People here seem to think that there is only one type of control, positional control. That is incorrect. Once again: damage is a *form* of control. A dead mob is a controlled mob. There is nothing inconsistent with the title of a *Control* Wizard and that wizard dealing lots of damage.
In most of the CW's spells, there is a tradeoff between control via position and control via damage.
Arcane Singularity is great at control via position, but lousy at control via damage.
Oppressive Force is great at control via damage, but not that great at control via position (it tends to scatter the mobs). Same with Shard.
Steal Time - great with control with position (makes everyone stationary) but lousy with control via damage (doesn't do much damage at all). Same with Entangling Force, except it only controls one mob at a time, or if in Spell Mastery, only the mobs nearby, and does almost no damage.
Conduit of Ice - great with control via damage, *fantastic* if the CW is Thaum due to debuffing, but not that great at control via position (it doesn't position the mobs at all), although it does add chill stacks.
Icy Rays - great with control via damage, especially if feated and in Spell Mastery, but lousy at control via position because it only affects a very small number of mobs - and in this case, the larger the number of mobs affected (greater control via position), the damage goes down (lesser control via damage).
So you see the yin-yang aspect of the CW's arsenal of abilities.
So when people say "nerf CW damage but boost CW control (by position only)", what they are really saying is to get rid of about half of the CW's entire list of encounters and dailies. I mean, there is no other point to Shard other than to blow up a bunch of mobs. It DOESN'T yield ANY control via position at all. You might as well just get rid of Shard entirely at that point.
Now I do think that, just like with the melee classes that there is a tradeoff between having high DPS/low defense and high defense/low DPS, that the same ought to apply to a CW as well when it comes to the two aspects of control. It appears that that was supposed to be the original intent of the three CW feat trees. Oppressor is supposed to be the one that is high control via position (focusing on chill stacks and freezing mobs in place) and low control via damage; Renegade is supposed to be the one that is high control via damage (focusing on crits so much) and low control via position. And Thaum was supposed to be this middle ground that did damage, just not directly via crits but instead via debuffing and DoT effects.
Now as we know, the "middle ground" Thaum feat tree turns out to be the best one in terms of dealing AOE damage, because Thaums still retained a substantial ability to control via position but the debuffing yielded much better results due to everyone's stat inflation. So Thaum CW's don't have to make the tradeoff between the different forms of control. They are able, more or less, to have the best of both worlds.
So if the Thaum feat tree is reworked so as to make the debuffing and DoT effects weaker, in order to create more of a forced choice between control via damage and control via position, then that would be fine.
But it would be absolutely wrong to just insist that CWs should not be able to deal high amounts of damage. CW's ought to be able to retain the ability to deal huge amounts of single-target damage if they so choose. But CW's who choose to spec so that this is possible ought to give up, substantially, the ability to control via positioning large numbers of mobs.
deleted...............
0
degraafinationMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
CWs definitely need a boost in PvP and a nerf in PvE. While the currently planned damage nerf to GWFs is no doubt going to be a boon for CWs, that doesn't really address any CW-specific concerns. And GWFs might warrant some additional changes besides; their Threatening Rush will still be too good at closing gaps. The upcoming rumored nerf to permastealth TRs should also help out CWs a bit. And finally, they also once mentioned a bug allowing Deflect to resist cc effects; that may also turn out to be a huge boon to CWs if it gets fixed. Ditto for fixing bugs involving Armor Penetration not affecting lots of CW powers.
What CWs need is some sort of boost to their single-target control and damage and a large reduction in their area damage, with increased control -- i.e. higher target caps or longer durations to make it easier for a single CW to bring sufficient control to dungeons, with overall reduced damage so that a CW should inflict damage that's overall less than the DPS-oriented classes like TRs and GWFs in dungeon runs. At the same time, more powerful and mobile individual creatures with control resistance or immunity should be added that require tanking.
Ways to achieve that would be like halving the damage that spells like Steal Time and Shard of the Endless Avalanche do, but slightly increasing their duration or target cap. Maybe increase the overall duration of single-target control spells like Entangling Force, allow CWs to ignore 100% of Tenacity-based Control Resist at least with some spells (especially as M3 is going to introduce much higher Tenacity values) or just boosting stuff like Orb of Imposition to add a higher overall bonus to control duration -- maybe 25% overall rather than 15%. Something like that. Maybe a boost to some of their Defense/Movement-oriented feats like Brisk Transport. Maybe some high-end Oppressor feat could apply a stack of chill each time someone strikes the CW (not with a DoT effect). Making Maelstrom of Chaos cost less AP (like HR powers -- 25%/50% rather than 50%/100%) would perhaps allow it to be used as a defensive option in some cases by partial casting it.
