I have been following this topic closely. I am amazed by statements from players that 2-function classes have to remain as they are, in total dismay because their damage is 30% less than 1-function classes. This is a punishment and not a way of compensating classes for having two functions.
To see if I understand, I have a GWF DPS that I have invested in it for almost 4 years, everything in it has only one goal, maximize the damage, of course since it is DPS. But now that I can be a viable Tank, I will spend a few million more AD on companions, insignias, artifacts, mounts ... to be a Tank bis like my DPS should be, to run a random and get a 5k bonus from RAD? Also, should I delete my GF Tank? Why would I need to have two hybrid classes if I can be Tank and DPS in only one?
Well, I won't spend another 4 years getting a viable char as much as DPS as Tank. I hope the promised adjustments come out soon, because I didn't play for so long to be viable, I played and play to be among the best and make any content I want.
I dont think this is quite right. I dont think anyone truly believes that the 2 role classes should have the minus 30% damage comparatively. Most of the people, on that side, do think there should be some advantage though. I myself am one of those.
For example: Lets say you have a highly skilled player who knows the optimal rotations, playstyle etc for both a TR and GWF. I would not be against the TR being able to do 5%-10% more overall damage then GWF. That would be a hard cap though. Anything over 10% would be way too much. With that being said 10% may even be too much. I am not a number cruncher so i dont know if that 10% difference would be too much to make certain damage checks or not and may need to be tuned from that number.
Lets face it, unless weapon damage, attack speed and magnitude are homogenized across all classes (ie the first at will matches completely every other first at will) than damage will never be equal between classes. I dont think that giving those classes that only have the one role a small advantage over dual role classes is out of line.
Thank you guys for your replies and i apologise if i was rude and thus hurt someone in the process. I won't be responding anymore because i have voiced my opinion rather abundantly but I still think that a margin of even as less as 5% is acceptable for having 2 roles. I simply think that as a dps cleric myself and aspiring to finish TOMM without being a burden on my team, i just do not want anyone else to go through this Hamster situation where no one wants you but you know you are more than capable.
I know for a fact that if there was no margin, the pure dps classes will almost certainly will ask for compensation for having only dps paragons. Then the whole story begins from square 1 and that was what i wanted to avoid. Nonetheless, i see clear advantages with having 2 roles.
I was one of those that never ever thought of playing DC, always played the dps version Arbiter. I have only invested in few rare pets for my healer but i have to agree that it really helped my boredom if nothing else, whenever i got bored of my dps. For that reason alone, i'll say that having an option is always an advantage but then you have facts like less investment and more options in parties to swap roles and etc and some of you probably still disagree but i don't think 2 wrongs make a right. If we as a non-meta class want justice, then we should also do justice.
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
edited September 2019
The interesting part, is that one of the suggestions that met with such resentment (because people can't read) is not to add penalty to the class, but actually to assure equality on the role the player want to play. The primary role is equal, the secondary role is 10% lower. Swapping primary and secondary role is not immediate in some way, a cost or cooldown.
0
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
1) Control - Arcanist. I use it for extended stuns and freezes. Low dps, but very useful for keeping lower players alive. The Thaumaturge doesn't have the same capability. 2) Multiclassing. Neverwinter doesn't have true multiclassing. And it's not a penalty if it's done correctly. It's just the logical outcome of foregoing capstone/higher skills that would have been gained at higher levels in multiple classes. WoW isn't relevant to me. The D&D Player Handbook is. There's an entire section on multiclassing. Very informative. Pages 163-164. But if you're so fond of the "hybrid tax," go play WoW. 3) The fact that I play all these classes makes me more invested than someone who wants to punish classes that he's unwilling to play. Also listed them to add to the consensus that many of us are only interested in playing one paragon path. 4) pointless. What class did you say you play? 5) When you demand changes that not only affect me during group play, but then follow me back into solo play where I spend most of my time, you better believe it's my place to tell you to keep your hands off. It certainly isn't your place to tell me what my place is. I know my place better than you seem to know yours.
And yet again, all three of you completely ignore the gaping wounds in your thought process in favor of picking at scabs. Confront it or don't, but the nitpicking of trifling details is getting old.
1) Arcanist is not a control path, it is a DpS path. Firstly, the word control was removed from the class name. Secondly, currently at endgame in ToMM Arcanist is the highest DpS across all classes.
2) Neverwinter is not a DnD game, it is an MMO set in the universe of Faerûn. This is a pretty important distinction as it means content design is done using the mindset used in the development of an MMO and not the mindset used in DnD. But ok, if you support the game being even more unbalanced than it is now, feel free to ask for it to be developed akin to a DnD game. I am pretty familiar with how well those rules translate into PC games and how Wizard almost universally is god tier in every single 1 of them, being able to do absolutely everything that all other classes can do and then do more on top of it. The DnD player handbook is not relevant at all to Neverwinter and never will be, there are non DnD games which are closer to the DnD ruleset than Neverwinter like for example Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which was released recently. Pretty much the only place DnD is used in the game is for the naming of enemies and they could have done what Pillars of Eternity did and call Kobalds, "Xaurips" etc and got away with that. Its there for the brand recognition, that is it.
