage x when a tank/healer give some handle if necessary and/or possible... (play as a tank is something like "please, survive mister monster, hitme to i have a chance to protect my party to at least use your passive regeneration between fights") you will have a entire party doing that amount of damage "x". how fast that can be? well, will now depend, indirectly, to the buffers.

    being a solo play adapted to that new reality and a general damage (brute) more balanced, a lot of peoples will roll tanks and healers. that means, more offers to create partys.
    Post edited by rafamarques#5700 on
  • haneva#3971
    haneva#3971 Member Posts: 8 Arc User
    I can appreciate the perspective that the pure DPS classes have about their disadvantage compared to dual role classes with DPS paragon. I can also appreciate the perspective that the dual role classes with DPS paragon have that they should be on par with pure DPS classes in terms of performance. One possible option that can be considered to resolve this would be to restrict each character to a single paragon path. This means that if I decide on a dual role class, I will have to choose between one of the roles during the levelling process for that character when the paragon paths become available. So, if I play a Fighter, I will have to decide whether to be a Dreadnought or Vanguard and this applies to all the loadouts on my character. Of course, this also applies to pure DPS classes i.e. they will have to choose between one of their 2 DPS paragons. A re-training token can be used for those who want the character to switch to the other paragon path subsequently. For those who have purchased additional character loadouts, they can be compensated (as the additional loadouts may now be unnecessary) by being "refunded" with the AD equivalent of the costs of the purchased loadouts or even in Zen. And for full disclosure, I currently only play the Fighter class and mainly (99% of the time) as a Dreadnought, and I have not purchased additional character loadouts.
  • cherryman1
    cherryman1 Member Posts: 347 Arc User
    edited August 2019



    So, because paragraph-length reasoning that just gets ignored by you is not really something I really want to write anymore, I shorten it up: If a multiclass has a DPS paragon, it should be an actual DPS paragon, with equal damage to an other. You are not arguing with me on that, you just arguing with your generated strawmans that you try to put in my mouth, because then you don't have to understand or acknowledge why having inferior classes with one legs is a disadvantage while you can walk on two. We won't going to reach a solution on that, so further discussion is useless.

    @theraxin#5169 there are 3 groups of people in this thread, the first is those who are unwilling to admit there is a problem on both sides if all dps roles do the same dps. The second are those who are willing to admit it, but feel that balancing the DpS is the, "best of worst solutions." Then there is the third group, which feels that, "the best of worst solutions," is still a failure to address the problems and is not an acceptable resolution.

    How would people like it if in real life they were given 2 crappy solutions and told, "well, 1 of them is less bad than the other, so lets go with that 1." when other solutions exist The fact of the matter is, there are other options here and it is better to discuss and promote them, trying to find an outcome which is suitable to all groups. I proposed 1 above, which nobody has provided a valid reason yet why it could not work. There are probably other solutions besides the token solution which are better and have not been considered. The people promoting this, "leaving the single role classes in the dirt is the most acceptable solution," bs frankly says a lot about this community.
    Having crappy solutions to problems is normal in life. It happens all of the time and much more often than you think. Picking the lesser of two evils of the two options should be preferred. If you don't think that this happens all the time in real life talk with a case worker in a hospital. They have to help guide people through the lesser of two options and some of them are being disabled or death as the choices.

    Post edited by cherryman1 on
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
  • cherryman1
    cherryman1 Member Posts: 347 Arc User

    I can appreciate the perspective that the pure DPS classes have about their disadvantage compared to dual role classes with DPS paragon. I can also appreciate the perspective that the dual role classes with DPS paragon have that they should be on par with pure DPS classes in terms of performance. One possible option that can be considered to resolve this would be to restrict each character to a single paragon path. This means that if I decide on a dual role class, I will have to choose between one of the roles during the levelling process for that character when the paragon paths become available. So, if I play a Fighter, I will have to decide whether to be a Dreadnought or Vanguard and this applies to all the loadouts on my character. Of course, this also applies to pure DPS classes i.e. they will have to choose between one of their 2 DPS paragons. A re-training token can be used for those who want the character to switch to the other paragon path subsequently. For those who have purchased additional character loadouts, they can be compensated (as the additional loadouts may now be unnecessary) by being "refunded" with the AD equivalent of the costs of the purchased loadouts or even in Zen. And for full disclosure, I currently only play the Fighter class and mainly (99% of the time) as a Dreadnought, and I have not purchased additional character loadouts.