CWs are basically everyone's favorite targets in PvP, and they don't really have a combination of survivability, damage output, control or team utility that makes them particularly worthwhile for PvP. Their inability to hold a platform on their own can be a huge liability with some compositions. And they will be further nerfed in M3 open world-style PvP with the addition of companion active bonuses that render their control practically nil.
All good points here. They work best in PVP with another player, often another CW or HR. Solo, they're often dead in the water.
Agreed! Let's figure out a way to nerf then in PVE and buff PVP at the same time. Target caps?
The AoE hits everyone but the main target for less damage? Come on guys, CW needs a PVP buff and a PVE nerf, we all know it, let's work together rather than fight about it. There is a way to make everyone happy
Nerf cws at pve, do longer dungeons and it won't make evebody happy at all...
Support classes are those who help others to defeat the enemies. Support classes have hard times trying to kill others by themselves, just like DCs.
Killing isn't a form of control, it's killing. This is not WoW where we have DPS, Healer and Tank, we have Striker AND Control. Having both make us really OP and make other Strikers look like sh**, and this is what is happening currently on PvE.
And I don't know where you get that "non-killing control" is positional only. Stun, Prone, Daze and Root are really not positional and it's still control, and Controllers also debuff their enemies, to help them to perish.
I really cannot see another form to balance things but the way I pointed. You cannot give control to Strikers and you cannot get control away from Controllers.
It's a secondary role for Wizards indeed, but since the class has "Control" in its name it's supposed to be Controller. If not, change its name to Destruction Wizard and create an actual CONTROL Wizard, just like what they made with the Guardian Fighter (Defender) and Great Weapon Fighter (Striker).
Support classes are those who help others to defeat the enemies. Support classes have hard times trying to kill others by themselves, just like DCs.
Killing isn't a form of control, it's killing. This is not WoW where we have DPS, Healer and Tank, we have Striker AND Control. Having both make us really OP and make other Strikers look like sh**, and this is what is happening currently on PvE.
And I don't know where you get that "non-killing control" is positional only. Stun, Prone, Daze and Root are really not positional and it's still control, and Controllers also debuff their enemies, to help them to perish.
I really cannot see another form to balance things but the way I pointed. You cannot give control to Strikers and you cannot get control away from Controllers.
It's a secondary role for Wizards indeed, but since the class has "Control" in its name it's supposed to be Controller. If not, change its name to Destruction Wizard and create an actual CONTROL Wizard, just like what they made with the Guardian Fighter (Defender) and Great Weapon Fighter (Striker).
But Strikers do have a type of control as well. Look at GWF's Takedown. That is a prone, that is a type of control.
What I mean by "positional control" is control that may or may not do some damage, but is intended primarily to influence the position of the target. So a Stun is a type of positional control because the target is no longer able to move around (change position) while stunned.
And yes, damage is a form of control. From D&D 4e:
A character with the controller role primarily handles crowds by creating hazardous terrain and repositioning enemies, or spreading conditions and damage over multiple enemies. The wizard is the classic controller class.
But like the D&D 4e definition of Controller creates a choice between control via position *OR* control via damage, the same ought to apply here for the CW. Let the paragon paths for CW really reflect this choice, unlike now where it's possible to do both simultaneously.
But CWs can and ought to be able to deal damage, even lots of damage.
A character with the controller role primarily handles crowds by creating hazardous terrain and repositioning enemies, or spreading conditions and damage over multiple enemies. The wizard is the classic controller class.
But like the D&D 4e definition of Controller creates a choice between control via position *OR* control via damage, the same ought to apply here for the CW. Let the paragon paths for CW really reflect this choice, unlike now where it's possible to do both simultaneously.
But CWs can and ought to be able to deal damage, even lots of damage.
Oddly enough, in AD&D there is a large difference between the damage that Control and Striker classes do.
It seems that what you are asking for is a class that is a Controller that can also choose to be a Striker. In which case what is the point in having Striker classes?
If they had something like this then many other classes would be rendered superfluous. After all why have a class that can only be a Striker when you have one that can be a Striker or a Controller with no disadvantages?
Wait a minute - why does this sound oddly familiar?
Oddly enough, in AD&D there is a large difference between the damage that Control and Striker classes do.
It seems that what you are asking for is a class that is a Controller that can also choose to be a Striker. In which case what is the point in having Striker classes?