3) You don't play those classes, you are a solo player. The fact of the matter is that the game is so easy at the moment outside of ToMM that you can solo/duo pretty much every other dungeon in the game in under half an hour, with next to no issues. Even if a class is so unbalanced that it does half the DpS of whatever the top DpS happens to be, it will have no problems soloing. Unless you are running ToMM or interested in running ToMM, class balance has very little impact on you and doesn't change your ability to run content. The classes are so brain dead you can learn to play any of them in 2-3 days and I am being generous there, since it will take 2 days to test them to find all the bugs and then 10 minutes to work out the optimal rotation and spam it. Also, what you are "interested" in playing does not represent everyone who plays multiple classes, I can name people who also play multiple classes and who do take advantage of both roles of OP for example, that doesn't mean that everyone who plays OP does that but it also doesn't take away from the fact that there is an advantage to having both roles.
4) Not relevant to the discussion, just like the player handbook is not relevant to balance in Neverwinter.
5) See point 3, Solo play is so easy that it should not be taken into consideration for balance discussions. When you can solo fbi and duo lomm, the difficulty of solo content is not something even worth discussing.
The fact of the matter is, having more choices is an advantage. The 1 class with 2 functioning roles is clear evidence of this, OP. Just because the other multi role classes don't have 2 functioning roles doesn't change the fact that having 2 roles is an advantage assuming both roles work and when balancing single role vs multi roles, this advantage should be taken into account as there is no functional advantage to have 2 of the same role.
Just put a token or different tokens on the ZEN market that allows for passing of mounts (especially legendary) and companions to another character and you solve the issues - if youre not gonna focus on true class balance AND BY BALANCE I MEAN ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL TO SOME DEGREE (enchants, stats, companions used, bonding stones used) then just let people switch their class that they are frustrated with by paying ZEN which can be bought with AD so its all FTP and it solves the fights. The mounts and companions can be changed to bind to account until moved to another character and locked in place.
So, the opposition to actually balancing roles across classes think it's best to force 60% of the other dps to be support, think its fair as is, just build another class, ger over it, or inevitably quit. Instead of maybey creating a thread asking for a second support role?
I'm doubtful many of the current 2x dps would sincerely be thrilled to loose 40%of thier damage and be subpar at another support role knowing another class outperforms them by 40% and truly believe it's an actually fair tradeoff.
Whether it's 10% or 40% less, no one in thier right mind wants to invest is garbage, they invest to improve. A new player walking into a game and finding out midway that they just chose a class that will always be subpar...they quit playing, same as veterans that know it as fact.
2
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
So, the opposition to actually balancing roles across classes think it's best to force 60% of the other dps to be support, think its fair as is, just build another class, ger over it, or inevitably quit. Instead of maybey creating a thread asking for a second support role?
I'm doubtful many of the current 2x dps would sincerely be thrilled to loose 40%of thier damage and be subpar at another support role knowing another class outperforms them by 40% and truly believe it's an actually fair tradeoff.
I can't understand where you got these numbers or notion from??
@micky1p00 So warlocks in tomm at endgame do outstanding performance now, because from what I've seen in posted act logs. Its a 30 to close to 40% disparity. Not 10%
Arbiter, fighter, barbi, warlock are also dps. That actually 57.1% of the dps population underperforming. Sorry, wasnt exact enough.
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
The dual role argument is if the roles are equal. Consider it as "If problem X solved in a specific way (and it should be solved in one way or another) then in long term there will arise problem Y" Is the best solution is one with a token, like described and people try to misrepresent, imo, no, not best at all, the benefit there though is a very easy implementation and instead of cost it can be cool-down. and it keeps the role equality. I would always prefer viable dual roles for all classes, which IMO should be the long term goal there.
1. Any consideration of multi role vs single role is only if/after the base inequality can be fixed. 2. Exactly in my post before yours, I repeat that suggestion and others, assures that you have 1 equal role, meaning Warlock DPS = Wizard DPS = Rogue DPS = Barbie DPS etc..
Please, take the time to actually read what people suggest and why, before jumping to some weird I don't know what.. You really think someones goal it to make a class 40% crappier?
Again, i dont know where people are reading that people think that classes are fine at 40% or 30% or some such number behind pure DPS classes. No one thinks that this is right and i have not seen anyone disagreeing that those classes need to be buffed to be competitive.
A large portion of the people do believe that pure DPS roles should have a SMALL buff over those though.
In my opinion that is not asking to much in comparison to being able to multi role.
0
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
So warlocks in tomm at endgame do outstanding performance now, because from what I've seen in posted act logs. Its a 30 to close to 40% disparity. Not 10%
Arbiter, fighter, barbi, warlock are also dps. That actually 57.1% of the dps population underperforming. Sorry, wasnt exact enough.
That's not of the population, we don't know the number of players of each class. If you want to talk exact numbers. Nor in any form or way relevant. Please read the posts above....
I wasnt saying all player base dps population, and by Dps disparity I meant that warlock are averaging closer to 40%less damage in Tom from act logs provided so far.
As to 60% of the dps population. Your correct not all dps population. I do so apologize to have offended you so greatly, what I specifically meant to say is that I'm refering to % of the dps roles available to the game. As in of 7 available and 4 underperform. What I meant by 60%, sorry, 57.1.% of the dps roles in the game.
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
I want saying all.player base dps population, and by Dps disparity meant that warlock are averaging closer to 40%less damage in Tom from act logs provided so far.
