We'll agree to disagree, I fail to see how one good AOE at-will makes the class a superior trash cleaner. In any corrected world that would not be the case and further adjustments would be necessary. Granted, WMS it not the best DD power a GWF has, unless you blindly abuse it when it's clearly not needed (persae a boss, you only need it every few seconds for the buffs, but SS is your top DD in that case), it really depends on the dungeon/amount of mobs. It's like going to a restaurant that serves fish and have one steak dish, and saying their steak dish is the best they offer. While it may be true, it stinks - they specialize in a certain type of thing but can't serve it right so now they're a steak-house? What the class is SUPPOSED to be and what it is now (or was) is just irrelevant and falls in between the chairs of bad design. Since they can't fulfill their own class descriptions and justify any of them, this argument is futile.
i edited the response a bit. but lets go.
"trash cleaner" is a pejorative player term. be a aoe striker dont means dont have a strong single target. gwf is not striker because your tank job give some aoe tools - like the control of cws - but is a striker THAT EXCELSS IN AOE DPS. is a huge difference.
BUT you need meansure a class by your full potential and not your personal perfomance in some situation. a "atwill build"+wms in a aoe situation is a bit crazy. NOOOOOOO class can take close.
GWFs are Striker/Defender. CWs are Controller/Striker.
So if you really want to jerk off to that whole hierarchy GWFs really shouldn't excel at AOE; CWs should.
explain... is not about controller means aoe damage, is? because i can proof by how much quots that you want "control is not damage"
Yes, controllers are supposed to excel at AOE. That's part of their role.
Striker/defender shouldn't be excelling at AOE at all. That's nowhere in the description of either role.
again ?
proof 1:
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.
Overall the changes will leave Control Wizards with more direct competition in group content and will let them more strongly fill the position of controlling all the foes on the battle field or doing heavy damage, but not both at once.
damage is not control.
proof 2:
The trees are now Archery, Combat, and Trapper. Archery is a sniper who focuses on landing precise shots that deal incredible damage. Combat is a tough melee fighter who strikes with precision flurries of blows and deflects incoming damage. Trapper is a hybrid who controls his foes with Grasping Roots and switches smoothly from one stance to another, getting benefits from both while staying relatively safe from harm. Archer and Combat fill a damage focused role, with Trapper filling a much more Hybrid role that MIXES damage and control together. The three play styles now feel very different and have unique power setups that make them all function very differently.
proof 3and the most important
"One of the primary questions we received was regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems design perspective, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be a class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight."
if aoe dps is control how a class that "exces at aoe dps" provide just i bit of control?
... now what you have? external fonts? what you want?
about what the fabrincant sayed. you have the last boss of plaguefired too. good times.
We'll agree to disagree, I fail to see how one good AOE at-will makes the class a superior trash cleaner. In any corrected world that would not be the case and further adjustments would be necessary. Granted, WMS it not the best DD power a GWF has, unless you blindly abuse it when it's clearly not needed (persae a boss, you only need it every few seconds for the buffs, but SS is your top DD in that case), it really depends on the dungeon/amount of mobs. It's like going to a restaurant that serves fish and have one steak dish, and saying their steak dish is the best they offer. While it may be true, it stinks - they specialize in a certain type of thing but can't serve it right so now they're a steak-house? What the class is SUPPOSED to be and what it is now (or was) is just irrelevant and falls in between the chairs of bad design. Since they can't fulfill their own class descriptions and justify any of them, this argument is futile.
i edited the response a bit. but lets go.
"trash cleaner" is a pejorative player term. be a aoe striker dont means dont have a strong single target. gwf is not striker because your tank job give some aoe tools - like the control of cws - but is a striker THAT EXCELSS IN AOE DPS. is a huge difference.
BUT you need meansure a class by your full potential and not your personal perfomance in some situation. a "atwill build"+wms in a aoe situation is a bit crazy. NOOOOOOO class can take close.
GWFs are Striker/Defender. CWs are Controller/Striker.
So if you really want to jerk off to that whole hierarchy GWFs really shouldn't excel at AOE; CWs should.
explain... is not about controller means aoe damage, is? because i can proof by how much quots that you want "control is not damage"
Yes, controllers are supposed to excel at AOE. That's part of their role.
Striker/defender shouldn't be excelling at AOE at all. That's nowhere in the description of either role.
again i need destroy you?
proof 1:
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.
Overall the changes will leave Control Wizards with more direct competition in group content and will let them more strongly fill the position of controlling all the foes on the battle field or doing heavy damage, but not both at once.
damage is not control.
proof 2:
The trees are now Archery, Combat, and Trapper. Archery is a sniper who focuses on landing precise shots that deal incredible damage. Combat is a tough melee fighter who strikes with precision flurries of blows and deflects incoming damage. Trapper is a hybrid who controls his foes with Grasping Roots and switches smoothly from one stance to another, getting benefits from both while staying relatively safe from harm. Archer and Combat fill a damage focused role, with Trapper filling a much more Hybrid role that MIXES damage and control together. The three play styles now feel very different and have unique power setups that make them all function very differently.
proof 3and the most important
"One of the primary questions we received was regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems design perspective, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be a class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight."
if aoe dps is control how a class that "exces at aoe dps" provide just i bit of control?
... now what you have?
You know that just proves my point, right? Everything you quoted means that the devs are not designing the game with the striker/controller/defender/leader hierarchy actually being used a central part of their design. They're just haphazardly filling in what they think a class should do even if it's outside of their defined roles.
