why my hypothetical gameplay is a argument in that discussion? ok, reality to you is what happens in your mind, reality is a fanfic and argument is... iam not sure what <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> that means
The fact that you're bad at builds suggests that you aren't the best person to talk about game balance, yeah. You seem to think gwf has a single target damage problem. That tells me you have no idea what the class can do.
ok, back a bit. builds suggests? single targets problems? dnd <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>? you're confusing me or just trying to disqualify "my" points using your strange fantasies?
My patience for theoretical players is always diminishing and talking to someone through google translate is painful enough.
The roles whether you read them out of a dnd handbook or off the wiki have at best been vague descriptions of the game classes. Taking them as prescriptions for balance is daft and the devs duly ignored them, obviously. Because the balance has been the way it is.
If you actually wanted to be a striker/defender in line with the other classes you would want a massive damage decrease on gwf with an increase in tankiness. That isn't me calling for a nerf just saying what would bring damage in line with other striker classes. The devs decided in module 4 for example this was ridiculous and attempted to separate tankiness and damage. This should tell you exactly how much they care about official roles.
I just remember your prior posting about how reluctant you were to be an intimidation gwf once it was explained to you how it worked in mod 4 given that you wanted destroyer to do more damage. That was a bad choice
You linked a post where you complained cws have too many single target focused powers and feats compared to gwf. Sorry that feat needs to stay for pvp balance. Its not in the class description but its really necessary for balance and the devs recognised making a class viable was more important than sticking to a strict interpretation of roles.
Oh and in general when people insist on a tight definition I find that they are arguing for what they want rather than what is sensible. Hence fanfiction. This goes double for any use of the word should and triple any time thinks a rule must mean something that isn't explicitly stated
1 - i dont use vague descriptions. rogues have far better mobility than any other class. is a fact, can be mensured in pvp and is part to be a striker. the big damage of cws is aways thanks to bugs. that is another fact.
2 - devs notes and gamepedia is a model, is a projection about balance. of course some things can be changed by necessity to fill a position in the party (like gfs and possible sws soon). cw be a super striker is not part to the model or necessity.
3 - I used the term "purist" to refer to gwfs that called for nerfs to sentinels/intimidation because of destroyers. no idea wtf are you talk about...
4 - i said cws have MORE single powers than gwfs. that is not a "complain", the last hit of my sure strike today do more damage than any cw power. gwf have more aoe powers than cws is just one point (fact) to be used to prove a point about "aoe is not control".
iam 99% sure that is not a "google translator" problem.
You misunderstood again. The wiki is obviously not a projection. The devs rejected so much of it trying to balance the game the wiki is obviously a vague description. And it is really really vague.
Playing word games about what's on the wiki is not equal to talking about game balance. The devs don't care about the wiki and the game has never been balanced as the wiki described. I'm not going play word games with it. Waste of time. Tried explaining often enough why its stupid but as the saying you won't understand goes you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Sometimes the horse just wants to chase its tail.
the single note using gamepedia here is the description about striker and cws be a secundary striker. you guys NEVER disagree about cws be a primary controller. you guys defend: control is kill, control is damage, control is aoe damage, and so on. iam wrong?
what i need here is prove "control is not kill or aoe damage" and i do that using the DEVS NOTES in the other topic+ remember the fixed bugs.
see? why give personal opinions or create "fanfics" like you said if you guys giveme the rope to hang yourselves?
what you can try is say "ok, when i say control, i want say striker, and so on", but guess what? well, nevermind. i love discuss here, but that is not a crusade against the entire playerbase of that class or some individuals sharing your builds to help other players. i just hate <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> arguments and all that mise en scéne.
Post edited by zacazu on
0
Options
romotheoneMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 729Arc User
CW is a control class, control class shouldnt do more dps than dps classes. cws are plenty strong as it is
and if death is best cc, then killing enemies is best way to protect your party, give my paladin 100x more damage. and add controller to gwf description since its the best class at murdering stuff atm.
See the difference between a CW bringing up arguments and an OP/GWF QQing? A huge gap in quality and quantity.
say "kill is the best control" is just a figure of speech reinforced by a lot of bugs (aoe bonus in the past/storm now). if you try bring that to literal sense, so, yes, "the best defence is the attack, so, buff tanks".
cw is a secundary striker, so just should do more damage/have better mobility than a non striker. seens obvious enough to "debate".