    I think the main issue some will have with binding choices of what your class can do is that some have already spent millions of AD to make their classes viable in both roles. This could have been done at the start of Mod 16 but since players have had a mod to build into their current roles you would have some that are now losing significant investment in their toons.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
  • theraxin#5169
    theraxin#5169 Member Posts: 366 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    @thefabricant : Well, then have a discussion. I agree up with the problem, but I highly differ on the solution.


    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, there's a few of problem with this. The developers probably decided when mod16 was in development or at least paved the way for something that already took a ton of time and effort out of them. So, I'm pretty sure that they looking for easy fixes on this and not a resource burning overhaul of the overhaul. And a system like this after all the rework that was mod16 is kind of exhausting on the player's side too. And I can say for sure, 99% of the playerbase doesn't want that much complexity, so if the couldn't scroll for advice upon the best option, they will give up.

    But, these are not theoretical problems with the system, just reasons why it'd be highly unpopular on the playerbase or the development.

    My "actual" problem is that I don't really see how they solve the main issue. Most of the solutions are just a complexly shuffled system of having everyone 1 paragon taken away, except the classes that only have one role. While you can generally choose and it's not completely gone, it's not really solving the problem of supports having subpar DPS, but pushing the burden of responsibility on them to just give up one of their options. Now, as I said, it's made really complicated, but when players realise the trick there will be backlash.

    Now, my idea is basically, breaking the roles into subroles, so there will be more option to spread through. Like debuffer. The fun was with MoF debuffer was not playing optimally as a hybrid, but to take literally all debuff and feel like you're buffing much more than you do, because your brutal low damage made the DPS feel like it gets more buff than it actually gets.

    Now, in a more statistical sense (so, with more sensible sacrifices upon your personal DPS), if support (or debuffer) was something that required giving up from your heal/dps/tanking and made you significantly worse on those roles, maybe you would want an actual role that stacks debuff until it doesn't worth for the others to give up their role for. Or maybe just limit not debuffer roles options to do debuff.

    Now, my next idea would be controller, but there's no content that supports for control. Mobs are just meatstacks to punch through and mobs meant to be challenging is CC immune anyway.

    Now an other, optional thing is to push dungeons up to 6 people. Now, it's kind of a whole powerlevel overhaul, but if the problem is that heal/tank needs a DPS option to not be just pushed out by other heal/tank, it's logical to make a space for it on the DPS side. Moreso that DPS is always more crowded for their spot, while good healers are always welcome (unless there is a major issue with the class that needs fixing).
  • thefabricant
    thefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User



    So, because paragraph-length reasoning that just gets ignored by you is not really something I really want to write anymore, I shorten it up: If a multiclass has a DPS paragon, it should be an actual DPS paragon, with equal damage to an other. You are not arguing with me on that, you just arguing with your generated strawmans that you try to put in my mouth, because then you don't have to understand or acknowledge why having inferior classes with one legs is a disadvantage while you can walk on two. We won't going to reach a solution on that, so further discussion is useless.

    @theraxin#5169 there are 3 groups of people in this thread, the first is those who are unwilling to admit there is a problem on both sides if all dps roles do the same dps. The second are those who are willing to admit it, but feel that balancing the DpS is the, "best of worst solutions." Then there is the third group, which feels that, "the best of worst solutions," is still a failure to address the problems and is not an acceptable resolution.

    How would people like it if in real life they were given 2 crappy solutions and told, "well, 1 of them is less bad than the other, so lets go with that 1." when other solutions exist The fact of the matter is, there are other options here and it is better to discuss and promote them, trying to find an outcome which is suitable to all groups. I proposed 1 above, which nobody has provided a valid reason yet why it could not work. There are probably other solutions besides the token solution which are better and have not been considered. The people promoting this, "leaving the single role classes in the dirt is the most acceptable solution," bs frankly says a lot about this community.
    Having crappy solutions to problems is normal in life. It happens all of the time and much more often than you think. Picking the lesser of two evils of the two options should be preferred. If you don't think that this happens all the time in real life talk with a case worker in a hospital. They have to help guide people through the lesser of two options and some of them are being disabled or death as the choices.


    You suggested a systems with tokens and want feedback on it. Can you clarify some of these points?

    Do multi class players have to pay for a token in your token system?
    You haven't suggested when those tokens end and how they should end. Do they end in 1 hour or do they end when not in the instance? How many people will abuse this and leave the instance and just change and use another token?
    Are the classes that are already super powered and best in the meta able to use the tokens as well? If they are why not just balance the classes since that is all this is doing?
    How do you address Theraxin's issue which is that he will have more competition for dps slots if all classes are balanced in damage with those tokens?
    Is it your idea that the tokens still leave the dps only classes as the best dps and only slightly address the difference in abilities?

