This is one of the reasons GWF keep thinking they should do as much damage as a trickster rogue. You're wrong; Fighters ARE Defenders, this IS 4th edition. asavios posted a source for you below your post.
The sooner people realize GWF are still Defenders, the sooner we can get past the threads with people crying because rogues (STRIKERS) out dps them.
Looking at my original post (of which you quoted), no where does it say GWF should do as much damage as a TR. However, I also used a quote which was taken directly from Cryptic themselves (this very web site), which states "Primary roll: Damage dealers, Secondary Roll: Defenders.". Not sure where the ambiguity in this statement is.
Finally, I'm sure you probably know this and that your comment was only to pull my leg, but the devs have said MANY a time that this game is inspired by 4e, not ruled by it. Therefore, no, its most certainly not 4e (devs words, not mine).
"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" (I love THIS game by the way).
Looking at my original post (of which you quoted), no where does it say GWF should do as much damage as a TR. However, I also used a quote which was taken directly from Cryptic themselves (this very web site), which states "Primary roll: Damage dealers, Secondary Roll: Defenders.". Not sure where the ambiguity in this statement is.
Finally, I'm sure you probably know this and that your comment was only to pull my leg, but the devs have said MANY a time that this game is inspired by 4e, not ruled by it. Therefore, no, its most certainly not 4e (devs words, not mine).
"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" (I love THIS game by the way).
You actually didn't use a quote by Cryptic, because you neither provided the quote or source, so...
By your definition of "Damage Dealer", every class can fall under that category. I'll stick with the 4th edition roles, which the game is obviously modeled after. In 4th edition roles, Great Weapon Fighters are an offensive defender. Yes, they do more damage than a sword and board Guardian, but they are still a defender, they have abilities that draw attention to them, and prevent them from moving way from them, which the GWF in NWO also have.
I'm sure there will be plenty of people who disagree and think the GWF is a 2-hand weapon DPSer, not realizing at some point they will probably add one of the most iconic D&D classes, the Barbarian. When (if) they add a Barbarian, then we'll have a real 2-hand weapon Striker.
BEARDY -=Dark Star Syndicate-Heavy RP, Dark Themes=- Website★Recruitment
0
werealchemistMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
also to clarify, he out dps'd 1 CW, as the other didn't join the group till the 2nd boss.
How much do clothes cost in the Matrix?
0
klangeddinMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 882Arc User
edited April 2013
The best thing I noticed from the video was one of the two guardian fighters using a one handed war hammer, so thankfully we're not stuck with swords after all. Here's hoping they add one handed axes as well...
0
zingarbageMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
You actually didn't use a quote by Cryptic, because you neither provided the quote or source, so...
By your definition of "Damage Dealer", every class can fall under that category. I'll stick with the 4th edition roles, which the game is obviously modeled after. In 4th edition roles, Great Weapon Fighters are an offensive defender. Yes, they do more damage than a sword and board Guardian, but they are still a defender, they have abilities that draw attention to them, and prevent them from moving way from them, which the GWF in NWO also have.
I'm sure there will be plenty of people who disagree and think the GWF is a 2-hand weapon DPSer, not realizing at some point they will probably add one of the most iconic D&D classes, the Barbarian. When (if) they add a Barbarian, then we'll have a real 2-hand weapon Striker.
GWF are classified as a striker but can build as a defender if they choose. I'm not sure why people keep saying they are a defender that can do some dps.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
dshearnMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 27Arc User
GWF are classified as a striker but can build as a defender if they choose. I'm not sure why people keep saying they are a defender that can do some dps.
That would be a major flub if Cryptic wants to build it out as a Striker....
In fact.... GWF are screwed if that is their vision....
They clearly already has a skill set that is built TOO middle of the road to be DPS rivals of pure DPS classes
The odds of keeping an off tank role are toast if they are "strikers", when other "defender" classes come on board they ill cry to high hell if a Striker is the best off tank.
I don't see how GWF can escape the fact that GWFs dps will almost certainly be balanced against the fact they have "tankish" abilities AND utility skills.
When the other SOFT DPS classes join the game, they are almost CERTINALLY going to out DPS a class with as much mitigation the GWF.
If I was the GWF playerbase....I would be working darn hard to get the GWF as the AOE off tank role, or play something else until the BARB joins the game...
0
zingarbageMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
That would be a major flub if Cryptic wants to build it out as a Striker....
In fact.... GWF are screwed if that is their vision....