We'll agree to disagree, I fail to see how one good AOE at-will makes the class a superior trash cleaner. In any corrected world that would not be the case and further adjustments would be necessary. Granted, WMS it not the best DD power a GWF has, unless you blindly abuse it when it's clearly not needed (persae a boss, you only need it every few seconds for the buffs, but SS is your top DD in that case), it really depends on the dungeon/amount of mobs. It's like going to a restaurant that serves fish and have one steak dish, and saying their steak dish is the best they offer. While it may be true, it stinks - they specialize in a certain type of thing but can't serve it right so now they're a steak-house? What the class is SUPPOSED to be and what it is now (or was) is just irrelevant and falls in between the chairs of bad design. Since they can't fulfill their own class descriptions and justify any of them, this argument is futile.
i edited the response a bit. but lets go.
"trash cleaner" is a pejorative player term. be a aoe striker dont means dont have a strong single target. gwf is not striker because your tank job give some aoe tools - like the control of cws - but is a striker THAT EXCELSS IN AOE DPS. is a huge difference.
BUT you need meansure a class by your full potential and not your personal perfomance in some situation. a "atwill build"+wms in a aoe situation is a bit crazy. NOOOOOOO class can take close.
GWFs are Striker/Defender. CWs are Controller/Striker.
So if you really want to jerk off to that whole hierarchy GWFs really shouldn't excel at AOE; CWs should.
explain... is not about controller means aoe damage, is? because i can proof by how much quots that you want "control is not damage"
Yes, controllers are supposed to excel at AOE. That's part of their role.
Striker/defender shouldn't be excelling at AOE at all. That's nowhere in the description of either role.
again i need destroy you?
proof 1:
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.
Overall the changes will leave Control Wizards with more direct competition in group content and will let them more strongly fill the position of controlling all the foes on the battle field or doing heavy damage, but not both at once.
damage is not control.
proof 2:
The trees are now Archery, Combat, and Trapper. Archery is a sniper who focuses on landing precise shots that deal incredible damage. Combat is a tough melee fighter who strikes with precision flurries of blows and deflects incoming damage. Trapper is a hybrid who controls his foes with Grasping Roots and switches smoothly from one stance to another, getting benefits from both while staying relatively safe from harm. Archer and Combat fill a damage focused role, with Trapper filling a much more Hybrid role that MIXES damage and control together. The three play styles now feel very different and have unique power setups that make them all function very differently.
proof 3and the most important
"One of the primary questions we received was regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems design perspective, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be a class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight."
if aoe dps is control how a class that "exces at aoe dps" provide just i bit of control?
... now what you have?
You know that just proves my point, right? Everything you quoted means that the devs are not designing the game with the striker/controller/defender/leader hierarchy actually being used a central part of their design. They're just haphazardly filling in what they think a class should do even if it's outside of their defined roles.
a controller should cc one or more targets, a striker - lets ignore the mobility part - kill one or more controlled target . what you dont understand here? you just dont have nothing against what i say. again.
There are no roles, no need to continue random quotes. As Sharpedge says, all roles are DPS. Some just do way more than others, making them useless. Everyone might as well just roll GWF.
Only arguing the point because Zacazu likes to think that CWs should deal significantly less damage just because they're not primary strikers. But when it comes to AOE it's fine that GWFs have good AOE (arguably better than CW) in spite of being primary strikers/secondary defenders.
We'll agree to disagree, I fail to see how one good AOE at-will makes the class a superior trash cleaner. In any corrected world that would not be the case and further adjustments would be necessary. Granted, WMS it not the best DD power a GWF has, unless you blindly abuse it when it's clearly not needed (persae a boss, you only need it every few seconds for the buffs, but SS is your top DD in that case), it really depends on the dungeon/amount of mobs. It's like going to a restaurant that serves fish and have one steak dish, and saying their steak dish is the best they offer. While it may be true, it stinks - they specialize in a certain type of thing but can't serve it right so now they're a steak-house? What the class is SUPPOSED to be and what it is now (or was) is just irrelevant and falls in between the chairs of bad design. Since they can't fulfill their own class descriptions and justify any of them, this argument is futile.
i edited the response a bit. but lets go.
"trash cleaner" is a pejorative player term. be a aoe striker dont means dont have a strong single target. gwf is not striker because your tank job give some aoe tools - like the control of cws - but is a striker THAT EXCELSS IN AOE DPS. is a huge difference.
BUT you need meansure a class by your full potential and not your personal perfomance in some situation. a "atwill build"+wms in a aoe situation is a bit crazy. NOOOOOOO class can take close.
GWFs are Striker/Defender. CWs are Controller/Striker.
So if you really want to jerk off to that whole hierarchy GWFs really shouldn't excel at AOE; CWs should.
explain... is not about controller means aoe damage, is? because i can proof by how much quots that you want "control is not damage"
Yes, controllers are supposed to excel at AOE. That's part of their role.
Striker/defender shouldn't be excelling at AOE at all. That's nowhere in the description of either role.
again i need destroy you?
proof 1:
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.
Overall the changes will leave Control Wizards with more direct competition in group content and will let them more strongly fill the position of controlling all the foes on the battle field or doing heavy damage, but not both at once.
damage is not control.
proof 2:
The trees are now Archery, Combat, and Trapper. Archery is a sniper who focuses on landing precise shots that deal incredible damage. Combat is a tough melee fighter who strikes with precision flurries of blows and deflects incoming damage. Trapper is a hybrid who controls his foes with Grasping Roots and switches smoothly from one stance to another, getting benefits from both while staying relatively safe from harm. Archer and Combat fill a damage focused role, with Trapper filling a much more Hybrid role that MIXES damage and control together. The three play styles now feel very different and have unique power setups that make them all function very differently.
proof 3and the most important
"One of the primary questions we received was regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems design perspective, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be a class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight."
if aoe dps is control how a class that "exces at aoe dps" provide just i bit of control?