The problem with you Zacazu is that in many of your posts, you are trying so hard to sound intelligent and convincing, and you would often succeed, but then you make cringeworthy comparisons and turn the whole thing into a cabaret where it all comes down to us trying to decrypt what the f. you were trying to say.
All I see is "OMGOGMOG LOOK CW DOES BIG DAMAGE MOGMOGM SECONDARY STRIKER PRIMARY STRIKER CONTROLLER SECONDARY STRIKER WHY SO MUCH DAMAGE OMOGMOGOGMGO".
This is how stupid 60% of the forum sounds. This whole wiki page with the "secondary striker, primary striker, controller, tank, ..." are guidelines for someone who wants to read up on the classes and learn about the charasteristics. These properties are not God's words, they are not set in stone, you don't find it anywhere in the game, it doesn't let you come to the conclusion that these are taken very seriously by Cryptic. Merely words that were picked up by someone who was looking for something to support his stupid and superficial reasoning and now every single <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> is jumping onto the hate-train and repeats this without thinking twice..
GWF is the best damage dealing class in the game. By far. Take a single solo target, let a GWF and a CW stand next to each other and let them race for the most damage within a minute. GWF will stomp the CW into the ground, the CW wouldn't stand a chance and the CW understands that. You excell at single target damage, you excell at going in and wrecking stuff.
The Control Wizard is only top damage dealer because of how the environment is set, there are more monsters coming at you at once, it's almost always an AOE fight. But as stated by Ironzerg79, the wizard is good at dealing with trash during a dungeon, the most difficult fights are always the boss fights and bosses are single target fights, this is where the GWF has the capability of catching up big time in terms of damage (if the instance was full of AOE fights, that is).
But do you know what it all comes down to? The baby tantrums about who was the first on the Paingiver table, is Paingiver-<font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> still a thing? Isn't Mod6 content difficult enough as it is? Shouldn't the focus be completing a T2 legit instead of going in, doing the most damage, failing the dungeon and then yelling at others for being "low iLvL, low damage noobs"?
This community needs to grow up, stop with the class-hatred, stop worshipping that autistic paingiver window and look at the classes for what they are worth, helping each other to clear dungeons as best and as smooth as we can.
the single note using gamepedia here is the description about striker and cws be a secundary striker. you guys NEVER disagree about cws be a primary controller. you guys defend: control is kill, control is damage, control is aoe damage, and so on. iam wrong?
what i need here is prove "control is not kill or aoe damage" and i do that using the DEVS NOTES in the other topic+ remember the fixed bugs.
I beleive that CWs can have dps paragon trees called thaumaturgy or renegade, even GFs and DCs can have dps options.
called conqueror and righteus and even an offtank like GFWs can have dps options...
And I doesn't really beleive that much dps differences.
I think dps classes should have been balanced to max 10-20% dps differences.
1 - i dont use vague descriptions. rogues have far better mobility than any other class. is a fact, can be mensured in pvp and is part to be a striker. the big damage of cws is aways thanks to bugs. that is another fact.
Bugs?
Gwfs are king of bugs.
They had deep gash during the whole mod2.
Intimidation bug for mod5 and now they have the overbuffed weapon dmg and best self buff (hidden daggers) and self buffs in the game.
The Control Wizard is only top damage dealer because of how the environment is set, there are more monsters coming at you at once, it's almost always an AOE fight.
Once upon a time but not in mod 6. Just did vt twice with one of the more geared and smartly built gwfs you are ever likely to see, I'm pretty high on the gear scale of things but I know even if I was totally maxed out I still wouldn't even come close, I'm 4.5k for what limited value that info is.
We can play a game of who cares who does the best dps but it matters because balance matters. I'm not asking for my class to be the best. I just want it so that if I'm geared right and built right and use the right rotation and maximise what my class is capable of, well then at least I'll be in the same ballpark as another dps doing the same. That's fair enough I think.
And I don't really believe that much dps makes a difference. I FIXED IT FOR YOU, YOUR WELCOME.