If they had something like this then many other classes would be rendered superfluous. After all why have a class that can only be a Striker when you have one that can be a Striker or a Controller with no disadvantages?
Wait a minute - why does this sound oddly familiar?
No, I'm not. The difference between Strikers and Controllers is that Strikers are intended to shine in a single-target damage role. That is according, again, to the D&D 4e definition. And CWs are terrible at single-target damage, as they should be. CWs are not primarily Strikers, it is their secondary attribute. Again as it should be.
Dungeons are designed so that you don't *need* a great deal of single-target damage-dealing abilities. Why is this the CW's fault, and why should this necessitate overturning the entire definition of a CW so as to satisfy the lame dungeon mechanics?
Look at it from the opposite point of view. Suppose, instead, that the dungeons were filled with CC-immune bosses, and TRs could rapidly take them down one by one because they are excellent strikers. So 5 TR teams clearing high-end dungeons were common and CW players were whining on the forums about how they never get asked to participate in dungeons because there's no CC-able adds to control. Which do you think would be the more equitable solution?
1. Change essential dungeon mechanics so as to encourage a mix of participants;
or
2. Nerf TRs to the ground so that they aren't even really strikers anymore, even though that is their primary role?
We also have GG, 20vs20, which will give us some good insight on what it will look like for CWs. That, combined with multiple companion bonuses giving players over 100% CC resist will be a nightmare for nearly all CWs.
On my HR and GWF, targeting a CW will be the first thing I look for in the new OW PVP.
In my experience, GG is mostly riding and rarely fighting. The fighting that does happen is usually a 10v2 pain-train. I dont expect OWPVP to be az Zergy as GG usually is. On the rare occasions when you do find yourself in a competitive battle in GG though, when both sides really start to unload and exchange blows, wouldn't you agree that you feel more effective than in an arena 2v2? When wizards are effective in the arena its usually because their teammates have set them up with the advantage, but when they are effective in those intense GG 10v10s , its because their shard burst + OF just put all 10 enemies into scared-mode and now the wizard is the one setting up his teammates for the win.
A halfling with tenacity is nearly uncontrollable already. Control Resist companions and more Tenacity will be a nightmare, but controlling targets is already a nightmare, so whatever...
And yes, CWs will be my main targets as well, as they always have been. They're a high-threat, easy kill, it's really a no-brainer to take them out first. I'm not saying OWPVP will fix everything that's wrong with class balance and the control wizard, but I really think it's going to introduce better opportunities for them to showcase their potential in a PvP setting, opportunities that Arena and GG rarely offer.
--- Ranked matches need to be solo-queue only
Enforce rainbow parties in PvP ---- 10v10 PvP ----
I raised a couple of suggestions in the Preview Forums. I'd love to have a buff for CW's as well, but instead of burst DPS, I personally would love to see a buff for the CW's control, utility and survival. Most people are using their CW's as a glass cannon with some degree of control, but the PVP meta ever since Tenacity hit the game has been about survival and maximizing your time in the node, alive. If a class does not spec for some degree of survival in PVP, he tends to contribute less to the team. Right now, the CW class has the least survival capabilities out of all 6 classes.
But passing buffs to Shield would at least alleviate the lack of survival skills for CW's. The idea behind the Shield encounter is good as it adds a degree of survival on a cloth-wearing class. But this skill has a long casting time, making it hard to cast in the middle of PVP combat. I'd say halve the activation time and give it an additional function. CW's do not have a CC immunity mechanic. I've been thinking that Shield could have an additional function where popping the Shield will break a CW out of CC. Not only does the CW push enemies out of the way, but he can also break a CC effect by the Shield Pop effect. I'd say that doesn't sound half bad since Shield is an encounter that gets reduced CD per Arcane Stack after popping. Another factor that would make Shield better would be to increase its base Damage Reduction bonus. At least a 10% on the first rank then 5% for the subsequent ranks would be great for a total of 20% at max rank. It'd be like the CW had the HR's Aspect of the Lone Wolf CF, which gives the HR a significant boost in DR. That's just one idea and I'll try to post more later.
Which do you think would be the more equitable solution?
1. Change essential dungeon mechanics so as to encourage a mix of participants;
or
2. Nerf TRs to the ground so that they aren't even really strikers anymore, even though that is their primary role?
Double strawman argument since;
A) CWs are controllers not strikers and you were talking about CW DPS with no-one asking for a nerf to CW control.
Even if CW DPS was almost zero parties would still take one due to their awesome buffs/debuffs/control.
