schweifer1982Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,662Arc User
edited February 2017
Dear rgutscheradev pls spend at least 5 min testing Flaming enchant on mobs with armor pen resist and test dummy , and pls look at supposed outgoing dmg and other enchants supposed outgoing dmg .
Cuz its not fine at all.
Other enchants deal 17 % dmg and do much more then Flaming with 17 % .
PLS just 5 min not looking on paper ,rather go to test server and use it hit something and look at the log (you dont need ACT) .
I don't agree. It's a bad precedent. Fixing the mistakes of the past should not be founded on retaining those mistakes.
I'm talking about flexibility. If the mechanic works but wasn't what you had planned for (but people enjoy it), I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't see anything game-breaking here at all. In fact it makes things more interesting.
I actually agree with both of you. If players find something fun, then even if it's working in a way that wasn't intended, it can be good to keep it. But if something is really mistaken, it needs to be fixed.
The part that's fun (well, for the people engaging in this system, which is probably a minority of the player base, although it is a lot of people on this thread!) is figuring out which of these debuffs to use and which not to use. And I agree it's not fundamentally broken from a balance or overall power level point of view.
But what is bad is that it's so ridiculously opaque. There's just a list of things that work one way, and another list of things that work a different way, with no rhyme or reason to it. That's bad. People should be able to make sense of things. Also, it's not fun to find out that your particular power/enhancement/companion/gizmo isn't doing anything for you because of some totally mysterious reasons.
However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.
Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous.
Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.
Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?
Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
In the time we had for these M11 enchantment changes (which, remember, started out as "buff Flaming and Barkshield"!), I don't think we could have gotten to a good solution to the overall debuff stacking issue. So that will have to wait. In the meantime, I think it makes more sense to do nothing (with the debuff stacking issues) rather than make some temporary tweak that would then change again when we did the real thing.
But at some point I would like to improve this system so it makes a bit more sense.
No, definetly not everything uncapped.
Make differencies. I.E powers can be switched on-demand according to the party setup, but what about feats/enchants? And who the debuff affects?
Not a common rise. See later
Yes, a good idea. See my opinion below.
1. Powers - encounters/at-wills/dailies can be switched on-demand - should be capped. DC/TR/CW debuffs came in my mind. 2. Feats affecting allies should be capped. Debuffing powers can be switched to something else on-demand <- btw can it even happen feats are going above 100% party wide DR debuff? 3. Feats/skills affecting only the caster should be uncapped. Check if this could go over 100%, if so I have to rethink this point or add a cap of 100% for this like @treesclimber suggested. All other party/raid/group wide debuffs are already capped by 1.-2. 4. Enchants should behave like point 3. (uncapped) even though affect allies. Switching WE b/c of this is unacceptable for me. Same enchants regardless of the rank shall not stack to prevent over(de)buffing. Use the same patter as for point 3.
Sidenote: 200% effectivenes means 100% DR debuff. Any damage below 100% effectivenes means enemy's DR>attacker's resistance ignore=dealt damage<base damage. Just to clarify.
The enchant in its current form is useless. I am taling about pure/trans level. +7%/-7% and an icd. The proposed change would bring this enchant in line with the other enchants.
It was a well deserved buff.
"transcendent Frost Enchantment You deal an additional 28% weapon damage as Cold damage with your powers. In addition you apply a 30% slow, 28% recharge speed reduction, 30% damage resistance reduction, 30% damage dealt reduction and disable your target for 4 seconds. (No disable in PvP.) This effect may occur no more than once every 20 seconds."
But this was taken back ,by posting ill thought arguments and prioritizing 1% players of the server over the rest 99%.
More or less thier argument was .."With the change ,and the 200% cap,the enchant would not contribute".
While now with 7% it makes it 207% and it is the difference between failure and success.Give me a break.Not to mention the ICD.
For me the solo benefits ,outweight the 7% buff that well organized parties would lose. +23% damage -23% damage taken and people talked against this? Cause you lose 7% effectiveness in tiamat?Where poor tia dies in first phase.