... now what you have?
You know that just proves my point, right? Everything you quoted means that the devs are not designing the game with the striker/controller/defender/leader hierarchy actually being used a central part of their design. They're just haphazardly filling in what they think a class should do even if it's outside of their defined roles.
a controller should cc one or more targets, a striker - lets ignore the mobility part - kill one or more controlled target . what you dont understand here? you just dont have nothing against what i say. again.
Just go look up the definition of a controller instead of making stuff up off the top of your head.
"Controllers influence fights by controlling either the field of battle or targets directly. Their role is to ensure threats are minimized or handled efficiently."
"Strikers specialize in mobility and damage output. These combatants focus on disposing threats as quickly as possible by doing as much damage as they can, as quickly as they can, without enemies retaliating."
Ok, I am not really going to argue about which class is supposed to do what, since quite franky, I don't know how the devs want the classes to be played. I don't know if the devs want CW's to focus purely on control, or GWF's to focus on single target or AoE, what I do know though is that control as a role is broken, it is superfluous and unnecessary.
Let me ask you this lia, do you need me as a control wizard to control anything or do you, like most other good gwf's I know, like to sprint far ahead of where I am, at a rate far faster then I can move and kill all the random trash before I even arive. I haven't played with you, but I am betting on the latter, you run ahead, get up your buffs etc and wms everything down. Will this change if the elol set is nerfed? No, GWF's would still run ahead and kill everything. The role of the controller is a dead role, in mod 0 it existed, with wizards punting monsters around and I would really like that kind of controller to come into existence again but the thing is, the control wizard's ability to control has been systematically erased 1 module after another, you know, like the nerf to arcane singularity for example. I could spec MoF and debuff monsters, but quite frankly, there aren't enough good players to warrant the marginal debuffs a MoF could provide and if I wanted to play that kind of support class, I might as well play a righteous dc who is superior in that area in every way, shape and form. That leaves the last option, which is to play the class as some sort of dps caster with pseudo control, which is made possible by the elol set, but if the set is removed, CW's are literally worse at playing that role then a dc specced for dealing dps and guess what, that dps dc can debuff monsters in the process.
I did a lot of runs with people recently of every class with dps specs of every class, including freya on a righteous dps dc and a gf on a dps gf build and what we did is we alternated between running with the elol set and without the elol set, 1 run with, 1 run without, same party composition for both runs and same dungeon. @zekethesinner participated in some of them and he can verify that what I say with regards to this is true. I then parsed every single run with ACT and saved the combat logs for each run with a different name so I can refer back to them, this gives a very excellent idea of what class balance would look like if the elol set was nerfed. Have you done similar? I do not think so. I can post my results if you like, heck, I can mail them to you if you want me to not clutter the forums with stuff, but at the end of the day, the elol set actually covers up a lot of class balance issues that many classes would be complaining about were the set to be nerfed. If the devs were punctual with fixes, I would wholeheartedly agree, the set should be balanced, but the thing is, the times its taken for the set to be balanced kind of illustrates how long it would take for those class balance issues to be addressed were the set to be balanced. Quite frankly, I would rather have some semblance of balance with the set in its current state then have all of the complaints about class balance that would surface if the set was nerfed.
Yes, this does stem partially from selfishness on my part, as the class I get the most enjoyment out of is control wizard (similar to how the class you get the most enjoyment out of is GWF) and due to this, I really don't want anything done to my class that literally just makes it inferior to all other classes in every area. The nerf to the elol set won't prevent GWF from being a viable class or not, but the set does literally define the difference between the CW being a competitive class in pve and not competitive at all. Could we spec oppressor? Yes. Does anyone need control? No. So yes, I will defend this set in its current state as broken as it might be, because it quite literally means the difference between the class I enjoy being a viable class and a class that has no role in pve at all and as much as ironzerg might champion the elol set nerf club as the way he does, I think he knows a lot less about the class then he realizes.
See, thing is, at the first half of mod 6, I did not wear the eLOL set. I refused to use it, was naive to think it'll get fixed sometime soon and I can continue to be competitive without it. Little did I know that no such thing is going to happen. I know the exact difference between wearing the set and not wearing it. However, what you're advocating for is wrong. You should advocate for a CW adjustment, not to keep a broken set that allows you to be competitive in the DPS arena (which, let's be honest, the extra 20% for a Renegade CW is really not that much more of a difference than it is for a GWF for example.) My choice of a CW to take with me is always a Rene MOF, the buffs are great and you're right about CC not being needed, that's another flaw in the design that needs a change. Hell, a ranger does a FAR superior job in the CC department these days, I know it hurts, I own a CW I stopped playing, doesn't mean it's right and everything can be fixed by a certain belt, certain neck, certain artifact. But again, I'd just argue that advocating for keeping a broken, broken set instead of pushing to make class adjustments is not the right way to deal with things.
And this illuminates some of the problems of the game. Players disagree often on the roles of classes and the devs seem to be afraid to respond as they could easily clear up this confusion by taking a few minutes to give their views on the subject. Considering their fearful reaction (easily assumed from their silence) we can only assume they want it to remain as vague and cloudy as it does now and that we waste our time debating the subject with any seriousness.