They clearly already has a skill set that is built TOO middle of the road to be DPS rivals of pure DPS classes
The odds of keeping an off tank role are toast if they are "strikers", when other "defender" classes come on board they ill cry to high hell if a Striker is the best off tank.
I don't see how GWF can escape the fact that GWFs dps will almost certainly be balanced against the fact they have "tankish" abilities AND utility skills.
When the other SOFT DPS classes join the game, they are almost CERTINALLY going to out DPS a class with as much mitigation the GWF.
If I was the GWF playerbase....I would be working darn hard to get the GWF as the AOE off tank role, or play something else until the BARB joins the game...
The GWF is already structured enough that in order to maximize dps it has to forgo being tanky. Sure, they can somewhat split how they gear and feat, but that is just a choice they make to be adequate at both but great at neither.
Of course they can always re-gear and respec, but that will get expensive.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
dshearnMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 27Arc User
The GWF is already structured enough that in order to maximize dps it has to forgo being tanky. Sure, they can somewhat split how they gear and feat, but that is just a choice they make to be adequate at both but great at neither.
Of course they can always re-gear and respec, but that will get expensive.
That worked for original DnD you balanced the classes by the attribute scores.....yea you could be a Pally...but your stats will be watered down...you are not likely to be on par with a Fighter who can focus on Strength and Con, he does not need Wis and Char. But you got to play what you want and your buddies would appreciate what you brought to the table.
In MMOs you have far to many players that are not meeting their 4 best buds to play with every night. A class with no role is going to be left out...far to often.
GWF are classified as a striker but can build as a defender if they choose. I'm not sure why people keep saying they are a defender that can do some dps.
Because in 4th edition, ALL Fighters, regardless of type (Guardian, Great Weapon, Battlerager, Brawler, Tempest, etc.) are Defenders.
There hasn't been anything offical that says GWF are Strikers. Until a developer comes out and says "Great Weapon Fighters are Strikers", then I'm going to stick with what 4th edition (what the game is based on) considers them, Defenders.
Calling a GWF a striker is like calling a Control Wizard a striker just because it has a tree that lets it maximize damage. At its core it's still a controller, never to be equal to a real striker.
BEARDY -=Dark Star Syndicate-Heavy RP, Dark Themes=- Website★Recruitment
The best thing I noticed from the video was one of the two guardian fighters using a one handed war hammer, so thankfully we're not stuck with swords after all. Here's hoping they add one handed axes as well...
I looted an axe for my guardian from the level 14 or 15 Scenario. I forget what it was called, but it had Gruumsh in the name. So if we're getting them that early on, I hope we continue to get them. It will be very difficult to play a Dwarf Guardian if I'm forced to use a Sword at higher levels.
BEARDY -=Dark Star Syndicate-Heavy RP, Dark Themes=- Website★Recruitment
1.) Who cares, he's a tank/DPS hybrid who is #2 in the groups DPS, and CWs are good DPS
2.) He's the only melee in the group, there is no tank besides him, and he's a tank hybrid class. His DPS would actually be BETTER if there were a tank because he would have combat advantage, and a GF to keep mobs bunched up instead of CW breaking them apart would have helped his DPS also.
3.) Better is better. If you're going to use anecdotal evidence to support a theory, at least have an example of it. I have a source right here where a GWF outperforms 2/3 control wizards in DPS.
If you want a pure DPS character, play a TR. If you want a melee who can sustain himself in combat and wears medium armor but sacrifices a bit of DPS for livability, play a GWF. They're still some of the best DPS in the game with great tanking ability. As this video clearly demonstrates.
Did you really not expect there to be any drawbacks to possessing more defensive measures than the TR? Or were people just expecting some ridiculously overpowered class that could do everything? As nearly as I can tell, any "nerfs" were clearly needed class balance adjustments.
1. CW are also not pure DPS, they are Control/DPS hybrids. They shouldn't be out-dpsing another hybrid.
2. Pretty sure there's a Guardian Fighter in there tanking also, Unstoppable >> Combat Advantage for DPS for GWF, especially when you use it on lots of mobs and aoe.
3. Your maths is as bad as your arguments. Only 2 CWs in the group, and he outperforms only 1, so he outperforms 1/2 out of CWs based on the sample. Also, as someone else mentioned, 2nd CW joins after 2nd boss, so yeah, you can only conclusively say that he gets beaten by 1/1 or 100% of CWs using your logic. Thanks for supporting my point.
4. What class do you play as main?
0
xotrasMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited April 2013
Whatever the view, striker or defender. 4th edition or not.
The point still stands, the GWF have defensive abilities and can spec deeper for it.