As to 60% of the dps population. Your correct not all dps population. I do so apologize to have offended you so greatly what I speciffiaclly meant to say is that I'm refering to % of the dps roles available to the game. As in of 7 available and 4 underperform. What I meant by 60%, sorry, 57.1.% of the dps roles in the game.
Again, how is that relevant? You argue some point not sure about with whom, for what, and why. Wouldn't be easier to just please read the posts above...
I don't get what the issue, you missed them? You ignore them on purpose just to start something? Just please look above, this same page, I even quoted earlier post...
Whether it's 10% or 40% less, no one in thier right mind wants to invest is garbage, they invest to improve. A new player walking into a game and finding out midway that they just chose a class that will always be subpar...they quit playing, same as veterans that know it as fact.
Refering to this
@micky1p00 The interesting part, is that one of the suggestions that met with such resentment (because people can't read) is not to add penalty to the class, but actually to assure equality on the role the player want to play. The primary role is equal, the secondary role is 10% lower. Swapping primary and secondary role is not immediate in some way, a cost or cooldown.
Each roles is seperate on dual roles, geared seperate, comps, etc. Whether it's to be a healer or dps. I agree as I stated above offer 2x dps a support role.
There's no reason to let the multi-role classes to queue as DPS if their damage should be worst than DPS/DPS classes...It's a non sense. Why devs allowed to have a DPS role for those classes and let them queue as DPS? Just for being a meme DPS path? How about to let the main role of the classes (the one assigned before lvl 30) remains without penalties, and that the secondary role gets a penalty of x % ... E.g: Barb is DPS (primary), tank (secondary), Warlock is DPS (Primary), healer (Secondary) Cleric is healer (Primary), etc pre lvl 30. To be honest I don't agree with that because I want all paths to have the same opportunities...i believed in Asterdahl words:
It looks that now DC will be able to queue as DPS. But what's our role as dps? Are we supposed to be equal match to other classess - let's say TR, CW, GWFs? Because now it feels like we're still not there yet.
Yes, you should be able to DPS just as well as any other class with only DPS pargons, e.g. WIZ, ROG, RGR, etc. Keep in mind that Barbarian (Formerly GWF) can play as a tank now, so they're not a class with 2 DPS paragons either.
I'd withhold judgement (badum tsss) about whether or not Arbiter is on par with other DPS until people have had a chance to put all the paragons through their paces. Some of the classes, especially Arbiter, have some reasonably complex rotations that can take a bit of getting used to. We've seen them performing fairly well internally, but obviously we'll be continuing to make adjustments.
The problem with people aiming for a penalization for two roles classes is because of their intolerance of the existance of other DPS paths and their viability, they don't want to see a Warlock or Cleric near their master class Wizard , or a Fighter able to do the same damage than a Ranger or Rogue... They want the current Mod 17 end game META to persist for all future game content. Wiz, Ranger, Rogue as DPS and everything else as their support slaves.
1
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
Whether it's 10% or 40% less, no one in thier right mind wants to invest is garbage, they invest to improve. A new player walking into a game and finding out midway that they just chose a class that will always be subpar...they quit playing, same as veterans that know it as fact.
The interesting part, is that one of the suggestions that met with such resentment (because people can't read) is not to add penalty to the class, but actually to assure equality on the role the player want to play.
The primary role is equal, the secondary role is 10% lower. Swapping primary and secondary role is not immediate in some way, a cost or cooldown.
Each roles is seperate on dual roles, geared seperate, comps, etc. Whether it's to be a healer or dps. I agree as I stated above offer 2x dps a support role.
Are you serious, a post after...
And in the post you quited, 1 role always equal.. Really why is it so complex. Dual role class, one role always equal, to others with the same role as primary or single role. And you can swap which is equal and which is not. Really.. not complex. It's not even my bloody idea, nor I prefer it, and now I end up arguing for it, because people just do not read..
And you know, yes, no one want to invest into garbage, why would anyone invest in single role class if there are better options? If they gear it and found at the end it is dead end garbage.
Again, read previous posts. I went over this in depth in my reply to Jules.
My point being both roles should be equal to classes with same role. There is a cost, gearing, etc. What's so wrong with the idea of 2x dps getting a support role and all dps equal, all support equal and no buying tokens etc? Thays where I stand on opinion. No reason to reduce any role by 10% or any percentage if the playing field is equal on all terms whether role option damge output or healing capabilities. My idea has no less value then anyone else's.
My point being both roles should be equal to classes with same role. There is a cost, gearing, etc. What's so wrong with the idea of 2x dps getting a support role and all dps equal, all support equal and no buying tokens etc? Thays where I stand on opinion. No reason to reduce any role by 10% or any percentage if the playing field is equal on all terms whether role option damge output or healing capabilities. My idea has no less value then anyone else's.
Like I've said multiple times, and here in this thread, repeated multiple times, adding a support role to all single role classes will be the best solution.
... Unless there is more in depth solution, there will be disparity, if all roles equal (of the same role) dual role classes will always have advantage. A player will always choose a class that can do two viable (and equal to others for those roles) roles, instead of a class that can do only one.
On the other hand, if a single role class is better in a role, than a dual role class when in the same role, the dual role class has no reason of existence. There will be bias towards the better class in that role.
An obvious solution is to change the "dps only" classes to have a secondary viable role, this can be one of the current, healer, tank, or adding a new support category, if it is mitigation, debuff, CC, and so on. ...