For those that may be unaware this topic of roles has come up probably 100 times or more and always seems to follow this same pattern of obfuscation and uncertainty and point of view disagreement (I honestly expect that soon some will take a page from Clinton and invoke the "it depends on what the definition if 'is' is" line).
The best we can assume as players is to understand what roles have value (as some pointed out some roles currently are of no use) and what classes seem best capable of these roles and weigh the classes from that perspective. It would certainly seem that the damage role is currently the most valued and that control is likely the least valued. The damage role is inflated because some classes can completely neutralize the role of risk to an entire group and thus control has no value at all.
I could go on but I am already bored of hearing my own ramblings...
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Ok, I am not really going to argue about which class is supposed to do what, since quite franky, I don't know how the devs want the classes to be played. I don't know if the devs want CW's to focus purely on control, or GWF's to focus on single target or AoE, what I do know though is that control as a role is broken, it is superfluous and unnecessary.
Let me ask you this lia, do you need me as a control wizard to control anything or do you, like most other good gwf's I know, like to sprint far ahead of where I am, at a rate far faster then I can move and kill all the random trash before I even arive. I haven't played with you, but I am betting on the latter, you run ahead, get up your buffs etc and wms everything down. Will this change if the elol set is nerfed? No, GWF's would still run ahead and kill everything. The role of the controller is a dead role, in mod 0 it existed, with wizards punting monsters around and I would really like that kind of controller to come into existence again but the thing is, the control wizard's ability to control has been systematically erased 1 module after another, you know, like the nerf to arcane singularity for example. I could spec MoF and debuff monsters, but quite frankly, there aren't enough good players to warrant the marginal debuffs a MoF could provide and if I wanted to play that kind of support class, I might as well play a righteous dc who is superior in that area in every way, shape and form. That leaves the last option, which is to play the class as some sort of dps caster with pseudo control, which is made possible by the elol set, but if the set is removed, CW's are literally worse at playing that role then a dc specced for dealing dps and guess what, that dps dc can debuff monsters in the process.
I did a lot of runs with people recently of every class with dps specs of every class, including freya on a righteous dps dc and a gf on a dps gf build and what we did is we alternated between running with the elol set and without the elol set, 1 run with, 1 run without, same party composition for both runs and same dungeon. @zekethesinner participated in some of them and he can verify that what I say with regards to this is true. I then parsed every single run with ACT and saved the combat logs for each run with a different name so I can refer back to them, this gives a very excellent idea of what class balance would look like if the elol set was nerfed. Have you done similar? I do not think so. I can post my results if you like, heck, I can mail them to you if you want me to not clutter the forums with stuff, but at the end of the day, the elol set actually covers up a lot of class balance issues that many classes would be complaining about were the set to be nerfed. If the devs were punctual with fixes, I would wholeheartedly agree, the set should be balanced, but the thing is, the times its taken for the set to be balanced kind of illustrates how long it would take for those class balance issues to be addressed were the set to be balanced. Quite frankly, I would rather have some semblance of balance with the set in its current state then have all of the complaints about class balance that would surface if the set was nerfed.
Yes, this does stem partially from selfishness on my part, as the class I get the most enjoyment out of is control wizard (similar to how the class you get the most enjoyment out of is GWF) and due to this, I really don't want anything done to my class that literally just makes it inferior to all other classes in every area. The nerf to the elol set won't prevent GWF from being a viable class or not, but the set does literally define the difference between the CW being a competitive class in pve and not competitive at all. Could we spec oppressor? Yes. Does anyone need control? No. So yes, I will defend this set in its current state as broken as it might be, because it quite literally means the difference between the class I enjoy being a viable class and a class that has no role in pve at all and as much as ironzerg might champion the elol set nerf club as the way he does, I think he knows a lot less about the class then he realizes.
See, thing is, at the first half of mod 6, I did not wear the eLOL set. I refused to use it, was naive to think it'll get fixed sometime soon and I can continue to be competitive without it. Little did I know that no such thing is going to happen. I know the exact difference between wearing the set and not wearing it. However, what you're advocating for is wrong. You should advocate for a CW adjustment, not to keep a broken set that allows you to be competitive in the DPS arena (which, let's be honest, the extra 20% for a Renegade CW is really not that much more of a difference than it is for a GWF for example.) My choice of a CW to take with me is always a Rene MOF, the buffs are great and you're right about CC not being needed, that's another flaw in the design that needs a change. Hell, a ranger does a FAR superior job in the CC department these days, I know it hurts, I own a CW I stopped playing, doesn't mean it's right and everything can be fixed by a certain belt, certain neck, certain artifact. But again, I'd just argue that advocating for keeping a broken, broken set instead of pushing to make class adjustments is not the right way to deal with things.
At the absolute worst with like 40% crit (as low as I have tested) the elol set makes up 17% of my wizards damage, which is a 20% dps increase. Most of the time, wizards spec into 70%+ crit, some even having 100% crit and on average it seems to make up 27% of a wizards damage, which is a 35% dps increase. However, in some extreme cases with wizards with really high crit, I have seen it make up 36% of a wizards dps, which is a 56% dps increase. Yes, it would be nice if the devs would fix classes at the same time as they nerfed the elol set (assuming it gets nerfed) but more realistically, it will take them as long to fix classes as it does for them to nerf the set.