    You conveniently glossed over the part where I said, "when alternatives exist, you should look into them."
    • First 3 tokens are free. Rest are either paid for in Zen (id guess a value like 2000 per token is reasonable). Alternatively, they are free but have a long CD on use, so you can only use 1 every 2 weeks.
    • They are effectively permanent, until another token is used. They just raise the performance of 1 paragon permanently and lower the other until you overwrite them with another token.
    • It isn't just balancing the classes damage outputs on dps specs and balancing their support capability on the support specs, it is effectively lowering the performance of the other path, thus forcing them to choose which spec to specialize in. It puts them in the same situation as a pure dps (where you can only choose 1 role). They can still use the other role if they wish, but it will be at reduced effectiveness. Which is incidentally, also what pure DPS can do. 1 of their 2 paths is better at DPS, they can play the other if they like but guess what, they choosing to decrease their own performance.
    • If they wish to switch to their other role for the ability to form another group, they either need to fork up cash or (if its a long CD) it needs to be after waiting 2 weeks, or, just accept that they are worse than someone dedicated to that role. It lets them play the role they want to play, without giving them more versatility than a 1 role class.
    • No, the idea is that the tokens only work on hybrid classes. So you would have a token of the warlock, token of the paladin, token of the cleric, token of the fighter and token of the barbarian. Without the token, they would perform at 90% effectiveness in terms of damage and healing/tanking. If they use the token to lock in a dps role, they perform at 100% the effectiveness of a DPS role, but 80% the effectiveness of a tank/healer role. If they use the token to lock in a tank/healer role, their tank/healer role performs at 100% effectiveness, but their DPS role performs at 80% effectiveness.
  • thefabricant
    thefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User
    edited August 2019

    @thefabricant : Well, then have a discussion. I agree up with the problem, but I highly differ on the solution.


    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, there's a few of problem with this. The developers probably decided when mod16 was in development or at least paved the way for something that already took a ton of time and effort out of them. So, I'm pretty sure that they looking for easy fixes on this and not a resource burning overhaul of the overhaul. And a system like this after all the rework that was mod16 is kind of exhausting on the player's side too. And I can say for sure, 99% of the playerbase doesn't want that much complexity, so if the couldn't scroll for advice upon the best option, they will give up.

    But, these are not theoretical problems with the system, just reasons why it'd be highly unpopular on the playerbase or the development.

    My "actual" problem is that I don't really see how they solve the main issue. Most of the solutions are just a complexly shuffled system of having everyone 1 paragon taken away, except the classes that only have one role. While you can generally choose and it's not completely gone, it's not really solving the problem of supports having subpar DPS, but pushing the burden of responsibility on them to just give up one of their options. Now, as I said, it's made really complicated, but when players realise the trick there will be backlash.

    Now, my idea is basically, breaking the roles into subroles, so there will be more option to spread through. Like debuffer. The fun was with MoF debuffer was not playing optimally as a hybrid, but to take literally all debuff and feel like you're buffing much more than you do, because your brutal low damage made the DPS feel like it gets more buff than it actually gets.

    Now, in a more statistical sense (so, with more sensible sacrifices upon your personal DPS), if support (or debuffer) was something that required giving up from your heal/dps/tanking and made you significantly worse on those roles, maybe you would want an actual role that stacks debuff until it doesn't worth for the others to give up their role for. Or maybe just limit not debuffer roles options to do debuff.

    Now, my next idea would be controller, but there's no content that supports for control. Mobs are just meatstacks to punch through and mobs meant to be challenging is CC immune anyway.

    Now an other, optional thing is to push dungeons up to 6 people. Now, it's kind of a whole powerlevel overhaul, but if the problem is that heal/tank needs a DPS option to not be just pushed out by other heal/tank, it's logical to make a space for it on the DPS side. Moreso that DPS is always more crowded for their spot, while good healers are always welcome (unless there is a major issue with the class that needs fixing).
    @theraxin#5169 whilst in my opinion adding/overhauling the roles of the single path DPS is the best solution, it is also one of the least feasible. It isn't a quick/easy solution and it also has downsides. If you replacing one of the roles that already exist, the people who enjoy that specific playstyle will be upset, so you want to avoid that. If you are adding more roles, you need to add roles to all 8 classes and that is a lot of work and won't happen. So its either upset the archery hrs (since the logical choice is to replace the paths which don't work) or don't do more paths.