Will it happen, that the devs will change a role, if people even refuse to acknowledge an issue? Probably not, too many resources they will not commit, so other suggestions are just easier to implement at the cost of worse result.
My point being both roles should be equal to classes with same role. There is a cost, gearing, etc. What's so wrong with the idea of 2x dps getting a support role and all dps equal, all support equal and no buying tokens etc? Thays where I stand on opinion. No reason to reduce any role by 10% or any percentage if the playing field is equal on all terms whether role option damge output or healing capabilities. My idea has no less value then anyone else's.
No one has specifically come out against this in this thread either, that i recollect. In fact when mod 16 dropped, one of the people who has been posting in this thread even posted the idea for them to get rid of Whisperknife and replace it with a tank paragon. It wasn't just a random throw away comment either but actually was quite indepth.
If the dual dps roles are given an effective (not necessarily even) secondary role and the currently classes have their primary/secondary roles buffed to be effective (not necessarily even) then that would be great, but i find it highly unlikely that the dev team is going to completely reinvent 3 paragon paths from scratch.
Not that i said not necessarily even as i dont think any classes Secondary roles should be equal to another classes primary role. no classes secondary role should be more effective than another classes primary role in a well balanced system, in my opinion.
I run a wizard that was endgame last mod, same as a pally and cleric. But I started with my warlock and it has continuously recieved the nerfhammer mod after mod.
I get it was insane having a soul puppet one shot orcus, but the only viable build after was the obc build, and quite costly at that. But a few mods later, I'll be honest the single target was exceptional and once the griffins wrath nerf occured , warlocks were the highest single target damage dealers. They could have used a nerf then. Same with my wizard, icy terrain nerf and lightning nerf I shelved it untill mof builds became viable again. Mod 15 warlocks and wizards were both top damage dealers and offered buffs with viable low coat buff builds.
But now, my wizard is geared up and I'm playing it primarily again, and pally as a tank, and cleric as a healer. From my point, I dont need another healer. My paly and cleric both excel as the roles I geared them for, but as I said, my cleric is endgame as a healer, why bother gearing pally shieldbot when its setup as tank, etc. Same as a soulweaver. I prefer to have one 2 dps, one tank, one heal.
Unfortunately warlocks are exceptionally bad at both roles, mine sits in mediocrity with 4 leg mounts, over 30 leg comps and absolute trash now.
My point being both roles should be equal to classes with same role. There is a cost, gearing, etc. What's so wrong with the idea of 2x dps getting a support role and all dps equal, all support equal and no buying tokens etc? Thays where I stand on opinion. No reason to reduce any role by 10% or any percentage if the playing field is equal on all terms whether role option damge output or healing capabilities. My idea has no less value then anyone else's.
Like I've said multiple times, and here in this thread, repeated multiple times, adding a support role to all single role classes will be the best solution.
... Unless there is more in depth solution, there will be disparity, if all roles equal (of the same role) dual role classes will always have advantage. A player will always choose a class that can do two viable (and equal to others for those roles) roles, instead of a class that can do only one.
On the other hand, if a single role class is better in a role, than a dual role class when in the same role, the dual role class has no reason of existence. There will be bias towards the better class in that role.
An obvious solution is to change the "dps only" classes to have a secondary viable role, this can be one of the current, healer, tank, or adding a new support category, if it is mitigation, debuff, CC, and so on. ...
Will it happen, that the devs will change a role, if people even refuse to acknowledge an issue? Probably not, too many resources they will not commit, so other suggestions are just easier to implement at the cost of worse result.
Agree with this. If the problem isn't two roles classes having the same chances as DPS compared with DPS/DPS classes, the problem is that the single role classes haven't another role...If they think that having two roles is an advantage, let's give them a new role, same opportunities for any class. The problem is that devs are bound with WotC rules about classes (I think), I know there's a possible healer role for Rangers because you can heal with a Ranger in D&D but... How about Wizard and Rogue? What role can they have? they need to bring again control and debuff/buff, etc to the game.
" How about Wizard and Rogue? What role can they have? they need to bring again control and debuff/buff, etc to the game.
controller being a alternative for tanks? looks pretty cool, but find a way to do that is so improbable...
i just see three ways to fix that.
1 - balance every dps. first that is more subjective than a number thing. second... not sure if that is really fair for full dps.
2 - creating a offensive tanks/healers. that means, FIRST rework old and new gears to have that extra offensive bonus based in your class role (change for exemple 2% damage to your melee attacks to extra threat/defense/outcoming healing, etc based in your role ) and then, and only then, give extra heals and defensive mechanicals to bladmasters, dreads, arbiters, etc (my favorite choice by the way)
3 - no class will be dps annymore. now they are buffers and debuffers. the brute damage will be responsability of the entire party, but the magnitude of that damage come indirectly from the buffers/debuffers. that is THE MOST FAIR IDEA, but i think dps players will hate to see tanks dealing more damage, even if 150% of that damage come from secundary buffs.