[/quote]
when you make grammar mistakes like that sentence my brain literally twitches and makes me not want to listen to you even though i agree with you.
second point, you dont understand me. in fact, fell peoples will. that is not my opinion, that is not about the game course. when I say "control is not damage" My primary source is not Gamepedia or dnd, but what two differents devs say about aoe vs control and DAMAGE (size) vs control. cws can be deleted in the next module. that dont change nothing AND coincides with the Gamepedia.
that is a point "A"
the point "B" is: you guys says "cw should do much damage (that is, the bugs should be official) based on the fact that cw are main controllers, and damage= control" (influence of bugs + DnD interpretations ).
being a primary controller (a lot of cws defend that, just dont igree about what control means"), well, take your conclusion.
the third point here AND THAT IS A PERSONAL ARGUMENT (+some historical base) is:exist a real necessity for cws do more or the same damage than sws / gwfs / rogues / rangers? no. cws+top damage= imbalance. cws do 8x more damage than a tank. why so much mimimi about 50% 100% than other striker?
if you guys think "ah, but the control is not enough", ok. another discussion really hard to meansure.
4 =
the hierarchy between main strikers is another discussion. trappers, for example, have the same situation than the old gwfs/sentinels. do a great damage, but is not a main damage tree. why should compete to a damage tree to another striker class? and if can, why should exist archery?
on the other side, if you give more damage to rogues, the class will become a invisible force dazing and destroyng everthing. that happens to gwf? no. in fact the class have a mad damage today, but that dont means the class dont need a tank and healer. in fact, gwfs+paladins work very well. so the discription of "what is a striker" and, lets say, my personal justification is really accurate.
CWs have always been most important class, and always cried how their class isnt strong enough
see how useless overnerfed cws are 1/4 of top 100 leaderboard as well probably having 2nd highest dps in pve
why do hr's have more control than CONTROL wizards then?
and why CONTROL wizards do at least 2x damage of HR who are strikers ? HRs are fd up class, damage is <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and bug/or braindead design decision gives them insane control
The first post is obviously a pve post and its probably on other classes to argue their own case elsewhere. It seems pretty disingenuous to claim that cw is a top pvp class though. For what its worth I think tr and hr should do better in pve. The main issue with the former is how do they balance that with the pvp. Probable answer is they don't
The clown above has always been of the opinion how dare cws think they should do damage. The arguments change, just never their conclusion. Its always rich when he thinks the majority of damage has always come from bugs.
CWs have always been most important class, and always cried how their class isnt strong enough
see how useless overnerfed cws are 1/4 of top 100 leaderboard as well probably having 2nd highest dps in pve
why do hr's have more control than CONTROL wizards then?
and why CONTROL wizards do at least 2x damage of HR who are strikers ? HRs are fd up class, damage is <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and bug/or braindead design decision gives them insane control
i agree. but instead of nerfing control wizards buff hr's easy solution instead of ruining a class right? hr's need a nerf to control for sure and cw's need a buff or mobs need a nerf to immunity. its annoying.
the single note using gamepedia here is the description about striker and cws be a secundary striker. you guys NEVER disagree about cws be a primary controller. you guys defend: control is kill, control is damage, control is aoe damage, and so on. iam wrong?
what i need here is prove "control is not kill or aoe damage" and i do that using the DEVS NOTES in the other topic+ remember the fixed bugs.
I beleive that CWs can have dps paragon trees called thaumaturgy or renegade, even GFs and DCs can have dps options.
called conqueror and righteus and even an offtank like GFWs can have dps options...
And I doesn't really beleive that much dps differences.
I think dps classes should have been balanced to max 10-20% dps differences.
1 - i dont use vague descriptions. rogues have far better mobility than any other class. is a fact, can be mensured in pvp and is part to be a striker. the big damage of cws is aways thanks to bugs. that is another fact.
Bugs?
Gwfs are king of bugs.
They had deep gash during the whole mod2.
Intimidation bug for mod5 and now they have the overbuffed weapon dmg and best self buff (hidden daggers) and self buffs in the game.
3 - I used the term "purist" to refer to gwfs that called for nerfs to sentinels/intimidation because of destroyers. no idea wtf are you talk about...