At the absolute worst with like 40% crit (as low as I have tested) the elol set makes up 17% of my wizards damage, which is a 20% dps increase. Most of the time, wizards spec into 70%+ crit, some even having 100% crit and on average it seems to make up 27% of a wizards damage, which is a 35% dps increase. However, in some extreme cases with wizards with really high crit, I have seen it make up 36% of a wizards dps, which is a 56% dps increase. Yes, it would be nice if the devs would fix classes at the same time as they nerfed the elol set (assuming it gets nerfed) but more realistically, it will take them as long to fix classes as it does for them to nerf the set.
And more realistically, no CW under say about 3k IL even has 50% crit. But don't go there. You're falling into the trap of having to use extreme ILs as an example to make your point. Don't. It's not needed. The set simply doesn't behave as it says it does. That's the only excuse you need for wanting it fixed. And you're right in so wanting.
Thats not even true. at 2.8k i had 70%. i wouldnt of been 50% unless i was like maybe 1.5k. crit based off your item level isnt really a valid factor. since there are tons of ways to get crit and most of them dont raise item level all that much.
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
At the absolute worst with like 40% crit (as low as I have tested) the elol set makes up 17% of my wizards damage, which is a 20% dps increase. Most of the time, wizards spec into 70%+ crit, some even having 100% crit and on average it seems to make up 27% of a wizards damage, which is a 35% dps increase. However, in some extreme cases with wizards with really high crit, I have seen it make up 36% of a wizards dps, which is a 56% dps increase. Yes, it would be nice if the devs would fix classes at the same time as they nerfed the elol set (assuming it gets nerfed) but more realistically, it will take them as long to fix classes as it does for them to nerf the set.
And more realistically, no CW under say about 3k IL even has 50% crit. But don't go there. You're falling into the trap of having to use extreme ILs as an example to make your point. Don't. It's not needed. The set simply doesn't behave as it says it does. That's the only excuse you need for wanting it fixed. And you're right in so wanting.
Thats a lie, with 2k ilvl I can build a CW with over 60% crit.
Just change the LOL set so that you pick your Primary and Secondary stats then all classes will be happy...lol And / or give us better sets to compete. As to class balance, My CW still rocks the way I like to play (right in the middle of all the adds trying to keep up with the GWF). Rene 4.2K killing, buffing, healing machine. You guys really need to calm down.
in terms of this post created we have all lost reason of why we play the game and it now becomes a situation of who carved their diamond in the rough with whats available in game. if it was the case that everyone could get elol set this post would not have been created but due to the few that gave illustrations of bravery and hard work they did on their toon comes criticism. with this i just wanted thank Lia knowles for her gwf build , you made me love my gwf even more its a fun and as my friend says i got a big ego now lol for its a competition between every gwf to get stronger and in my eyes i will check a fellow brother stats when they pass by but never will envy for what i don't have. ps. remember guys its a game not a business have fun
What players should look for is: DPS, tank, control, heal Each class hould be able to perform well enough in their role, depending on build.
Solution: Devs should balance classes and AFTER THAT create content that is fine tuned to require the presence of all the above aspects. Right now the only one left out is "control". So i think that the easiest way is to just design epic dungeons to require a balanced mix of the above. Now, a DPS class/build can deal much more damage than a CC class build, but if dungeons are designed to NEED CC too, then you give CCers their deserved place in a group. Dungeons must be tested, more, with multiple compositions and builds to make sure this happens and no "BiS" composition can surface.
2) I have both eLoL set for PvE and Lathander set. If eLoL stay the same, Lathander set and the others MUST get a power-up. Example: Lathander set might revive on its own (no soulforged needed, allowing for the user to get the resurrect while using, for example, a Negation enchant) AND buff the whole group DR for a short period of time.
I'd rather they don't make higher ilevel terrible when playing dungeons 1-2k below their requirement. Give those a place where they get decent prizes so they stop going 24\7 to lower dungeons and carrying whole teams .
There are a lot of mobs you'd want to control if they were really strong (can't be dps'd in 3 secs) like conjurers. If those had a lot of hp and their aura was scaled to have considerable impact on AP you'd want control to freeze mob like them. Not go with 2k dungeons route where trash mobs oneshot everyone but those extremely overgeared\tanks. [And you know.. Always wondered why there aren't monsters immune to certain damage types\can heavily debuff off player buffs.. those are mobs that sound you'd want variety to kill\CC to slow down.
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
I'd rather they don't make higher ilevel terrible when playing dungeons 1-2k below their requirement. Give those a place where they get decent prizes so they stop going 24\7 to lower dungeons and carrying whole teams .
There are a lot of mobs you'd want to control if they were really strong (can't be dps'd in 3 secs) like conjurers. If those had a lot of hp and their aura was scaled to have considerable impact on AP you'd want control to freeze mob like them. Not go with 2k dungeons route where trash mobs oneshot everyone but those extremely overgeared\tanks. [And you know.. Always wondered why there aren't monsters immune to certain damage types\can heavily debuff off player buffs.. those are mobs that sound you'd want variety to kill\CC to slow down.
Thing is, even if there were control worthy monsters, a HR specced for control does more damage and control then a CW specced for control. There is literally no benefit to speccing for control on CW since the class is terrible at it in comparison to its closest rival in the control category.
Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring of this glorious thread...
Overall I think one of two things should happen:
1. Lostmauth Set is brought in line with other Artifact Set Bonuses. 2. All other Artifact Sets are reviewed/bumped up to be at least moderately competitive with the Lostmauth Set.
Now, which of these is more likely? I honestly don't know... Though I would hazard a guess that the status quo may remain until at least Mod 9, but that's just a guess.