C) The time Devs have is limited, so changing the entire set of endgame dungeons is not going to happen soon.
D) TRs aren't totally dominating PvE at present, and haven't been doing so since Open Beta.
There is nothing inconsistent with dealing damage and the concept of control, as defined by D&D 4e.
Letting CWs retain the ability to deal damage does not automatically turn them into Strikers. A Striker does high *SINGLE-TARGET* damage. Nobody is suggesting CWs should be TR-like in their single target abilities.
So the whole suggestion that "CWs are Controllers not Strikers so nerf them!" is a complete red-herring.
There is nothing inconsistent with dealing damage and the concept of control, as defined by D&D 4e.
Letting CWs retain the ability to deal damage does not automatically turn them into Strikers. A Striker does high *SINGLE-TARGET* damage. Nobody is suggesting CWs should be TR-like in their single target abilities.
So the whole suggestion that "CWs are Controllers not Strikers so nerf them!" is a complete red-herring.
The balance in PvE seems reasonable at the moment. GWFs and HRs can both compete with CW in damage. Most people like a DC in a party to help take the edge off things and a well specced TR is often a nice to have to help burn down the boss at the end, especially if the encounter has an exponentially increasing tide of adds like Valindra. I'm generally happier to be the only CW in a party these days.
PvP is terribad however and that's what the thread is about. Letting Ice Knife and Icy Rays benefit from ArP would be a start at least and wouldn't have any serious effect on PvE. Having the Shard evaporate when rooted is also a real handicap...
Tele Savalas, Dwarf Thaumaturge CW
Putting the Buff into Debuff since 2013 \o/ (Does that even make sense)?
I raised a couple of suggestions in the Preview Forums. I'd love to have a buff for CW's as well, but instead of burst DPS, I personally would love to see a buff for the CW's control, utility and survival. Most people are using their CW's as a glass cannon with some degree of control, but the PVP meta ever since Tenacity hit the game has been about survival and maximizing your time in the node, alive. If a class does not spec for some degree of survival in PVP, he tends to contribute less to the team. Right now, the CW class has the least survival capabilities out of all 6 classes.
But passing buffs to Shield would at least alleviate the lack of survival skills for CW's. The idea behind the Shield encounter is good as it adds a degree of survival on a cloth-wearing class. But this skill has a long casting time, making it hard to cast in the middle of PVP combat. I'd say halve the activation time and give it an additional function. CW's do not have a CC immunity mechanic. I've been thinking that Shield could have an additional function where popping the Shield will break a CW out of CC. Not only does the CW push enemies out of the way, but he can also break a CC effect by the Shield Pop effect. I'd say that doesn't sound half bad since Shield is an encounter that gets reduced CD per Arcane Stack after popping. Another factor that would make Shield better would be to increase its base Damage Reduction bonus. At least a 10% on the first rank then 5% for the subsequent ranks would be great for a total of 20% at max rank. It'd be like the CW had the HR's Aspect of the Lone Wolf CF, which gives the HR a significant boost in DR. That's just one idea and I'll try to post more later.
I would also like to see Shield become a more viable encounter, however which way it can be achieved. Like you said, it just makes sense for it to offer either better defense for the amount of offense the wizard sacrifices by slotting it, or at least just better offense considering how mediocre the defense it currently gives is.
I think looking into narrowing down which abilities make Shard disappear is another good start for bringing CWs up to par, as well as making the first shard drop more easily and more consistently catch its target when its in Spell Mastery. Shard is not only the wizards best damage and best control, but its also their best means of close-quarters defense. So much of a wizard's success in a fight will depend on this first drop making contact that it's kind of silly how easily it can be avoided. Other attacks have to be dodged/blocked to be avoided but their best encounter can simply be walked away from. Its a problem that has only been worsened by tenacity.
--- Ranked matches need to be solo-queue only
Enforce rainbow parties in PvP ---- 10v10 PvP ----
I don't want my main class to be nerfed to the ground. I just want to see it doing more control and less paingiver.
You say that TRs/GWFs are better on single target? Are you sure about that? Even on single target my CW is on top of Paingiver, and the TR that I usually make PvE even has p. vorpal.
On PvP I can kill people w/o deflection with 1 combo of encounter powers. GWFs and TRs can't. And this is funny because GWFs got even more CC than us CWs on PvP, and they're Strikers.
But well okay let's nerf the CW single target, I agree with that. And... what are we going to have on PvP? AoE? We're going to cast AoE spells on 2-3 targets plus amazing CCs that lasts 0,3s? That sounds very effective. A Striker can provide more utility, CCs and debuffs than us.