Intimidation was fix not nerf!
well, iam nothing giving opinions about renegades or opressors. in my opinion, considering the "diversity argument" etc, seens good unify the trees. that will demand a LOT of work.
intimidation are nerfed; the gwf playerbase request that (including change power by weapon damage). bleed is a bug fixed and replaced by buffs (historical fact, gwf NEED have large damage to be competitive... iam not sure if the same works for cws.)
but iam nothing discuss who have more bugs. iam say: that differencial in the damage part is a bug.
The clown above has always been of the opinion how dare cws think they should do damage. The arguments change, just never their conclusion. Its always rich when he thinks the majority of damage has always come from bugs.
and you have always though that cw should kill everything in 5 mile radius with a thought , and be invulnerable while at it
i agree. but instead of nerfing control wizards buff hr's easy solution instead of ruining a class right? hr's need a nerf to control for sure and cw's need a buff or mobs need a nerf to immunity. its annoying.
i think rene could use a bit of adjusting, that selfheal seems to be a bit too much, those are DC numbers some CW are pulling(in PvP), from 20% to full in few sec, other trees might use some buff. in PvE CW dps should be below GWF/HR/SW not sure about where TR should stand, since they have really nice utility and should be focused on single target instead of AoE, giving them lower overall dmg
but they should 1st fix wheel and LoL set, and then see where balance needs to go
The clown above has always been of the opinion how dare cws think they should do damage. The arguments change, just never their conclusion. Its always rich when he thinks the majority of damage has always come from bugs.
and you have always though that cw should kill everything in 5 mile radius with a thought , and be invulnerable while at it
i agree. but instead of nerfing control wizards buff hr's easy solution instead of ruining a class right? hr's need a nerf to control for sure and cw's need a buff or mobs need a nerf to immunity. its annoying.
i think rene could use a bit of adjusting, that selfheal seems to be a bit too much, those are DC numbers some CW are pulling(in PvP), from 20% to full in few sec, other trees might use some buff. in PvE CW dps should be below GWF/HR/SW not sure about where TR should stand, since they have really nice utility and should be focused on single target instead of AoE, giving them lower overall dmg
but they should 1st fix wheel and LoL set, and then see where balance needs to go
i love how you keep saying what others think. stop trying to pretend you know what im thinking. you dont. you look so stupid doing it and it annoys me so bad.
i love how you keep saying what others think. stop trying to pretend you know what im thinking. you dont. you look so stupid doing it and it annoys me so bad.
its nice that you notice that you werent the one who wrote the text i quoted , i just deleted the wrong quote to make it shorter and it showed your name in that quote instead of helpimblindinrl
I think his main is a tr so he has cause to be grumpy, they were like baggage for a lot of mods. Some people just have the reaction that everyone else should suffer like there's some kind of justice in that. He may also have been confused about things I said about the balance as it was being balance the way I think it should have been. In mod 4 for example a cw could be functionally immortal and destroy everything, its the way it was if not how should have been. But at that point everyone figured who cares the pve was dead anyway. Who knows. Its not like it was a measured response.
Its not like theres room in a legit t2 run for a half dps half utility class. cw just needs to be on par. Its kind of dumb to think cw isn't a dps class anyway. Always has been. They even put dps and control in different trees. The dps just hasn't kept pace. Anyone not keeping up with cw has much bigger problems up the dps food chain.
i love how you keep saying what others think. stop trying to pretend you know what im thinking. you dont. you look so stupid doing it and it annoys me so bad.
its nice that you notice that you werent the one who wrote the text i quoted , i just deleted the wrong quote to make it shorter and it showed your name in that quote instead of helpimblindinrl
haha i knew you did i just felt too lazy to go back and prove it lol. so i just went with it like i had.
0
Options
romotheoneMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 729Arc User
Like wtf dude... you don't even listen, it's like you are a bot who keeps repeating the same thing without even reacting to what people tell him.
I'm done, let them continue alone, maybe they'll get bored and realise how stupid it was... let's just hope Strumslinger can filter the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and only bring up valid points to the Dev team.
I think the main problem here is that some PvP obsessed people are trying to force their balance onto PvE. If you have been hurt by someone somewhere down the road who happened to play a certain class, don't hate the class, hate the person. Otherwise it's just childish as f.
Like wtf dude... you don't even listen, it's like you are a bot who keeps repeating the same thing without even reacting to what people tell him.