I, personally, no longer use the Lostmauth Set on my SW, even though it's more 'optimum' from a DPS perspective the Str/Dex bonus on a SW always annoyed me. So, I bit the bullet and changed to the Black Ice Set. Now I am pretty darn near maxed out, and honestly I am still a boon to any party I am in based on experience/gear/feats/etc. Thus I am not advocating people to make the change I did, it was simply my personal preference on how I wanted my character to be.
Either way, something should be done...
@strumslinger Are you aware of any communication to the Devs about the current situation with the Lostmauth Set? Please ignore the HAMSTER for tat arguements in some of the posts above, as @thefabricant did a good job in his OP stating the rather obvious statistical variations via his analysis of the set. It is also something to note that Class Balance will need to be looked at, overall, if any sort of downwards adjustment is made to the Lostmauth Set.
Just hope it's on the Dev's radar and that they are at least trying to come up with some sort of solution.
Either way, keep on rocking everyone and keep it civil...
0
Options
lantern22Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,111Arc User
It seemed appropriate given the last page or two of the thread has seen the thread devolve into more 'Class versus Class' arguments instead of the the original point that The Fabricant made...
The Lostmauth Set is over-performing in comparison to other similarly released sets, that much is readily apparent. Some classes, per The Fabricants data, gain a higher % of Super Duper DPS Loving than others. However, the point of the matter remains (and should not be limited to 'Class versus Class' arguments) that something needs to be looked at by the Devs; And that is that either the Lostmauth Set should be adjust downwards or other Sets should be adjusted upwards. Maybe there is a third option that I am missing, but I really think it is as simple as those two things...
0
Options
micky1p00Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,594Arc User
It seemed appropriate given the last page or two of the thread has seen the thread devolve into more 'Class versus Class' arguments instead of the the original point that The Fabricant made...
The Lostmauth Set is over-performing in comparison to other similarly released sets, that much is readily apparent. Some classes, per The Fabricants data, gain a higher % of Super Duper DPS Loving than others. However, the point of the matter remains (and should not be limited to 'Class versus Class' arguments) that something needs to be looked at by the Devs; And that is that either the Lostmauth Set should be adjust downwards or other Sets should be adjusted upwards. Maybe there is a third option that I am missing, but I really think it is as simple as those two things...
The only sane person around, and doing it in style! *thumbs up*
I don't think you need to worry. It's highly unlikely they will do anything. Here's why: this is a f2p game, changing something solely for the sake of balance is not enough reason to do so (unfortunately for gamers). It must be, "Is the imbalance such that it will certainly be detrimental to our business?" The set has been like this for so many months. There is no way to know whether changing it will have a net positive or negative effect to their business. Better to just keep the status quo. This is especially true given how short staffed they are.
I personally miss gear variation. Unfortunately, I'm only a 2.3il Fury SW so I need the lolset in order to be useful, behind GWF, at my one and only job (that's another conversation). I agree that there needs to be a balance in sets as well as classes. Part of the reason controllers are no longer needed is due to perma-bubble. It sadly turns the game into
as you sit and go through rotations without fear of anything. Perma-bubble is all the control you need. This creates incredible demand for the lolset as that becomes the only way to be relevant outside DC or Pally. The OPness of the lolset only adds to the fact that if you're not a Pally or DC you "must" do max DPS, thus must use the lolset. Other mods I'm sure had different issues, but now all you need is DC OP GWF. All other classes are suboptimal because of: 1.) the lolset is OP/other sets being bad 2.) perma-bubble causing monotonous, "mandatory" party composition for the majority of players
3.5k HB Temptation -- Dread Legion Xbox GT -- Mr Shabok My Guide
Even if you were building your CW without the lostmauth set you shouldn't use the Valindra set because the bonus is marginal and the stats are bad. CWs are already giving up 1500 arp with the new rings and artifact weapons, losing another 2060 arp would just mean giving up a lot of crit/power for no reason. You're better off finding a better stat stick and just using the valindra's belt (although that means giving up another 530 arp).
@urabask Valindra's belt gives 2 INT and 2 CHA, which is basically 800 power, 400 recovery and 800 crit, there's room for some power/crit sacrifice don't you think?
CHA also increases CA damage, which is not obtainable elsewhere.
The set simply doesn't behave as it says it does. That's the only excuse you need for wanting it fixed. And you're right in so wanting.
If following the tooltip, it should be 1,8/2,3k damage for each critical attack on a GWF, not 700k.
For those wanting the other sets to be buffed to be equal to Lol set, I think that would be around 100% control bonus on valindra set, which would be pretty fun.
@urabask Valindra's belt gives 2 INT and 2 CHA, which is basically 800 power, 400 recovery and 800 crit, there's room for some power/crit sacrifice don't you think?
You can get that with just the belt though. If you take the whole set you're still losing stats essentially. If the elol sets get nerfed, sure,but I still wouldn't take the whole set unless they re-worked the bonus (and preferably the stats; I still don't get why they keep putting recovery on CW gear).
It seemed appropriate given the last page or two of the thread has seen the thread devolve into more 'Class versus Class' arguments instead of the the original point that The Fabricant made...
The Lostmauth Set is over-performing in comparison to other similarly released sets, that much is readily apparent. Some classes, per The Fabricants data, gain a higher % of Super Duper DPS Loving than others. However, the point of the matter remains (and should not be limited to 'Class versus Class' arguments) that something needs to be looked at by the Devs; And that is that either the Lostmauth Set should be adjust downwards or other Sets should be adjusted upwards. Maybe there is a third option that I am missing, but I really think it is as simple as those two things...