And even if they nerf our single target we will still see 4 CW comps on PvE, since we can damage the adds AND the boss at the same amount.
Anyway, for the dumbf**k that said this is not based on 4e... get out. The problem is that the control part of the CONTROLLER is totally forgotten on PvP, and the AoE damage+control of the CONTROLLER is totally OP on PvE. We're NOT supposed to deal all that amount of damage, we're NOT supposed to kill bosses by ourselves, and there's no way to fix it w/o drastically decreasing the CW overall DPS.
Also GFs and GWF are better Controllers than us on PvP, and this just pisses me off.
- is a human, not halfling
- has just Rank 9s
- has non-ideal stat rolls (12 Con? OK...)
- has LOW HP
- has just Greater Soulforged
- Still wears High Vizier in PvP and doesn't have enough Tenacity (only 2 gear pieces)
- doesn't have ideal spec, neither plays a good rotation
And comes to forum, thinking he is BiS, and complains that CWs are bad.
Maybe first get really BiS, play a BiS spec with a BiS rotation, and then come to forum and QQ?
I don't want my main class to be nerfed to the ground. I just want to see it doing more control and less paingiver.
A very sensible point of view, which suggests a possible solution.
Why not boost CW control ESPECIALLY SINGLE TARGET when they reduce its damage in the forthcoming balance pass? They could also consider altering the % of control resistance ignored for CWs. This would improve CW in PvP while reducing its overwhelming superiority in PvE.
- is a human, not halfling
- has just Rank 9s
- has non-ideal stat rolls (12 Con? OK...)
- has LOW HP
- has just Greater Soulforged
- Still wears High Vizier in PvP and doesn't have enough Tenacity (only 2 gear pieces)
- doesn't have ideal spec, neither plays a good rotation
And comes to forum, thinking he is BiS, and complains that CWs are bad.
Maybe first get really BiS, play a BiS spec with a BiS rotation, and then come to forum and QQ?
Going from rank 9s to 10s and a perfect soulforged is going to make zero difference. I note you don't mention the perfect vorpal.... Strictly speaking you're right, it's not BiS, but it's so close as to make no odds. And you have no idea if that's the gear he PvPs in...
Tele Savalas, Dwarf Thaumaturge CW
Putting the Buff into Debuff since 2013 \o/ (Does that even make sense)?
0
degraafinationMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Going from rank 9s to 10s and a perfect soulforged is going to make zero difference. I note you don't mention the perfect vorpal.... Strictly speaking you're right, it's not BiS, but it's so close as to make no odds. And you have no idea if that's the gear he PvPs in...
Exactly. I tried the new Tenacity Gear, btw, and my DPS went to HAMSTER. I still have it and use it from time to time, but I'm not impressed. People think the Profound Thaum is the best, but ArP doesn't work on half of our abilities.
And, btw, I normally have close to 33k HP when I PVP (which the character sheet doesn't show).
Check out CrazyMike's thread. He's close to my gear level and running Profound Thaum. His thread basically says the same mine says.
A very sensible point of view, which suggests a possible solution.
Why not boost CW control ESPECIALLY SINGLE TARGET when they reduce its damage in the forthcoming balance pass? They could also consider altering the % of control resistance ignored for CWs. This would improve CW in PvP while reducing its overwhelming superiority in PvE.
This is almost what I'm suggesting. I think our DPS should be really low, like the Cleric one, then we can reach balance and make Strikers be viable on PvE. And, in the other side, our control powers should work on players just like how they work on monsters (since prones are already like that).
This is IMO, of course. Any other solution with 4e coherence would be welcome.
This is almost what I'm suggesting. I think our DPS should be really low, like the Cleric one, then we can reach balance and make Strikers be viable on PvE. And, in the other side, our control powers should work on players just like how they work on monsters (since prones are already like that).
This is IMO, of course. Any other solution with 4e coherence would be welcome.
As this is an MMO, and so should be fun for players both current and future, I don't think CW damage needs to be that low. However, giving a class that brings so much else other than DPS to a party the same DPS as a Striker class which brings no party buffs is going to be unbalanced. My gut feeling is that even if CWs only brought 75-80% of a pure Striker class' DPS, they would still be the most in demand class, but it would give more incentive for parties not just to stack CWs. Of course the way to figure out the right balance is to initially bringing their DPS down to the level of other classed and then take it from there.