I'm done, let them continue alone, maybe they'll get bored and realise how stupid it was... let's just hope Strumslinger can filter the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and only bring up valid points to the Dev team.
I think the main problem here is that some PvP obsessed people are trying to force their balance onto PvE. If you have been hurt by someone somewhere down the road who happened to play a certain class, don't hate the class, hate the person. Otherwise it's just childish as f.
1 - the nerfs for cws is necessary to fix PVE... PVE... PVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. dont come to that pvp <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, cws in the past destroy PVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. loud and cleare?
Control Wizards filled too many roles in groups and were more often than not the “right” choice for a group over other class, and this was very frustrating for people who played other classes.
GC notes, 100% correct. a class that can do everthing is frustrating.
2 - "cw be a main controller". is the reason why some of us justify the bizarre aoe damage of cws. THAT IS NOT MY WORDS. when i say "be controller is x and not y" that is not a personal opinion.
when define roles delimite your charaters that become a bad thing?
3 - the rest is just mimimi. again, why that Mise en scène? if you guys are disposed to CHANGE cws, and that include a LOT OF NERFS (or buffs and "choices" for EVERBODY) to turn that CC class a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> striker caster (lets be honest here) be free. but, again, dont come to that Mise en scène.
note: cws can buff, debuff, "pound for pound" still have the best damage, have that shield, CAN HEAL, MY GOD THAT CLASS CAN HEAL and you guys do that drama because, after have one fixed bug, your CC CLASS IS NO LONGER THE PAINGIVER? (that is, do less damage than a rogue, some warlocks and one especific generic barbarian?)
What a load of bull, you've spent half the time talking about trs in pvp to distort the discussion. You just hate cws. Also well done, you have a dev quote about talking about mod 3 balance. That's super useful when talking about mod 6 balance. And the damage is only is insane in your mind because you think cw should not be allowed damage, that's your own mental problem. Nothing in the game has ever justified it.
Like wtf dude... you don't even listen, it's like you are a bot who keeps repeating the same thing without even reacting to what people tell him.
I'm done, let them continue alone, maybe they'll get bored and realise how stupid it was... let's just hope Strumslinger can filter the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and only bring up valid points to the Dev team.
I think the main problem here is that some PvP obsessed people are trying to force their balance onto PvE. If you have been hurt by someone somewhere down the road who happened to play a certain class, don't hate the class, hate the person. Otherwise it's just childish as f.
1 - the nerfs for cws is necessary to fix PVE... PVE... PVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. dont come to that pvp <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, cws in the past destroy PVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. loud and cleare?
Control Wizards filled too many roles in groups and were more often than not the “right” choice for a group over other class, and this was very frustrating for people who played other classes.
GC notes, 100% correct. a class that can do everthing is frustrating.
2 - "cw be a main controller". is the reason why some of us justify the bizarre aoe damage of cws. THAT IS NOT MY WORDS. when i say "be controller is x and not y" that is not a personal opinion.
when define roles delimite your charaters that become a bad thing?
3 - the rest is just mimimi. again, why that Mise en scène? if you guys are disposed to CHANGE cws, and that include a LOT OF NERFS (or buffs and "choices" for EVERBODY) to turn that CC class a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> striker caster (lets be honest here) be free. but, again, dont come to that Mise en scène.
note: cws can buff, debuff, "pound for pound" still have the best damage, have that shield, CAN HEAL, MY GOD THAT CLASS CAN HEAL and you guys do that drama because, after have one fixed bug, your CC CLASS IS NO LONGER THE PAINGIVER? (that is, do less damage than a rogue, some warlocks and one especific generic barbarian?)
what is wrong to that playerbase?
1. if I'm correct, most of the changes that do happen class wise seem to be more so effected by pvp players than anything (some one correct me if I'm wrong). Seems as though if it gets complaints there, and enough of it, it will be nerfed.