    The reason I am in favour of the token solution is that the only people it really upsets is the people who would be jumping between both the roles on the class all the time and taking advantage of the fact that they have 2 classes built into 1 (unlike a single role class). It is still probably cheaper for them to pay to switch tokens than it is to gear up another character, which is what a single role class has to do if it wants to change roles. So it does force them to specialize.
  • theraxin#5169
    theraxin#5169 Member Posts: 366 Arc User
    edited August 2019

    @thefabricant : Well, then have a discussion. I agree up with the problem, but I highly differ on the solution.


    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, there's a few of problem with this. The developers probably decided when mod16 was in development or at least paved the way for something that already took a ton of time and effort out of them. So, I'm pretty sure that they looking for easy fixes on this and not a resource burning overhaul of the overhaul. And a system like this after all the rework that was mod16 is kind of exhausting on the player's side too. And I can say for sure, 99% of the playerbase doesn't want that much complexity, so if the couldn't scroll for advice upon the best option, they will give up.

    But, these are not theoretical problems with the system, just reasons why it'd be highly unpopular on the playerbase or the development.

    My "actual" problem is that I don't really see how they solve the main issue. Most of the solutions are just a complexly shuffled system of having everyone 1 paragon taken away, except the classes that only have one role. While you can generally choose and it's not completely gone, it's not really solving the problem of supports having subpar DPS, but pushing the burden of responsibility on them to just give up one of their options. Now, as I said, it's made really complicated, but when players realise the trick there will be backlash.

    Now, my idea is basically, breaking the roles into subroles, so there will be more option to spread through. Like debuffer. The fun was with MoF debuffer was not playing optimally as a hybrid, but to take literally all debuff and feel like you're buffing much more than you do, because your brutal low damage made the DPS feel like it gets more buff than it actually gets.

    Now, in a more statistical sense (so, with more sensible sacrifices upon your personal DPS), if support (or debuffer) was something that required giving up from your heal/dps/tanking and made you significantly worse on those roles, maybe you would want an actual role that stacks debuff until it doesn't worth for the others to give up their role for. Or maybe just limit not debuffer roles options to do debuff.

    Now, my next idea would be controller, but there's no content that supports for control. Mobs are just meatstacks to punch through and mobs meant to be challenging is CC immune anyway.

    Now an other, optional thing is to push dungeons up to 6 people. Now, it's kind of a whole powerlevel overhaul, but if the problem is that heal/tank needs a DPS option to not be just pushed out by other heal/tank, it's logical to make a space for it on the DPS side. Moreso that DPS is always more crowded for their spot, while good healers are always welcome (unless there is a major issue with the class that needs fixing).
    @theraxin#5169 whilst in my opinion adding/overhauling the roles of the single path DPS is the best solution, it is also one of the least feasible. It isn't a quick/easy solution and it also has downsides. If you replacing one of the roles that already exist, the people who enjoy that specific playstyle will be upset, so you want to avoid that. If you are adding more roles, you need to add roles to all 8 classes and that is a lot of work and won't happen. So its either upset the archery hrs (since the logical choice is to replace the paths which don't work) or don't do more paths.

    The reason I am in favour of the token solution is that the only people it really upsets is the people who would be jumping between both the roles on the class all the time and taking advantage of the fact that they have 2 classes built into 1 (unlike a single role class). It is still probably cheaper for them to pay to switch tokens than it is to gear up another character, which is what a single role class has to do if it wants to change roles. So it does force them to specialize.
    Well, on the MoF example it's not really replacing the path, but making the path back as a debuffer. I can't really say anything on TR and HR, because I don't really know anything about their paragons. But at least in theorem, it should be possible to push both playstyle into one paragon as variant of the DPS. In a perfectly balanced system, this probably should be in all paragon, not just one way to build and run. It's highly unlikely that they perfectly can do it, but at least they can reach there over time.

    And yes, this solution have a bigger upfront cost to be paid (unless you just literally make +1 space and take a mod to powerlevel the dungeons with the + size correctly. They you just have to fear spaghetti code and things like Tamed velociraptor). But yours have a huge upkeep cost, because you either count the subpar things essentially discarded (which means you top it at 10% difference and let it fall under, not precisely balance on that) or you just made yourself vulnerable for rigorous testing for every subclass and combination to not break the content.