Just make a new class... that is after all what your group told everyone to do to adapt... On a side note, ill trade my multi-role garbage for a single role dps that outdoes every other class. Players should not be penalized for the devs lack of resources to actually make a new class. The reason we have these stupid hybrid classes and new paragons is because of the lack of resources to devote to make new classes.. this was the fastest way to roll out "rip-off hybrid classes"
Nah, those are not hybrid classes - you cant merge both paragons paths as you like, to try that. And no - those classes having different role paragon paths are not stupid - they are simply broken - you know @asterdahl 's different coding - add to that not existing testing at voila - we have very basics of the game broken.
On top of that I would like to remind you that before MOD 16 at least in theory every class had at least 2 pargon/role paths to follow and thare was possible to actually make hybrids, and put them to good use. But that is gone.
All we have now is few classes working as intended (mostly) or at least having one viable paragon path, and rest of classes not having even one viable paragon path.
Asking for dps/heal/tank classes to be equal, is actually asking to reduce their numbers to one of each. There is no way thats gona happend.
Also do not count on miracles in getting classes to be at least on similar level. All you can hope for is, that there will be more paragons paths worth considering or exchangable with current meta classes.
But than again current state of developer team and lack of resources makes it difficult to belive that its gona happend soon, and even if - dont count on a quality of another rework - Cryptic was preparing for a long time to MOD 16 at it ended up here - as the most beautiful catastrophe. It is almost 6 months since release and we are nowhere near to WAI state, so dont hold your breath here.
And last but not least
Dont worry - there gona be a new class - and while there is no to many options left on the table - its gona be a support class - and guess what - there is no need to use lot of resources to make one - its gona use all that buff/debuff abilities we are missing on our classes after MOD 16 transfer. That is their last option to keep this game alive and that is how its gona be implemented - I am ready to bet on that
So , yeah I belive this game is going to go back on old tracks lot sooner then many of you think, and all that MOD 16 revolutions is going to nothing more than z detour - pretty much like MOD 6, but this time with more severe consequences....
So really guys calm down here - no need to argue or getting personal here - just play the game trying to have as much fun of it as possible before situation will change....again.....
Each Paragon path has a specialty... either by design or by accident. Having two DPS paragons does NOT entitle the class to have better DPS than single DPS path classes. Having two DPS paths in a somewhat balanced game gives its own advantage of being able to swap loadouts to tailor your strengths to a given situation.
That said, the classes should be more similar in damage potential. One of the best ways to improve paragons which are underperforming is to start buffing the skills in them that are least used. This is a no-brainer and is a safe move.
My Barbarian and Wizard were maxed out in Mod 15, but now, only my Paladin is maxed out. I chose to specialize her into maximum DPS. I do approximately the same damage as a 20k DPS class that is well equipped and uses good tactics. This means, by the time these DPS hit ToMM level and have maxed out their gear.. they are dealing up to 150% of my damage. The drawback to a DPS paladin is that is that i am very squishy vs tougher bosses like those in LoMM & ToMM, even Ras Nisi or Vlad. To compensate, i have to try to play smart & sometimes put away my sword for a shield in terms of gear & skill swaps.
I think Wizard should continue to have some bugs cleaned out of it... but should be thought of as the new STANDARD for DPS damage. It seems to me that Rogue & Ranger are higher DPS than Wizard... but the Wizard is more forgiving to newer players.
The Barbarian and other classes that can maintain Combat Advantage through marks provide a real balancing challenge. Maxed combat advantage (while active) gives a player 66% more damage. Because of this, the Barbarian has to have a very level DPS level. Classes with no ability to maintain marking will have lower DPS before combat advantage... probably higher than average when fighting with Avantage. It has to be this way if its going to be balanced. This will cause Barbarians to think other classes are higher DPS (because they are marking for them). If other classes start to shun Barbarians because their DPS is a tiny bit sub-par... they are forgetting the value of marking.
As a Paladin, I'd gladly accept a 5% damage debuff, if my class could provide a mark. To me this would actually make sense. In D&D Paladins are fighter-buffers with a specialty against Good/Evil. In what universe do Barbarians provide their army with tactical damage improvement? Neverwinter i guess.
The Barbarian and other classes that can maintain Combat Advantage through marks provide a real balancing challenge. Maxed combat advantage (while active) gives a player 66% more damage. Because of this, the Barbarian has to have a very level DPS level. Classes with no ability to maintain marking will have lower DPS before combat advantage... probably higher than average when fighting with Avantage. It has to be this way if its going to be balanced. This will cause Barbarians to think other classes are higher DPS (because they are marking for them). If other classes start to shun Barbarians because their DPS is a tiny bit sub-par... they are forgetting the value of marking.
... barbarians no longer have mark or any other mechanic that provide CA.
3 weeks of discussion. Not a single comment from developers. Half a year without correcting the balance of classes. Yesterday I deleted my warlock, whom I played for 1.5 years. Tens of epic pets, artifacts, millions of spent AD. Continue to believe in balance. Nobody will hear you anyway. Good luck.
Let's look for solutions instead of arguing about multi-role advantage. These i have picked so far from the discussion.
1)Dev's reinvent the 3 dps paragons to support roles 2)Dev's introduce a class exchange token 3)Dev's give three of the 6 paragons of pure dps classes a niche i.e. being able to tank/dps or lifesteal/dps or buff/debuff at the same time. That's like tweaking instead of reinventing the whole paragon.
OR
4) Dev's give a small margin to pure dps classes 5) Dev's balance all classes equally without a margin.
Point's 4 and 5 are there because they require much less resources other than point 2 which i don't see the dev's doing.