2. I really am lost on what you are saying here.
3. I'm still lost. So what you are saying it seems is that "Oh either nerf CW's to hell or over buff everyone else"?
I will say we do a good amount of damage. With recent changes no we may not be top. And yes the SS nerf was coming after looking back at old posts. So we should have expected it as a class. But it seems like even after the nerf, people still want more of one. To the point where We hardly do any type of damage. But yet you want us to do more CC when right now the dungeons don't call for it. How is that fair (again I could be misunderstanding so please clarify if I am)
What a load of bull, you've spent half the time talking about trs in pvp to distort the discussion. You just hate cws. Also well done, you have a dev quote about talking about mod 3 balance. That's super useful when talking about mod 6 balance. And the damage is only is insane in your mind because you think cw should not be allowed damage, that's your own mental problem. Nothing in the game has ever justified it.
So what I was saying earlier isn't miscommunication. He just wants CW's to not do anything it seems.
Comments
note: dnd? playing dnd? using "dnd" arguments?
The roles whether you read them out of a dnd handbook or off the wiki have at best been vague descriptions of the game classes. Taking them as prescriptions for balance is daft and the devs duly ignored them, obviously. Because the balance has been the way it is.
If you actually wanted to be a striker/defender in line with the other classes you would want a massive damage decrease on gwf with an increase in tankiness. That isn't me calling for a nerf just saying what would bring damage in line with other striker classes. The devs decided in module 4 for example this was ridiculous and attempted to separate tankiness and damage. This should tell you exactly how much they care about official roles.
I just remember your prior posting about how reluctant you were to be an intimidation gwf once it was explained to you how it worked in mod 4 given that you wanted destroyer to do more damage. That was a bad choice
You linked a post where you complained cws have too many single target focused powers and feats compared to gwf. Sorry that feat needs to stay for pvp balance. Its not in the class description but its really necessary for balance and the devs recognised making a class viable was more important than sticking to a strict interpretation of roles.
Oh and in general when people insist on a tight definition I find that they are arguing for what they want rather than what is sensible. Hence fanfiction. This goes double for any use of the word should and triple any time thinks a rule must mean something that isn't explicitly stated
2 - devs notes and gamepedia is a model, is a projection about balance. of course some things can be changed by necessity to fill a position in the party (like gfs and possible sws soon). cw be a super striker is not part to the model or necessity.
3 - I used the term "purist" to refer to gwfs that called for nerfs to sentinels/intimidation because of destroyers. no idea wtf are you talk about...
4 - i said cws have MORE single powers than gwfs. that is not a "complain", the last hit of my sure strike today do more damage than any cw power. gwf have more aoe powers than cws is just one point (fact) to be used to prove a point about "aoe is not control".
iam 99% sure that is not a "google translator" problem.
Playing word games about what's on the wiki is not equal to talking about game balance. The devs don't care about the wiki and the game has never been balanced as the wiki described. I'm not going play word games with it. Waste of time. Tried explaining often enough why its stupid but as the saying you won't understand goes you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Sometimes the horse just wants to chase its tail.
the single note using gamepedia here is the description about striker and cws be a secundary striker. you guys NEVER disagree about cws be a primary controller. you guys defend: control is kill, control is damage, control is aoe damage, and so on. iam wrong?
what i need here is prove "control is not kill or aoe damage" and i do that using the DEVS NOTES in the other topic+ remember the fixed bugs.
see? why give personal opinions or create "fanfics" like you said if you guys giveme the rope to hang yourselves?
what you can try is say "ok, when i say control, i want say striker, and so on", but guess what? well, nevermind. i love discuss here, but that is not a crusade against the entire playerbase of that class or some individuals sharing your builds to help other players. i just hate <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> arguments and all that mise en scéne.
The problem with you Zacazu is that in many of your posts, you are trying so hard to sound intelligent and convincing, and you would often succeed, but then you make cringeworthy comparisons and turn the whole thing into a cabaret where it all comes down to us trying to decrypt what the f. you were trying to say.
All I see is "OMGOGMOG LOOK CW DOES BIG DAMAGE MOGMOGM SECONDARY STRIKER PRIMARY STRIKER CONTROLLER SECONDARY STRIKER WHY SO MUCH DAMAGE OMOGMOGOGMGO".
This is how stupid 60% of the forum sounds. This whole wiki page with the "secondary striker, primary striker, controller, tank, ..." are guidelines for someone who wants to read up on the classes and learn about the charasteristics. These properties are not God's words, they are not set in stone, you don't find it anywhere in the game, it doesn't let you come to the conclusion that these are taken very seriously by Cryptic. Merely words that were picked up by someone who was looking for something to support his stupid and superficial reasoning and now every single <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> is jumping onto the hate-train and repeats this without thinking twice..