    But for the main reason I like my version is that it keeps the complex things under the hood and not make the player have to wait the modly minmax result or forced to change role, because "generalist healer is not the good now". But if rerolling for new content is easy, that defeats the point of locking in a choice.

    The thing I don't really like is that going from 3/16 to 4/16 does not really feel "solved" and unless we just push Warlocks out of high DPS before they could've been there to be buffers, you kind of forced to just make the 3 solo DPS class to be DPS/buffer.

    The only class that I feel sorry for is Warlock, who could have tanked, debuffed, high DPS'd and healed and probably can't have a solution for every playstyle it was capable of.

    PS: While that's off-topic and don't push for a rogue-tank by any mean, I imagined rogues taunting bosses like bards and then going stealth while Orcus swears at their guessed position.
  • cherryman1
    cherryman1 Member Posts: 347 Arc User



    So, because paragraph-length reasoning that just gets ignored by you is not really something I really want to write anymore, I shorten it up: If a multiclass has a DPS paragon, it should be an actual DPS paragon, with equal damage to an other. You are not arguing with me on that, you just arguing with your generated strawmans that you try to put in my mouth, because then you don't have to understand or acknowledge why having inferior classes with one legs is a disadvantage while you can walk on two. We won't going to reach a solution on that, so further discussion is useless.

    @theraxin#5169 there are 3 groups of people in this thread, the first is those who are unwilling to admit there is a problem on both sides if all dps roles do the same dps. The second are those who are willing to admit it, but feel that balancing the DpS is the, "best of worst solutions." Then there is the third group, which feels that, "the best of worst solutions," is still a failure to address the problems and is not an acceptable resolution.

    How would people like it if in real life they were given 2 crappy solutions and told, "well, 1 of them is less bad than the other, so lets go with that 1." when other solutions exist The fact of the matter is, there are other options here and it is better to discuss and promote them, trying to find an outcome which is suitable to all groups. I proposed 1 above, which nobody has provided a valid reason yet why it could not work. There are probably other solutions besides the token solution which are better and have not been considered. The people promoting this, "leaving the single role classes in the dirt is the most acceptable solution," bs frankly says a lot about this community.
    Having crappy solutions to problems is normal in life. It happens all of the time and much more often than you think. Picking the lesser of two evils of the two options should be preferred. If you don't think that this happens all the time in real life talk with a case worker in a hospital. They have to help guide people through the lesser of two options and some of them are being disabled or death as the choices.


    You suggested a systems with tokens and want feedback on it. Can you clarify some of these points?

    Do multi class players have to pay for a token in your token system?
    You haven't suggested when those tokens end and how they should end. Do they end in 1 hour or do they end when not in the instance? How many people will abuse this and leave the instance and just change and use another token?
    Are the classes that are already super powered and best in the meta able to use the tokens as well? If they are why not just balance the classes since that is all this is doing?
    How do you address Theraxin's issue which is that he will have more competition for dps slots if all classes are balanced in damage with those tokens?
    Is it your idea that the tokens still leave the dps only classes as the best dps and only slightly address the difference in abilities?

    You conveniently glossed over the part where I said, "when alternatives exist, you should look into them."
    • First 3 tokens are free. Rest are either paid for in Zen (id guess a value like 2000 per token is reasonable). Alternatively, they are free but have a long CD on use, so you can only use 1 every 2 weeks.
    • They are effectively permanent, until another token is used. They just raise the performance of 1 paragon permanently and lower the other until you overwrite them with another token.
    • It isn't just balancing the classes damage outputs on dps specs and balancing their support capability on the support specs, it is effectively lowering the performance of the other path, thus forcing them to choose which spec to specialize in. It puts them in the same situation as a pure dps (where you can only choose 1 role). They can still use the other role if they wish, but it will be at reduced effectiveness. Which is incidentally, also what pure DPS can do. 1 of their 2 paths is better at DPS, they can play the other if they like but guess what, they choosing to decrease their own performance.
    • If they wish to switch to their other role for the ability to form another group, they either need to fork up cash or (if its a long CD) it needs to be after waiting 2 weeks, or, just accept that they are worse than someone dedicated to that role. It lets them play the role they want to play, without giving them more versatility than a 1 role class.
    • No, the idea is that the tokens only work on hybrid classes. So you would have a token of the warlock, token of the paladin, token of the cleric, token of the fighter and token of the barbarian. Without the token, they would perform at 90% effectiveness in terms of damage and healing/tanking. If they use the token to lock in a dps role, they perform at 100% the effectiveness of a DPS role, but 80% the effectiveness of a tank/healer role. If they use the token to lock in a tank/healer role, their tank/healer role performs at 100% effectiveness, but their DPS role performs at 80% effectiveness.
    This will make a lot of players mad in the game since your effectively either making both paragons bad if they don't specialize, making 1 paragon viable if they do and forcing them to pay. I would also add that your not doing this across the board to dps classes either which I would think needs to happen if this was implemented. This will also drive a LOT of players out of the game just to force players into one paragon. This is just a nerf to classes in the game and only done in such a specific manner as to make players not want to pick multi class toons. I am all for the second paragon being a buff path for the dps toons but I know they won't allow that to come back. This to me is a "who moved my cheese" moment.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence
    Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
  • thefabricant
    thefabricant Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 5,248 Arc User