Lastly, i understand pure balance is impossible, please refrain from mentioning the obvious. By balance, we mean the dps margin should be as close as possible.
3
darthpotaterMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,261Arc User
All this discussion in interesting, hard to find a long term solution but:
A good start could be change finally the dmg formula because how can you balance classes if they use different methods of calculating dmg? and then if they achieve a min-max of 5% difference between classes... people will accept that?
OHHHHHH NO. ToMM Calls will be full of that class that is ahead ofc. But wake up. Achieving that will be a MIRACLE. This game has 6 years and we never had a meta with anything near to 5% difference in DPS between classes.
Give thanks if you still have a role to play after the big rework.
Comments
For example:
Lets say you have a highly skilled player who knows the optimal rotations, playstyle etc for both a TR and GWF. I would not be against the TR being able to do 5%-10% more overall damage then GWF. That would be a hard cap though. Anything over 10% would be way too much. With that being said 10% may even be too much. I am not a number cruncher so i dont know if that 10% difference would be too much to make certain damage checks or not and may need to be tuned from that number.
Lets face it, unless weapon damage, attack speed and magnitude are homogenized across all classes (ie the first at will matches completely every other first at will) than damage will never be equal between classes. I dont think that giving those classes that only have the one role a small advantage over dual role classes is out of line.
I know for a fact that if there was no margin, the pure dps classes will almost certainly will ask for compensation for having only dps paragons. Then the whole story begins from square 1 and that was what i wanted to avoid. Nonetheless, i see clear advantages with having 2 roles.
I was one of those that never ever thought of playing DC, always played the dps version Arbiter. I have only invested in few rare pets for my healer but i have to agree that it really helped my boredom if nothing else, whenever i got bored of my dps. For that reason alone, i'll say that having an option is always an advantage but then you have facts like less investment and more options in parties to swap roles and etc and some of you probably still disagree but i don't think 2 wrongs make a right. If we as a non-meta class want justice, then we should also do justice.
The primary role is equal, the secondary role is 10% lower. Swapping primary and secondary role is not immediate in some way, a cost or cooldown.
2) Neverwinter is not a DnD game, it is an MMO set in the universe of Faerûn. This is a pretty important distinction as it means content design is done using the mindset used in the development of an MMO and not the mindset used in DnD. But ok, if you support the game being even more unbalanced than it is now, feel free to ask for it to be developed akin to a DnD game. I am pretty familiar with how well those rules translate into PC games and how Wizard almost universally is god tier in every single 1 of them, being able to do absolutely everything that all other classes can do and then do more on top of it. The DnD player handbook is not relevant at all to Neverwinter and never will be, there are non DnD games which are closer to the DnD ruleset than Neverwinter like for example Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which was released recently. Pretty much the only place DnD is used in the game is for the naming of enemies and they could have done what Pillars of Eternity did and call Kobalds, "Xaurips" etc and got away with that. Its there for the brand recognition, that is it.
3) You don't play those classes, you are a solo player. The fact of the matter is that the game is so easy at the moment outside of ToMM that you can solo/duo pretty much every other dungeon in the game in under half an hour, with next to no issues. Even if a class is so unbalanced that it does half the DpS of whatever the top DpS happens to be, it will have no problems soloing. Unless you are running ToMM or interested in running ToMM, class balance has very little impact on you and doesn't change your ability to run content. The classes are so brain dead you can learn to play any of them in 2-3 days and I am being generous there, since it will take 2 days to test them to find all the bugs and then 10 minutes to work out the optimal rotation and spam it. Also, what you are "interested" in playing does not represent everyone who plays multiple classes, I can name people who also play multiple classes and who do take advantage of both roles of OP for example, that doesn't mean that everyone who plays OP does that but it also doesn't take away from the fact that there is an advantage to having both roles.
4) Not relevant to the discussion, just like the player handbook is not relevant to balance in Neverwinter.
5) See point 3, Solo play is so easy that it should not be taken into consideration for balance discussions. When you can solo fbi and duo lomm, the difficulty of solo content is not something even worth discussing.
The fact of the matter is, having more choices is an advantage. The 1 class with 2 functioning roles is clear evidence of this, OP. Just because the other multi role classes don't have 2 functioning roles doesn't change the fact that having 2 roles is an advantage assuming both roles work and when balancing single role vs multi roles, this advantage should be taken into account as there is no functional advantage to have 2 of the same role.
I'm doubtful many of the current 2x dps would sincerely be thrilled to loose 40%of thier damage and be subpar at another support role knowing another class outperforms them by 40% and truly believe it's an actually fair tradeoff.
Whether it's 10% or 40% less, no one in thier right mind wants to invest is garbage, they invest to improve. A new player walking into a game and finding out midway that they just chose a class that will always be subpar...they quit playing, same as veterans that know it as fact.
When people posted repeatedly other things.
So warlocks in tomm at endgame do outstanding performance now, because from what I've seen in posted act logs. Its a 30 to close to 40% disparity. Not 10%
Arbiter, fighter, barbi, warlock are also dps. That actually 57.1% of the dps population underperforming. Sorry, wasnt exact enough.
1. Any consideration of multi role vs single role is only if/after the base inequality can be fixed.
2. Exactly in my post before yours, I repeat that suggestion and others, assures that you have 1 equal role, meaning Warlock DPS = Wizard DPS = Rogue DPS = Barbie DPS etc..