As long as this is true, the GWF is a partial tank. NOONE can argue that.
Even If its rated as striker 1st, tank 2nd, doesnt mean it should compare to pure striker classes.
TR is **** squishy compared. And has mainly only single target dps.
What do you expect, to hit for same numbers as the TR for every swing you take hitting in an 360 arc??
Logic is flawed.
Also, about the damagemeters, thats only relative. He did good, thats what matters, dont start calculating this.
Way to many parameters here. We do not know the gear, we do not know the spec, and we know NOTHING about his party members. Just let it go.
Im impressed by the numbers and the amount of hits. Tanking and playstyle. GWF Looks like a beast.
-50 random rogue (not me) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8f5z4-v0TA
He have big numbers at times, but those have long cd's. And only Single target. Im not that impressed with the rogue really.
Whatever the view, striker or defender. 4th edition or not.
The point still stands, the GWF have defensive abilities and can spec deeper for it.
As long as this is true, the GWF is a partial tank. NOONE can argue that.
Even If its rated as striker 1st, tank 2nd, doesnt mean it should compare to pure striker classes.
TR is **** squishy compared. And has mainly only single target dps.
What do you expect, to hit for same numbers as the TR for every swing you take hitting in an 360 arc??
Logic is flawed.
Also, about the damagemeters, thats only relative. He did good, thats what matters, dont start calculating this.
Way to many parameters here. We do not know the gear, we do not know the spec, and we know NOTHING about his party members. Just let it go.
Im impressed by the numbers and the amount of hits. Tanking and playstyle. GWF Looks like a beast.
-50 random rogue (not me) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8f5z4-v0TA
He have big numbers at times, but those have long cd's. And only Single target. Im not that impressed with the rogue really.
Are you kidding me, that rogue was doing 10,000 damage singlet target WUT!? I was about to roll GWF but now.. I may not :-/
Pinkamena Diane Pie - Great Warrior Fighter
One, two, Pinkie's coming for you, three, four, you better lock your door, five, six, grab your crucifix, seven, eight, gonna stay up late, nine, ten, never party again.
0
mewbreyMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 517Bounty Hunter
edited April 2013
My honest feeling and I play a cleric so I have no care about the damage in all honesty of most classes, but I feel the GWF should be doing the same if not a little more damage than a CW but a little less than at TR, the TR are more squishy but stealth when used well is better than armor. Reason I feel GWF should be higher damage than CW is that the GWF has to be in melee so is taking a few extra risks from cleaves and so on.
I feel that damage should rest a little like this, but achieved in different ways as per class.
10 TR (Single target)
8 GWF (Area of effect & Off tank)
7 CW (Ranged Single & Control)
7 GF (Area of effect & Main tanking)
6 DC (Ranged area of effect & Healing)
Not, that it is like that but in my little world it is how I would aim to have things with the current classes, along with the current paragon classes available.
I hope they go with Striker over Defender. I absolutely hate tanking, I am a PvPer by nature. The guy with the biggest, baddest weapon can't compare damage with a the little dagger class? Gross.
This should be a purely spec based difference, IMO.
If you spec/gear full Damage, you should be able to rock TR damage. (Not with cleaves! They are weaker than Sure Strike anyhow!)
If you spec survivability/health, you should be able to more effeciently AoE tank than GF.
So we are the BEST of one world when choosing via gear/spec options. Not crappier than both at both, but can kinda do both... 'Cause that is just lame.
I loved the PvP mechanics, but felt I needed at a %50 -%100 damage buff of Regen Strike for burst. (When I hit obviously lowered geared clothies, I felt like the power of the skill was spot on. But against equally geared people it was negligible.)
Perhaps having the Taunt spells have Damage and Taunt mechanics, only one of which gets buffed with feats points, so you have to choose but still use the same abilities.
Food for thought.
0
whitewabbitpookiMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 22Arc User
edited April 2013
i never have seen gwf do alot of dps beacuse im pretty sure they arent good players playing the class. alot of classes specs need to beplayed in a matter to do more damage. for example guardian there is a talent that makes you do more damage to targets with less health. there is another that deals more damage to targets that are prone, and a skill that does double daamge to targets below 25 percent. however how often are people using this combo / rarely i pvped quite alot in beta 4 and found very few people who actualy played there class well . to that note i think most dps think they dont do alot of damage but in reality they are not donig alot beacuse they are not maximzing there class.