    PS: While that's off-topic and don't push for a rogue-tank by any mean, I imagined rogues taunting bosses like bards and then going stealth while Orcus swears at their guessed position.

    @micky1p00 does this count as permission?
  • rafamarques#5700
    rafamarques#5700 Member Posts: 155 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    ... maybe is time to think balance not by a general solution, but case by case.

    bladmasters are not happen because dont do more damage than x or y. ok, but if, instead to improve your damage, i give 40% more hp, extra threat and put block during battle rage/sprint, being now tanks too w/o other changes? we are be happy to that? i think yes. so is a problemed solved

    same for fighters i guess...

    now, sws are not happen at all. paladins alread work being dual. and so on...
  • mongol69
    mongol69 Member Posts: 407 Arc User
    edited August 2019
    > @thefabricant said:
    > The people promoting this, "leaving the single role classes in the dirt is the most acceptable solution," bs frankly says a lot about this community.

    Honestly, I would be fine if warlocks were just on par with any role class and removed soulweaver completely with only dps as an option to queue, at least be endgame viable.

    Would you be happier if wizards were dps and healer roles and incapable of running tomm as dps, lomm only against early midgame players when your at endgame and ignored as a whole class since eaely midgame cant even come close to successful runs queued together with the current meta.

    Looking at the landscape many warlocks are failing miserably because the class itself is like playing neverwinter in hard mode with with a broken button compared to wizards gameplay mechanics and burst. But, in this scenario you could possibly be a potential tank heal bot that another cleric could just as easily do in a mod created for endgame..

    I know none who would prefer that as an option, yet that's the state of the warlock.

    2x dps role classes are no where close to "left in the dirt", that's the warlocks job right now.

    Current 2x dps role classes, especially wizards have an advantage since no other classes can even compete. With 3/8 classes only capable of dps endgame skirmish with 6/10 available seats with 5/8 of the classes scrambling to fill 4/10 seats in runs. Making more classes viable endgame dps and support increases the availablity for both roles across the classes.

    Ask the devs to assign a secondary support roles instead I agree with.
    But, advocating making 2x dps kings of the castle and force all other classes to be only capable as support actually says alot about the community in support of current meta.

    Let's be realistic, warlocks are performing worse than classes with dps roles currently "10%" behind current meta dps. Every enemy encounter is destined to stun, stall, kill and phase which resets entire class buff mechanic in every fight reverting it back to a 45% base damage of current meta dps. Your lucky to ever get 5 si stacks at endgame runs with other endgame dps flat out. Soulweaver has it's own set of issues and is still being addressed to make it actually function in its role as healer.

    Add in easier ca availablity with corrected range and multiplicative buffs fixed to correct additive and it will become even more painfully obvious.
    Post edited by mongol69 on
  • raziel2004#7353
    raziel2004#7353 Member Posts: 88 Arc User
    Ok how about this.. Queing need 4 class categories instead of 3 right now. No more 1:3:1 instead 1 tank : 2 dps: 1 buffer/debuffer/support : 1 healer. With this All classes can hv dual possiblity to que and pure dps can hv pure dps loadout and buff loadout. But group buff cannt stack so only 1 can apply and or can only apply by buff class only.. so Bts, control momentum need to go.. btw this will also make it easy for maybe new class exp Bard to be introduce. Oh btw buffer class can only be fill by cw, tr and hr if the secondary paragon change to de/buff paragon.. Well I try... This discussion is not going anywhere..
  • tom#6998
    tom#6998 Member Posts: 952 Arc User
    How about that everyone that complains about class balance because of ToMM, practices it on preview till they have everything down, and then come back here and report how much dps is missing?