On the flip side of the coin, increasing their control powers' effectiveness would benefit them in PvP.
I think our DPS should be really low, like the Cleric one,...
This is IMO, of course. Any other solution with 4e coherence would be welcome.
"With 4e coherence?"
Wizards already has a very poor selection of damaging spells from D&D. No fireballs, no command words, no finger of death, no triggered spells!
If this were implemented in the game it would much more dmg!
0
lvl99looterMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 682Arc User
I don't mean to sound mean or whatever but CW's DO NOT NEED ANY BUFFS period. If anything they need to be toned down. Now I have a CW she is not even in PvP gear she is in T2 HV set and I have little to any problems vs other classes. I struggle against GOOD GF's and GWF's (but who doesn't) TR's easy to kill as long as I don't let them get the drop on me. DC's can be a pain but can still beat them if I get a little lucky with crits. HR's again I usually win as long as I don't let them fox cunning me (which a nice timed dodge works wonders)
Tenacity all it did was make us actually have to work harder then before, we are not underpowered and perhaps this class is not for you if you are having such a hard time with it.
This is almost what I'm suggesting. I think our DPS should be really low, like the Cleric one, then we can reach balance and make Strikers be viable on PvE. And, in the other side, our control powers should work on players just like how they work on monsters (since prones are already like that).
This is IMO, of course. Any other solution with 4e coherence would be welcome.
That's a viable solution. But they would need to separate War Wizard out of the current combination of War Wizard and Control Wizard.
You're seconding the opinion of someone whose PvP experience appears to be limited to stomping on comparatively undergeared people (yet bizarrely claims to need "lucky" crits to beat DCs).
Balance discussion, regardless of class, should really be based as much as possible on even match-ups. New 60s and inexperienced PvPers always think that CWs are extremely strong because they see decently geared CWs cleaning house virtually unopposed in tragically mismatched fights.
Comments
deleted...............
All good points here. They work best in PVP with another player, often another CW or HR. Solo, they're often dead in the water.
Join Essence of Aggression: PVP-ing Hard Since Beta!
CW is a striker too!
Nerf cws at pve, do longer dungeons and it won't make evebody happy at all...
Killing isn't a form of control, it's killing. This is not WoW where we have DPS, Healer and Tank, we have Striker AND Control. Having both make us really OP and make other Strikers look like sh**, and this is what is happening currently on PvE.
And I don't know where you get that "non-killing control" is positional only. Stun, Prone, Daze and Root are really not positional and it's still control, and Controllers also debuff their enemies, to help them to perish.
I really cannot see another form to balance things but the way I pointed. You cannot give control to Strikers and you cannot get control away from Controllers.
It's a secondary role for Wizards indeed, but since the class has "Control" in its name it's supposed to be Controller. If not, change its name to Destruction Wizard and create an actual CONTROL Wizard, just like what they made with the Guardian Fighter (Defender) and Great Weapon Fighter (Striker).
But Strikers do have a type of control as well. Look at GWF's Takedown. That is a prone, that is a type of control.
What I mean by "positional control" is control that may or may not do some damage, but is intended primarily to influence the position of the target. So a Stun is a type of positional control because the target is no longer able to move around (change position) while stunned.
And yes, damage is a form of control. From D&D 4e:
http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Controller (emphasis added)
But like the D&D 4e definition of Controller creates a choice between control via position *OR* control via damage, the same ought to apply here for the CW. Let the paragon paths for CW really reflect this choice, unlike now where it's possible to do both simultaneously.
But CWs can and ought to be able to deal damage, even lots of damage.
Oddly enough, in AD&D there is a large difference between the damage that Control and Striker classes do.
It seems that what you are asking for is a class that is a Controller that can also choose to be a Striker. In which case what is the point in having Striker classes?
If they had something like this then many other classes would be rendered superfluous. After all why have a class that can only be a Striker when you have one that can be a Striker or a Controller with no disadvantages?
Wait a minute - why does this sound oddly familiar?
No, I'm not. The difference between Strikers and Controllers is that Strikers are intended to shine in a single-target damage role. That is according, again, to the D&D 4e definition. And CWs are terrible at single-target damage, as they should be. CWs are not primarily Strikers, it is their secondary attribute. Again as it should be.
Dungeons are designed so that you don't *need* a great deal of single-target damage-dealing abilities. Why is this the CW's fault, and why should this necessitate overturning the entire definition of a CW so as to satisfy the lame dungeon mechanics?