By your definition of "Damage Dealer", every class can fall under that category. I'll stick with the 4th edition roles, which the game is obviously modeled after. In 4th edition roles, Great Weapon Fighters are an offensive defender. Yes, they do more damage than a sword and board Guardian, but they are still a defender, they have abilities that draw attention to them, and prevent them from moving way from them, which the GWF in NWO also have.
I'm only really going by what I believe was the original intent of Cryptic was for this class. Maybe they changed thier minds. All I know is that I had a lot of fun in BW3 with this class. I certainly would not expect the GWF to do more damage than the TR, just not to be nerfed to where they are now. Yes they are off tanks, but I don't think they are very good at damage mitigation (certainly not compared to the perma stealth Rogue - which I think is fine as is and does not need any nerf bat).
not realizing at some point they will probably add one of the most iconic D&D classes, the Barbarian. When (if) they add a Barbarian, then we'll have a real 2-hand weapon Striker.
Quote for the win!!! In all honesty, the GWF is really only to tie me by until the Barbarian comes along to create true 2-handed havoc.
This is pure speculation on my part... but from what I see/expect...
GWF is a Fighter and Barbarian in one.
TR is a Thief and Dual Wield Ranger in one.
I am not holding my breath for seeing either of those classes come out. I expect a Bow wielding ranger and another hybrid caster before either of those "fan favorites" mentioned above.
It really appears, to me, that those classes were chosen to fill more than one classes' shoes.
(Which, if GWF stays as tanky as it is, is sorely disappointing to me.)
Comments
Looking at my original post (of which you quoted), no where does it say GWF should do as much damage as a TR. However, I also used a quote which was taken directly from Cryptic themselves (this very web site), which states "Primary roll: Damage dealers, Secondary Roll: Defenders.". Not sure where the ambiguity in this statement is.
Finally, I'm sure you probably know this and that your comment was only to pull my leg, but the devs have said MANY a time that this game is inspired by 4e, not ruled by it. Therefore, no, its most certainly not 4e (devs words, not mine).
"Don't hate the playa, hate the game" (I love THIS game by the way).
You actually didn't use a quote by Cryptic, because you neither provided the quote or source, so...
By your definition of "Damage Dealer", every class can fall under that category. I'll stick with the 4th edition roles, which the game is obviously modeled after. In 4th edition roles, Great Weapon Fighters are an offensive defender. Yes, they do more damage than a sword and board Guardian, but they are still a defender, they have abilities that draw attention to them, and prevent them from moving way from them, which the GWF in NWO also have.
I'm sure there will be plenty of people who disagree and think the GWF is a 2-hand weapon DPSer, not realizing at some point they will probably add one of the most iconic D&D classes, the Barbarian. When (if) they add a Barbarian, then we'll have a real 2-hand weapon Striker.
-= Dark Star Syndicate - Heavy RP, Dark Themes =-
Website ★ Recruitment
GWF - multiple mob tank
GF - Boss/single mob tank
GWF are classified as a striker but can build as a defender if they choose. I'm not sure why people keep saying they are a defender that can do some dps.
That would be a major flub if Cryptic wants to build it out as a Striker....
In fact.... GWF are screwed if that is their vision....
They clearly already has a skill set that is built TOO middle of the road to be DPS rivals of pure DPS classes
The odds of keeping an off tank role are toast if they are "strikers", when other "defender" classes come on board they ill cry to high hell if a Striker is the best off tank.
I don't see how GWF can escape the fact that GWFs dps will almost certainly be balanced against the fact they have "tankish" abilities AND utility skills.
When the other SOFT DPS classes join the game, they are almost CERTINALLY going to out DPS a class with as much mitigation the GWF.
If I was the GWF playerbase....I would be working darn hard to get the GWF as the AOE off tank role, or play something else until the BARB joins the game...
The GWF is already structured enough that in order to maximize dps it has to forgo being tanky. Sure, they can somewhat split how they gear and feat, but that is just a choice they make to be adequate at both but great at neither.
Of course they can always re-gear and respec, but that will get expensive.
That worked for original DnD you balanced the classes by the attribute scores.....yea you could be a Pally...but your stats will be watered down...you are not likely to be on par with a Fighter who can focus on Strength and Con, he does not need Wis and Char. But you got to play what you want and your buddies would appreciate what you brought to the table.
In MMOs you have far to many players that are not meeting their 4 best buds to play with every night. A class with no role is going to be left out...far to often.
Because in 4th edition, ALL Fighters, regardless of type (Guardian, Great Weapon, Battlerager, Brawler, Tempest, etc.) are Defenders.
There hasn't been anything offical that says GWF are Strikers. Until a developer comes out and says "Great Weapon Fighters are Strikers", then I'm going to stick with what 4th edition (what the game is based on) considers them, Defenders.