I wish I was better versed at digging up the old forums, because it's the same argument, by quite a few of the same people, that always happens anytime this got brought up. People start whinging about 'striker/controller' this and '4th edition dnd roles' that to distract from the simple fact that the Lostmauth Set is brokenly unbalanced. If you don't think so, I'm not going to try to change your mind. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone, least of all the devs, and we've asked and asked and asked them for an official stance and the only official word is that it is "working as intended". Despite being almost the exact same mechanic as the nerfed Stormspell, which wasn't working as intended, that's what we've got.
So for now, I use it, like nearly everyone else. But I won't shed a tear for my invested RP if they ever fix it, and people who believe somehow that because they have dumped time and effort into it means it shouldn't be nerfed should stop playing MMO's. That's how they work, sorry folks. Anyway, cynical rant over!
I wish I was better versed at digging up the old forums, because it's the same argument, by quite a few of the same people, that always happens anytime this got brought up. People start whinging about 'striker/controller' this and '4th edition dnd roles' that to distract from the simple fact that the Lostmauth Set is brokenly unbalanced. If you don't think so, I'm not going to try to change your mind. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone, least of all the devs, and we've asked and asked and asked them for an official stance and the only official word is that it is "working as intended". Despite being almost the exact same mechanic as the nerfed Stormspell, which wasn't working as intended, that's what we've got.
So for now, I use it, like nearly everyone else. But I won't shed a tear for my invested RP if they ever fix it, and people who believe somehow that because they have dumped time and effort into it means it shouldn't be nerfed should stop playing MMO's. That's how they work, sorry folks. Anyway, cynical rant over!
I completely agree. People think the arguments made here have some sway over the devs. It isn't objective at all however. I use the set on 3 chars. I know it is way out of whack, but I don't mind admitting it because:
1) I don't think they're ever going to do anything about. It is way past that if nothing else. Just like I mentioned in my previous post, there is just no incentive from their perspective. To think that a few biased posts here is going to the get their attention is just wishful.
2) If they did, I wouldn't mind. Hopefully, it means they are getting back to putting effort in the game play aspects, including fixing numerous major imbalances.
3) And it's just undeniable if you are being objective. I'd rather be truthful than sound like someone who would say anything to get what he wants.
I also have the set on 3 chars. This set was one of the reasons I quit this game. It isn't isolated simply to this set but because of how obvious the problem is and how easy the remedy would have been and that the devs have done nothing in all this time is all the reason anyone ever needs to know when considering the quality of this game and whether the devs are serious about it or not. Consider the ring blunders, the ap gain insanity, the power creep and power disparity, their ruin of pvp with imbalance and gated drains and such -- that should be more than enough for even the stalwart hold outs to see.
Comments
proof 1:
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.
Overall the changes will leave Control Wizards with more direct competition in group content and will let them more strongly fill the position of controlling all the foes on the battle field or doing heavy damage, but not both at once.
damage is not control.
proof 2:
The trees are now Archery, Combat, and Trapper. Archery is a sniper who focuses on landing precise shots that deal incredible damage. Combat is a tough melee fighter who strikes with precision flurries of blows and deflects incoming damage.
Trapper is a hybrid who controls his foes with Grasping Roots and switches smoothly from one stance to another, getting benefits from both while staying relatively safe from harm. Archer and Combat fill a damage focused role, with Trapper filling a much more Hybrid role that MIXES damage and control together. The three play styles now feel very different and have unique power setups that make them all function very differently.
proof 3and the most important
"One of the primary questions we received was regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems design perspective, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be a class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight."
if aoe dps is control how a class that "exces at aoe dps" provide just i bit of control?
... now what you have? external fonts? what you want?
about what the fabrincant sayed. you have the last boss of plaguefired too. good times.
"Strikers specialize in mobility and damage output. These combatants focus on disposing threats as quickly as possible by doing as much damage as they can, as quickly as they can, without enemies retaliating."
http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Class
over the top i have the quot of devs... you have... some external font and a cut encounter name?
The Holy Crusaders guild leader ♚ Mod 10 PVE Destroyer GWF guide ♚ Founding member of the Relentless Alliance
For those that may be unaware this topic of roles has come up probably 100 times or more and always seems to follow this same pattern of obfuscation and uncertainty and point of view disagreement (I honestly expect that soon some will take a page from Clinton and invoke the "it depends on what the definition if 'is' is" line).
The best we can assume as players is to understand what roles have value (as some pointed out some roles currently are of no use) and what classes seem best capable of these roles and weigh the classes from that perspective. It would certainly seem that the damage role is currently the most valued and that control is likely the least valued. The damage role is inflated because some classes can completely neutralize the role of risk to an entire group and thus control has no value at all.
I could go on but I am already bored of hearing my own ramblings...
ps. remember guys its a game not a business have fun
1) Class balance
What players should look for is: DPS, tank, control, heal
Each class hould be able to perform well enough in their role, depending on build.
Solution: Devs should balance classes and AFTER THAT create content that is fine tuned to require the presence of all the above aspects. Right now the only one left out is "control". So i think that the easiest way is to just design epic dungeons to require a balanced mix of the above. Now, a DPS class/build can deal much more damage than a CC class build, but if dungeons are designed to NEED CC too, then you give CCers their deserved place in a group.
Dungeons must be tested, more, with multiple compositions and builds to make sure this happens and no "BiS" composition can surface.