Please, take the time to actually read what people suggest and why, before jumping to some weird I don't know what.. You really think someones goal it to make a class 40% crappier?
A large portion of the people do believe that pure DPS roles should have a SMALL buff over those though.
In my opinion that is not asking to much in comparison to being able to multi role.
As to 60% of the dps population. Your correct not all dps population. I do so apologize to have offended you so greatly, what I specifically meant to say is that I'm refering to % of the dps roles available to the game. As in of 7 available and 4 underperform. What I meant by 60%, sorry, 57.1.% of the dps roles in the game.
I don't get what the issue, you missed them? You ignore them on purpose just to start something? Just please look above, this same page, I even quoted earlier post...
Hell, here:
We will get our class dps reassessment - the new damage formula that is being worked on will assure that.
Whether it's 10% or 40% less, no one in thier right mind wants to invest is garbage, they invest to improve. A new player walking into a game and finding out midway that they just chose a class that will always be subpar...they quit playing, same as veterans that know it as fact.
Refering to this
@micky1p00
The interesting part, is that one of the suggestions that met with such resentment (because people can't read) is not to add penalty to the class, but actually to assure equality on the role the player want to play.
The primary role is equal, the secondary role is 10% lower. Swapping primary and secondary role is not immediate in some way, a cost or cooldown.
Each roles is seperate on dual roles, geared seperate, comps, etc. Whether it's to be a healer or dps. I agree as I stated above offer 2x dps a support role.
How about to let the main role of the classes (the one assigned before lvl 30) remains without penalties, and that the secondary role gets a penalty of x % ... E.g: Barb is DPS (primary), tank (secondary), Warlock is DPS (Primary), healer (Secondary) Cleric is healer (Primary), etc pre lvl 30. To be honest I don't agree with that because I want all paths to have the same opportunities...i believed in Asterdahl words:
The problem with people aiming for a penalization for two roles classes is because of their intolerance of the existance of other DPS paths and their viability, they don't want to see a Warlock or Cleric near their master class Wizard , or a Fighter able to do the same damage than a Ranger or Rogue... They want the current Mod 17 end game META to persist for all future game content. Wiz, Ranger, Rogue as DPS and everything else as their support slaves.
And in the post you quited, 1 role always equal.. Really why is it so complex. Dual role class, one role always equal, to others with the same role as primary or single role. And you can swap which is equal and which is not. Really.. not complex. It's not even my bloody idea, nor I prefer it, and now I end up arguing for it, because people just do not read..
And you know, yes, no one want to invest into garbage, why would anyone invest in single role class if there are better options? If they gear it and found at the end it is dead end garbage.
Again, read previous posts. I went over this in depth in my reply to Jules.
Here from the first post in this thread:
Will it happen, that the devs will change a role, if people even refuse to acknowledge an issue? Probably not, too many resources they will not commit, so other suggestions are just easier to implement at the cost of worse result.
If the dual dps roles are given an effective (not necessarily even) secondary role and the currently classes have their primary/secondary roles buffed to be effective (not necessarily even) then that would be great, but i find it highly unlikely that the dev team is going to completely reinvent 3 paragon paths from scratch.
Not that i said not necessarily even as i dont think any classes Secondary roles should be equal to another classes primary role. no classes secondary role should be more effective than another classes primary role in a well balanced system, in my opinion.
I get it was insane having a soul puppet one shot orcus, but the only viable build after was the obc build, and quite costly at that. But a few mods later, I'll be honest the single target was exceptional and once the griffins wrath nerf occured , warlocks were the highest single target damage dealers. They could have used a nerf then. Same with my wizard, icy terrain nerf and lightning nerf I shelved it untill mof builds became viable again. Mod 15 warlocks and wizards were both top damage dealers and offered buffs with viable low coat buff builds.
But now, my wizard is geared up and I'm playing it primarily again, and pally as a tank, and cleric as a healer. From my point, I dont need another healer. My paly and cleric both excel as the roles I geared them for, but as I said, my cleric is endgame as a healer, why bother gearing pally shieldbot when its setup as tank, etc. Same as a soulweaver. I prefer to have one 2 dps, one tank, one heal.
Unfortunately warlocks are exceptionally bad at both roles, mine sits in mediocrity with 4 leg mounts, over 30 leg comps and absolute trash now.
Agree with this. If the problem isn't two roles classes having the same chances as DPS compared with DPS/DPS classes, the problem is that the single role classes haven't another role...If they think that having two roles is an advantage, let's give them a new role, same opportunities for any class. The problem is that devs are bound with WotC rules about classes (I think), I know there's a possible healer role for Rangers because you can heal with a Ranger in D&D but... How about Wizard and Rogue? What role can they have? they need to bring again control and debuff/buff, etc to the game.
controller being a alternative for tanks? looks pretty cool, but find a way to do that is so improbable...
i just see three ways to fix that.
1 - balance every dps. first that is more subjective than a number thing. second... not sure if that is really fair for full dps.