GWF is the best damage dealing class in the game. By far. Take a single solo target, let a GWF and a CW stand next to each other and let them race for the most damage within a minute. GWF will stomp the CW into the ground, the CW wouldn't stand a chance and the CW understands that. You excell at single target damage, you excell at going in and wrecking stuff.
The Control Wizard is only top damage dealer because of how the environment is set, there are more monsters coming at you at once, it's almost always an AOE fight. But as stated by Ironzerg79, the wizard is good at dealing with trash during a dungeon, the most difficult fights are always the boss fights and bosses are single target fights, this is where the GWF has the capability of catching up big time in terms of damage (if the instance was full of AOE fights, that is).
But do you know what it all comes down to? The baby tantrums about who was the first on the Paingiver table, is Paingiver-<font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> still a thing? Isn't Mod6 content difficult enough as it is? Shouldn't the focus be completing a T2 legit instead of going in, doing the most damage, failing the dungeon and then yelling at others for being "low iLvL, low damage noobs"?
This community needs to grow up, stop with the class-hatred, stop worshipping that autistic paingiver window and look at the classes for what they are worth, helping each other to clear dungeons as best and as smooth as we can.
I beleive that CWs can have dps paragon trees called thaumaturgy or renegade, even GFs and DCs can have dps options.
called conqueror and righteus and even an offtank like GFWs can have dps options...
And I doesn't really beleive that much dps differences.
I think dps classes should have been balanced to max 10-20% dps differences.
Bugs?
Gwfs are king of bugs.
They had deep gash during the whole mod2.
Intimidation bug for mod5 and now they have the overbuffed weapon dmg and best self buff (hidden daggers) and self buffs in the game.
Intimidation was fix not nerf!
Once upon a time but not in mod 6. Just did vt twice with one of the more geared and smartly built gwfs you are ever likely to see, I'm pretty high on the gear scale of things but I know even if I was totally maxed out I still wouldn't even come close, I'm 4.5k for what limited value that info is.
We can play a game of who cares who does the best dps but it matters because balance matters. I'm not asking for my class to be the best. I just want it so that if I'm geared right and built right and use the right rotation and maximise what my class is capable of, well then at least I'll be in the same ballpark as another dps doing the same. That's fair enough I think.
And I don't really believe that much dps makes a difference. I FIXED IT FOR YOU, YOUR WELCOME.
[/quote]
when you make grammar mistakes like that sentence my brain literally twitches and makes me not want to listen to you even though i agree with you.
see how useless overnerfed cws are 1/4 of top 100 leaderboard as well probably having 2nd highest dps in pve
second point, you dont understand me. in fact, fell peoples will. that is not my opinion, that is not about the game course. when I say "control is not damage" My primary source is not Gamepedia or dnd, but what two differents devs say about aoe vs control and DAMAGE (size) vs control. cws can be deleted in the next module. that dont change nothing AND coincides with the Gamepedia.
that is a point "A"
the point "B" is: you guys says "cw should do much damage (that is, the bugs should be official) based on the fact that cw are main controllers, and damage= control" (influence of bugs + DnD interpretations ).
being a primary controller (a lot of cws defend that, just dont igree about what control means"), well, take your conclusion.
the third point here AND THAT IS A PERSONAL ARGUMENT (+some historical base) is:exist a real necessity for cws do more or the same damage than sws / gwfs / rogues / rangers? no. cws+top damage= imbalance. cws do 8x more damage than a tank. why so much mimimi about 50% 100% than other striker?
if you guys think "ah, but the control is not enough", ok. another discussion really hard to meansure.