2) I have both eLoL set for PvE and Lathander set. If eLoL stay the same, Lathander set and the others MUST get a power-up. Example: Lathander set might revive on its own (no soulforged needed, allowing for the user to get the resurrect while using, for example, a Negation enchant) AND buff the whole group DR for a short period of time.
There are a lot of mobs you'd want to control if they were really strong (can't be dps'd in 3 secs) like conjurers. If those had a lot of hp and their aura was scaled to have considerable impact on AP you'd want control to freeze mob like them. Not go with 2k dungeons route where trash mobs oneshot everyone but those extremely overgeared\tanks. [And you know.. Always wondered why there aren't monsters immune to certain damage types\can heavily debuff off player buffs.. those are mobs that sound you'd want variety to kill\CC to slow down.
Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring of this glorious thread...
Overall I think one of two things should happen:
1. Lostmauth Set is brought in line with other Artifact Set Bonuses.
2. All other Artifact Sets are reviewed/bumped up to be at least moderately competitive with the Lostmauth Set.
Now, which of these is more likely? I honestly don't know... Though I would hazard a guess that the status quo may remain until at least Mod 9, but that's just a guess.
I, personally, no longer use the Lostmauth Set on my SW, even though it's more 'optimum' from a DPS perspective the Str/Dex bonus on a SW always annoyed me. So, I bit the bullet and changed to the Black Ice Set. Now I am pretty darn near maxed out, and honestly I am still a boon to any party I am in based on experience/gear/feats/etc. Thus I am not advocating people to make the change I did, it was simply my personal preference on how I wanted my character to be.
Either way, something should be done...
@strumslinger Are you aware of any communication to the Devs about the current situation with the Lostmauth Set? Please ignore the HAMSTER for tat arguements in some of the posts above, as @thefabricant did a good job in his OP stating the rather obvious statistical variations via his analysis of the set. It is also something to note that Class Balance will need to be looked at, overall, if any sort of downwards adjustment is made to the Lostmauth Set.
Just hope it's on the Dev's radar and that they are at least trying to come up with some sort of solution.
Either way, keep on rocking everyone and keep it civil...
haha love the choice of hat toss
It seemed appropriate given the last page or two of the thread has seen the thread devolve into more 'Class versus Class' arguments instead of the the original point that The Fabricant made...
The Lostmauth Set is over-performing in comparison to other similarly released sets, that much is readily apparent. Some classes, per The Fabricants data, gain a higher % of Super Duper DPS Loving than others. However, the point of the matter remains (and should not be limited to 'Class versus Class' arguments) that something needs to be looked at by the Devs; And that is that either the Lostmauth Set should be adjust downwards or other Sets should be adjusted upwards. Maybe there is a third option that I am missing, but I really think it is as simple as those two things...
*thumbs up*
I don't think you need to worry. It's highly unlikely they will do anything. Here's why: this is a f2p game, changing something solely for the sake of balance is not enough reason to do so (unfortunately for gamers). It must be, "Is the imbalance such that it will certainly be detrimental to our business?" The set has been like this for so many months. There is no way to know whether changing it will have a net positive or negative effect to their business. Better to just keep the status quo. This is especially true given how short staffed they are.
as you sit and go through rotations without fear of anything. Perma-bubble is all the control you need. This creates incredible demand for the lolset as that becomes the only way to be relevant outside DC or Pally. The OPness of the lolset only adds to the fact that if you're not a Pally or DC you "must" do max DPS, thus must use the lolset. Other mods I'm sure had different issues, but now all you need is DC OP GWF. All other classes are suboptimal because of:
1.) the lolset is OP/other sets being bad
2.) perma-bubble causing monotonous, "mandatory" party composition for the majority of players
Xbox GT -- Mr Shabok
My Guide
Valindra's belt gives 2 INT and 2 CHA, which is basically 800 power, 400 recovery and 800 crit, there's room for some power/crit sacrifice don't you think?
CHA also increases CA damage, which is not obtainable elsewhere.
Anyway : If following the tooltip, it should be 1,8/2,3k damage for each critical attack on a GWF, not 700k.
For those wanting the other sets to be buffed to be equal to Lol set, I think that would be around 100% control bonus on valindra set, which would be pretty fun.
I wish I was better versed at digging up the old forums, because it's the same argument, by quite a few of the same people, that always happens anytime this got brought up. People start whinging about 'striker/controller' this and '4th edition dnd roles' that to distract from the simple fact that the Lostmauth Set is brokenly unbalanced. If you don't think so, I'm not going to try to change your mind. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone, least of all the devs, and we've asked and asked and asked them for an official stance and the only official word is that it is "working as intended". Despite being almost the exact same mechanic as the nerfed Stormspell, which wasn't working as intended, that's what we've got.
So for now, I use it, like nearly everyone else. But I won't shed a tear for my invested RP if they ever fix it, and people who believe somehow that because they have dumped time and effort into it means it shouldn't be nerfed should stop playing MMO's. That's how they work, sorry folks. Anyway, cynical rant over!
1) I don't think they're ever going to do anything about. It is way past that if nothing else. Just like I mentioned in my previous post, there is just no incentive from their perspective. To think that a few biased posts here is going to the get their attention is just wishful.
2) If they did, I wouldn't mind. Hopefully, it means they are getting back to putting effort in the game play aspects, including fixing numerous major imbalances.
3) And it's just undeniable if you are being objective. I'd rather be truthful than sound like someone who would say anything to get what he wants.