Look at it from the opposite point of view. Suppose, instead, that the dungeons were filled with CC-immune bosses, and TRs could rapidly take them down one by one because they are excellent strikers. So 5 TR teams clearing high-end dungeons were common and CW players were whining on the forums about how they never get asked to participate in dungeons because there's no CC-able adds to control. Which do you think would be the more equitable solution?
1. Change essential dungeon mechanics so as to encourage a mix of participants;
or
2. Nerf TRs to the ground so that they aren't even really strikers anymore, even though that is their primary role?
In my experience, GG is mostly riding and rarely fighting. The fighting that does happen is usually a 10v2 pain-train. I dont expect OWPVP to be az Zergy as GG usually is. On the rare occasions when you do find yourself in a competitive battle in GG though, when both sides really start to unload and exchange blows, wouldn't you agree that you feel more effective than in an arena 2v2? When wizards are effective in the arena its usually because their teammates have set them up with the advantage, but when they are effective in those intense GG 10v10s , its because their shard burst + OF just put all 10 enemies into scared-mode and now the wizard is the one setting up his teammates for the win.
A halfling with tenacity is nearly uncontrollable already. Control Resist companions and more Tenacity will be a nightmare, but controlling targets is already a nightmare, so whatever...
And yes, CWs will be my main targets as well, as they always have been. They're a high-threat, easy kill, it's really a no-brainer to take them out first. I'm not saying OWPVP will fix everything that's wrong with class balance and the control wizard, but I really think it's going to introduce better opportunities for them to showcase their potential in a PvP setting, opportunities that Arena and GG rarely offer.
Enforce rainbow parties in PvP ---- 10v10 PvP ----
But passing buffs to Shield would at least alleviate the lack of survival skills for CW's. The idea behind the Shield encounter is good as it adds a degree of survival on a cloth-wearing class. But this skill has a long casting time, making it hard to cast in the middle of PVP combat. I'd say halve the activation time and give it an additional function. CW's do not have a CC immunity mechanic. I've been thinking that Shield could have an additional function where popping the Shield will break a CW out of CC. Not only does the CW push enemies out of the way, but he can also break a CC effect by the Shield Pop effect. I'd say that doesn't sound half bad since Shield is an encounter that gets reduced CD per Arcane Stack after popping. Another factor that would make Shield better would be to increase its base Damage Reduction bonus. At least a 10% on the first rank then 5% for the subsequent ranks would be great for a total of 20% at max rank. It'd be like the CW had the HR's Aspect of the Lone Wolf CF, which gives the HR a significant boost in DR. That's just one idea and I'll try to post more later.
Double strawman argument since;
A) CWs are controllers not strikers and you were talking about CW DPS with no-one asking for a nerf to CW control.
C) The time Devs have is limited, so changing the entire set of endgame dungeons is not going to happen soon.
D) TRs aren't totally dominating PvE at present, and haven't been doing so since Open Beta.
There is nothing inconsistent with dealing damage and the concept of control, as defined by D&D 4e.
Letting CWs retain the ability to deal damage does not automatically turn them into Strikers. A Striker does high *SINGLE-TARGET* damage. Nobody is suggesting CWs should be TR-like in their single target abilities.
So the whole suggestion that "CWs are Controllers not Strikers so nerf them!" is a complete red-herring.
This game is only loosly based on 4e rules.
PvP is terribad however and that's what the thread is about. Letting Ice Knife and Icy Rays benefit from ArP would be a start at least and wouldn't have any serious effect on PvE. Having the Shard evaporate when rooted is also a real handicap...
"CWs are Controllers not Strikers! Look at the 4e rules! Therefore nerf CWs!"
"umm wait, no, Strikers are good at single-target damage, CWs that deal AOE damage don't turn them into strikers"
"But...but...but...this game is only loosely based on 4e rules! Thereofre nerf CWs!"
One might get the distinct impression that there's a cadre of people who just want to see CWs nerfed no matter what.
I would also like to see Shield become a more viable encounter, however which way it can be achieved. Like you said, it just makes sense for it to offer either better defense for the amount of offense the wizard sacrifices by slotting it, or at least just better offense considering how mediocre the defense it currently gives is.
I think looking into narrowing down which abilities make Shard disappear is another good start for bringing CWs up to par, as well as making the first shard drop more easily and more consistently catch its target when its in Spell Mastery. Shard is not only the wizards best damage and best control, but its also their best means of close-quarters defense. So much of a wizard's success in a fight will depend on this first drop making contact that it's kind of silly how easily it can be avoided. Other attacks have to be dodged/blocked to be avoided but their best encounter can simply be walked away from. Its a problem that has only been worsened by tenacity.