Calling a GWF a striker is like calling a Control Wizard a striker just because it has a tree that lets it maximize damage. At its core it's still a controller, never to be equal to a real striker.
-= Dark Star Syndicate - Heavy RP, Dark Themes =-
Website ★ Recruitment
I looted an axe for my guardian from the level 14 or 15 Scenario. I forget what it was called, but it had Gruumsh in the name. So if we're getting them that early on, I hope we continue to get them. It will be very difficult to play a Dwarf Guardian if I'm forced to use a Sword at higher levels.
-= Dark Star Syndicate - Heavy RP, Dark Themes =-
Website ★ Recruitment
1. CW are also not pure DPS, they are Control/DPS hybrids. They shouldn't be out-dpsing another hybrid.
2. Pretty sure there's a Guardian Fighter in there tanking also, Unstoppable >> Combat Advantage for DPS for GWF, especially when you use it on lots of mobs and aoe.
3. Your maths is as bad as your arguments. Only 2 CWs in the group, and he outperforms only 1, so he outperforms 1/2 out of CWs based on the sample. Also, as someone else mentioned, 2nd CW joins after 2nd boss, so yeah, you can only conclusively say that he gets beaten by 1/1 or 100% of CWs using your logic. Thanks for supporting my point.
4. What class do you play as main?
The point still stands, the GWF have defensive abilities and can spec deeper for it.
As long as this is true, the GWF is a partial tank. NOONE can argue that.
Even If its rated as striker 1st, tank 2nd, doesnt mean it should compare to pure striker classes.
TR is **** squishy compared. And has mainly only single target dps.
What do you expect, to hit for same numbers as the TR for every swing you take hitting in an 360 arc??
Logic is flawed.
Also, about the damagemeters, thats only relative. He did good, thats what matters, dont start calculating this.
Way to many parameters here. We do not know the gear, we do not know the spec, and we know NOTHING about his party members. Just let it go.
Im impressed by the numbers and the amount of hits. Tanking and playstyle. GWF Looks like a beast.
-50 random rogue (not me)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8f5z4-v0TA
He have big numbers at times, but those have long cd's. And only Single target. Im not that impressed with the rogue really.
Are you kidding me, that rogue was doing 10,000 damage singlet target WUT!? I was about to roll GWF but now.. I may not :-/
I feel that damage should rest a little like this, but achieved in different ways as per class.
10 TR (Single target)
8 GWF (Area of effect & Off tank)
7 CW (Ranged Single & Control)
7 GF (Area of effect & Main tanking)
6 DC (Ranged area of effect & Healing)
Not, that it is like that but in my little world it is how I would aim to have things with the current classes, along with the current paragon classes available.
This should be a purely spec based difference, IMO.
If you spec/gear full Damage, you should be able to rock TR damage. (Not with cleaves! They are weaker than Sure Strike anyhow!)
If you spec survivability/health, you should be able to more effeciently AoE tank than GF.
So we are the BEST of one world when choosing via gear/spec options. Not crappier than both at both, but can kinda do both... 'Cause that is just lame.
I loved the PvP mechanics, but felt I needed at a %50 -%100 damage buff of Regen Strike for burst. (When I hit obviously lowered geared clothies, I felt like the power of the skill was spot on. But against equally geared people it was negligible.)
Perhaps having the Taunt spells have Damage and Taunt mechanics, only one of which gets buffed with feats points, so you have to choose but still use the same abilities.
Food for thought.
Believe me or not, this was actually on the original description for the GWF, so I'm sure you can find it yourself.
I'm only really going by what I believe was the original intent of Cryptic was for this class. Maybe they changed thier minds. All I know is that I had a lot of fun in BW3 with this class. I certainly would not expect the GWF to do more damage than the TR, just not to be nerfed to where they are now. Yes they are off tanks, but I don't think they are very good at damage mitigation (certainly not compared to the perma stealth Rogue - which I think is fine as is and does not need any nerf bat).
Quote for the win!!! In all honesty, the GWF is really only to tie me by until the Barbarian comes along to create true 2-handed havoc.
GWF is a Fighter and Barbarian in one.
TR is a Thief and Dual Wield Ranger in one.
I am not holding my breath for seeing either of those classes come out. I expect a Bow wielding ranger and another hybrid caster before either of those "fan favorites" mentioned above.
It really appears, to me, that those classes were chosen to fill more than one classes' shoes.
(Which, if GWF stays as tanky as it is, is sorely disappointing to me.)