4 =
the hierarchy between main strikers is another discussion. trappers, for example, have the same situation than the old gwfs/sentinels. do a great damage, but is not a main damage tree. why should compete to a damage tree to another striker class? and if can, why should exist archery?
on the other side, if you give more damage to rogues, the class will become a invisible force dazing and destroyng everthing. that happens to gwf? no. in fact the class have a mad damage today, but that dont means the class dont need a tank and healer. in fact, gwfs+paladins work very well. so the discription of "what is a striker" and, lets say, my personal justification is really accurate.
why do hr's have more control than CONTROL wizards then?
and why CONTROL wizards do at least 2x damage of HR who are strikers ? HRs are fd up class, damage is <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and bug/or braindead design decision gives them insane control
The clown above has always been of the opinion how dare cws think they should do damage. The arguments change, just never their conclusion. Its always rich when he thinks the majority of damage has always come from bugs.
intimidation are nerfed; the gwf playerbase request that (including change power by weapon damage). bleed is a bug fixed and replaced by buffs (historical fact, gwf NEED have large damage to be competitive... iam not sure if the same works for cws.)
but iam nothing discuss who have more bugs. iam say: that differencial in the damage part is a bug.
and you have always though that cw should kill everything in 5 mile radius with a thought , and be invulnerable while at it
i think rene could use a bit of adjusting, that selfheal seems to be a bit too much, those are DC numbers some CW are pulling(in PvP), from 20% to full in few sec, other trees might use some buff. in PvE CW dps should be below GWF/HR/SW not sure about where TR should stand, since they have really nice utility and should be focused on single target instead of AoE, giving them lower overall dmg
but they should 1st fix wheel and LoL set, and then see where balance needs to go
i love how you keep saying what others think. stop trying to pretend you know what im thinking. you dont. you look so stupid doing it and it annoys me so bad.
its nice that you notice that you werent the one who wrote the text i quoted
Its not like theres room in a legit t2 run for a half dps half utility class. cw just needs to be on par. Its kind of dumb to think cw isn't a dps class anyway. Always has been. They even put dps and control in different trees. The dps just hasn't kept pace. Anyone not keeping up with cw has much bigger problems up the dps food chain.
Like wtf dude... you don't even listen, it's like you are a bot who keeps repeating the same thing without even reacting to what people tell him.
I'm done, let them continue alone, maybe they'll get bored and realise how stupid it was... let's just hope Strumslinger can filter the <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> and only bring up valid points to the Dev team.
I think the main problem here is that some PvP obsessed people are trying to force their balance onto PvE. If you have been hurt by someone somewhere down the road who happened to play a certain class, don't hate the class, hate the person. Otherwise it's just childish as f.
Aelar Hawkwind - Archer
Karrin Feywinter - Mistress of Flame
Errin Duskwalker - Executioner
Darquess - Soulbinder
1 - the nerfs for cws is necessary to fix PVE... PVE... PVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. dont come to that pvp <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, cws in the past destroy PVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. loud and cleare?
Control Wizards filled too many roles in groups and were more often than not the “right” choice for a group over other class, and this was very frustrating for people who played other classes.
GC notes, 100% correct. a class that can do everthing is frustrating.
2 - "cw be a main controller". is the reason why some of us justify the bizarre aoe damage of cws. THAT IS NOT MY WORDS. when i say "be controller is x and not y" that is not a personal opinion.
when define roles delimite your charaters that become a bad thing?
3 - the rest is just mimimi. again, why that Mise en scène? if you guys are disposed to CHANGE cws, and that include a LOT OF NERFS (or buffs and "choices" for EVERBODY) to turn that CC class a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> striker caster (lets be honest here) be free. but, again, dont come to that Mise en scène.
note: cws can buff, debuff, "pound for pound" still have the best damage, have that shield, CAN HEAL, MY GOD THAT CLASS CAN HEAL and you guys do that drama because, after have one fixed bug, your CC CLASS IS NO LONGER THE PAINGIVER? (that is, do less damage than a rogue, some warlocks and one especific generic barbarian?)
what is wrong to that playerbase?
1. if I'm correct, most of the changes that do happen class wise seem to be more so effected by pvp players than anything (some one correct me if I'm wrong). Seems as though if it gets complaints there, and enough of it, it will be nerfed.
2. I really am lost on what you are saying here.
3. I'm still lost. So what you are saying it seems is that "Oh either nerf CW's to hell or over buff everyone else"?
I will say we do a good amount of damage. With recent changes no we may not be top. And yes the SS nerf was coming after looking back at old posts. So we should have expected it as a class. But it seems like even after the nerf, people still want more of one. To the point where We hardly do any type of damage. But yet you want us to do more CC when right now the dungeons don't call for it. How is that fair (again I could be misunderstanding so please clarify if I am)