Enforce rainbow parties in PvP ---- 10v10 PvP ----
You say that TRs/GWFs are better on single target? Are you sure about that? Even on single target my CW is on top of Paingiver, and the TR that I usually make PvE even has p. vorpal.
On PvP I can kill people w/o deflection with 1 combo of encounter powers. GWFs and TRs can't. And this is funny because GWFs got even more CC than us CWs on PvP, and they're Strikers.
But well okay let's nerf the CW single target, I agree with that. And... what are we going to have on PvP? AoE? We're going to cast AoE spells on 2-3 targets plus amazing CCs that lasts 0,3s? That sounds very effective. A Striker can provide more utility, CCs and debuffs than us.
And even if they nerf our single target we will still see 4 CW comps on PvE, since we can damage the adds AND the boss at the same amount.
Anyway, for the dumbf**k that said this is not based on 4e... get out. The problem is that the control part of the CONTROLLER is totally forgotten on PvP, and the AoE damage+control of the CONTROLLER is totally OP on PvE. We're NOT supposed to deal all that amount of damage, we're NOT supposed to kill bosses by ourselves, and there's no way to fix it w/o drastically decreasing the CW overall DPS.
Also GFs and GWF are better Controllers than us on PvP, and this just pisses me off.
http://gateway.playneverwinter.com/#char(Trace@degraafination)/charactersheet
- is a human, not halfling
- has just Rank 9s
- has non-ideal stat rolls (12 Con? OK...)
- has LOW HP
- has just Greater Soulforged
- Still wears High Vizier in PvP and doesn't have enough Tenacity (only 2 gear pieces)
- doesn't have ideal spec, neither plays a good rotation
And comes to forum, thinking he is BiS, and complains that CWs are bad.
Maybe first get really BiS, play a BiS spec with a BiS rotation, and then come to forum and QQ?
A very sensible point of view, which suggests a possible solution.
Why not boost CW control ESPECIALLY SINGLE TARGET when they reduce its damage in the forthcoming balance pass? They could also consider altering the % of control resistance ignored for CWs. This would improve CW in PvP while reducing its overwhelming superiority in PvE.
Going from rank 9s to 10s and a perfect soulforged is going to make zero difference. I note you don't mention the perfect vorpal.... Strictly speaking you're right, it's not BiS, but it's so close as to make no odds. And you have no idea if that's the gear he PvPs in...
Exactly. I tried the new Tenacity Gear, btw, and my DPS went to HAMSTER. I still have it and use it from time to time, but I'm not impressed. People think the Profound Thaum is the best, but ArP doesn't work on half of our abilities.
And, btw, I normally have close to 33k HP when I PVP (which the character sheet doesn't show).
Check out CrazyMike's thread. He's close to my gear level and running Profound Thaum. His thread basically says the same mine says.
Join Essence of Aggression: PVP-ing Hard Since Beta!
This is almost what I'm suggesting. I think our DPS should be really low, like the Cleric one, then we can reach balance and make Strikers be viable on PvE. And, in the other side, our control powers should work on players just like how they work on monsters (since prones are already like that).
This is IMO, of course. Any other solution with 4e coherence would be welcome.
As this is an MMO, and so should be fun for players both current and future, I don't think CW damage needs to be that low. However, giving a class that brings so much else other than DPS to a party the same DPS as a Striker class which brings no party buffs is going to be unbalanced. My gut feeling is that even if CWs only brought 75-80% of a pure Striker class' DPS, they would still be the most in demand class, but it would give more incentive for parties not just to stack CWs. Of course the way to figure out the right balance is to initially bringing their DPS down to the level of other classed and then take it from there.
On the flip side of the coin, increasing their control powers' effectiveness would benefit them in PvP.
"With 4e coherence?"
Wizards already has a very poor selection of damaging spells from D&D. No fireballs, no command words, no finger of death, no triggered spells!
If this were implemented in the game it would much more dmg!
I seconded this.
You're seconding the opinion of someone whose PvP experience appears to be limited to stomping on comparatively undergeared people (yet bizarrely claims to need "lucky" crits to beat DCs).
Balance discussion, regardless of class, should really be based as much as possible on even match-ups. New 60s and inexperienced PvPers always think that CWs are extremely strong because they see decently geared CWs cleaning house virtually unopposed in tragically mismatched fights.
Contagion - Cleric
Testament - Wizard
Pestilence - Ranger
Dominion - Paladin
NIGHTSWATCH