2 - creating a offensive tanks/healers. that means, FIRST rework old and new gears to have that extra offensive bonus based in your class role (change for exemple 2% damage to your melee attacks to extra threat/defense/outcoming healing, etc based in your role ) and then, and only then, give extra heals and defensive mechanicals to bladmasters, dreads, arbiters, etc (my favorite choice by the way)
3 - no class will be dps annymore. now they are buffers and debuffers. the brute damage will be responsability of the entire party, but the magnitude of that damage come indirectly from the buffers/debuffers. that is THE MOST FAIR IDEA, but i think dps players will hate to see tanks dealing more damage, even if 150% of that damage come from secundary buffs.
And no - those classes having different role paragon paths are not stupid - they are simply broken - you know @asterdahl 's different coding - add to that not existing testing at voila - we have very basics of the game broken.
On top of that I would like to remind you that before MOD 16 at least in theory every class had at least 2 pargon/role paths to follow and thare was possible to actually make hybrids, and put them to good use.
But that is gone.
All we have now is few classes working as intended (mostly) or at least having one viable paragon path, and rest of classes not having even one viable paragon path.
Asking for dps/heal/tank classes to be equal, is actually asking to reduce their numbers to one of each.
There is no way thats gona happend.
Also do not count on miracles in getting classes to be at least on similar level.
All you can hope for is, that there will be more paragons paths worth considering or exchangable with current meta classes.
But than again current state of developer team and lack of resources makes it difficult to belive that its gona happend soon, and even if - dont count on a quality of another rework - Cryptic was preparing for a long time to MOD 16 at it ended up here - as the most beautiful catastrophe. It is almost 6 months since release and we are nowhere near to WAI state, so dont hold your breath here.
And last but not least
Dont worry - there gona be a new class - and while there is no to many options left on the table - its gona be a support class - and guess what - there is no need to use lot of resources to make one - its gona use all that buff/debuff abilities we are missing on our classes after MOD 16 transfer.
That is their last option to keep this game alive and that is how its gona be implemented - I am ready to bet on that
So , yeah I belive this game is going to go back on old tracks lot sooner then many of you think, and all that MOD 16 revolutions is going to nothing more than z detour - pretty much like MOD 6, but this time with more severe consequences....
So really guys calm down here - no need to argue or getting personal here - just play the game trying to have as much fun of it as possible before situation will change....again.....
That said, the classes should be more similar in damage potential. One of the best ways to improve paragons which are underperforming is to start buffing the skills in them that are least used. This is a no-brainer and is a safe move.
My Barbarian and Wizard were maxed out in Mod 15, but now, only my Paladin is maxed out. I chose to specialize her into maximum DPS. I do approximately the same damage as a 20k DPS class that is well equipped and uses good tactics. This means, by the time these DPS hit ToMM level and have maxed out their gear.. they are dealing up to 150% of my damage. The drawback to a DPS paladin is that is that i am very squishy vs tougher bosses like those in LoMM & ToMM, even Ras Nisi or Vlad. To compensate, i have to try to play smart & sometimes put away my sword for a shield in terms of gear & skill swaps.
I think Wizard should continue to have some bugs cleaned out of it... but should be thought of as the new STANDARD for DPS damage. It seems to me that Rogue & Ranger are higher DPS than Wizard... but the Wizard is more forgiving to newer players.
The Barbarian and other classes that can maintain Combat Advantage through marks provide a real balancing challenge. Maxed combat advantage (while active) gives a player 66% more damage. Because of this, the Barbarian has to have a very level DPS level. Classes with no ability to maintain marking will have lower DPS before combat advantage... probably higher than average when fighting with Avantage. It has to be this way if its going to be balanced. This will cause Barbarians to think other classes are higher DPS (because they are marking for them). If other classes start to shun Barbarians because their DPS is a tiny bit sub-par... they are forgetting the value of marking.
As a Paladin, I'd gladly accept a 5% damage debuff, if my class could provide a mark. To me this would actually make sense. In D&D Paladins are fighter-buffers with a specialty against Good/Evil. In what universe do Barbarians provide their army with tactical damage improvement? Neverwinter i guess.
... barbarians no longer have mark or any other mechanic that provide CA.
Yesterday I deleted my warlock, whom I played for 1.5 years. Tens of epic pets, artifacts, millions of spent AD.
Continue to believe in balance. Nobody will hear you anyway. Good luck.
1)Dev's reinvent the 3 dps paragons to support roles
2)Dev's introduce a class exchange token
3)Dev's give three of the 6 paragons of pure dps classes a niche i.e. being able to tank/dps or lifesteal/dps or buff/debuff at the same time. That's like tweaking instead of reinventing the whole paragon.
OR
4) Dev's give a small margin to pure dps classes
5) Dev's balance all classes equally without a margin.
Point's 4 and 5 are there because they require much less resources other than point 2 which i don't see the dev's doing.
Lastly, i understand pure balance is impossible, please refrain from mentioning the obvious. By balance, we mean the dps margin should be as close as possible.
A good start could be change finally the dmg formula because how can you balance classes if they use different methods of calculating dmg? and then if they achieve a min-max of 5% difference between classes... people will accept that?
OHHHHHH NO. ToMM Calls will be full of that class that is ahead ofc. But wake up. Achieving that will be a MIRACLE. This game has 6 years and we never had a meta with anything near to 5% difference in DPS between classes.
Give thanks if you still have a role to play after the big rework.
Caturday Survivor
Elemental Evil Survivor
Undermontain Survivor
Mod20 Combat rework Survivor
Mod22 Refinement rework Survivor