This i is not possible.It is not possible to read such things.it is my eyes.Can't be.
Not to mention that extremely few run pure frost/t frost anyway,even now.
The things posted are not true and in other aspects.
200% effectiveness can be achieved by a 20-50% of the server population in raids with more than 5 people parties (tia edemo etc).But that is irrelevant. Cause it does not matter anymore,power creep will kill tia or poor demo in first phase or in 6-7 secs even with 150% effectiveness.Take 25 3,5k GWFs ad leave them to se what happens there.
You guys make it to seem like tia or demo require some kind of skill or cordination.
To make it short : group content where 200% effectiveness is achieved ,is already trivial with or with out 200% cap.Edemo ,tia are a joke already.
Msva died out cause of mod11.
In a 5 man parties 200% effectiveness can be achieved by 1% of the population.Even then from that 1% i doubt 5% run frost anyway.
---------------------------------------
Please buff frost ! thanks!
One CW can make 200% effectiveness in solo: RI > 60%, Ray of Enfeeblement in tab - 35%, Combustive Action - 24%, Swath of Destruction x2 - 40%, Bitter Cold - 5% The maximum value of DR mobs 60%, then: effectiveness = (1-DR+RI+SummDRdebuffs) = (1-0.6+0.6+0.35+0.24+0.4+0.05) = 2.04 ~ 2.00 = 200% cap reached. HR can too. GF too. And other class can make 180%+ effectiveness in solo.
One CW can make 200% effectiveness in solo: RI > 60%, Ray of Enfeeblement in tab - 35%, Combustive Action - 24%, Swath of Destruction x2 - 40%, Bitter Cold - 5% The maximum value of DR mobs 60%, then: effectiveness = (1-DR+RI+SummDRdebuffs) = (1-0.6+0.6+0.35+0.24+0.4+0.05) = 2.04 ~ 2.00 = 200% cap reached.
One CW can make 200% effectiveness in solo: RI > 60%, Ray of Enfeeblement in tab - 35%, Combustive Action - 24%, Swath of Destruction x2 - 40%, Bitter Cold - 5% The maximum value of DR mobs 60%, then: effectiveness = (1-DR+RI+SummDRdebuffs) = (1-0.6+0.6+0.35+0.24+0.4+0.05) = 2.04 ~ 2.00 = 200% cap reached.
OK, our deadline for making changes for this module has hit, and I've managed to squeeze in two more things.
One is I finally got the Lightning chains to scale properly, which turned out to be a real beast for technical reasons I won't bore everyone with. But after a complete rebuild of the power, it all seems to work correctly now.
The other thing I did (based on asterdahl's suggestion) was tweak the stacking behavior for the Flaming WE DoT. It might be helpful for people to know more about this, so let me explain. * In the old days, each stack had its own timer and each would fall off when that timer ran out. So, for example, if you added a stack every second, and each one lasted 3 seconds, then the 3rd stack would fall off right about when you put on the 4th. * Then programmers added a flag to get RefreshDuration stacks. Whenever you add a stack, each existing stack gets its duration refreshed. So all the stacks will fall off as a group, not one by one. And once you are at max stacks, it's a lot easier to stay there. Mostly this is how we like to do stacking now, unless we have some special reason not to.
What I did was update the DoT to be of RefreshDuration type. It will be a lot easier to reach 3 stacks now, and a lot easier to maintain your stacks (there's still a stack limit of 3, just as before). Hopefully this will allow more characters to consider the Flaming WE. (Plague Fire got this same treatment.)
I mention this because there are almost certainly other places in the game where this "stacks fall off one by one" behavior is lingering. While I don't really want to go on a crusade to squelch every single one of them, if there are a few that are particularly bugging people we might be able to change them too. (There might be a some where we want to leave them with the old behavior, either for balance reasons or for some other weird reason I can't think of right now, so no promises!)
There is a small issue with this behavior and scaling DoTs. For example I've applied stacks, now I got buffed, either my companion resurrected and applied bondings, or a brutal ring proced or external power buff, or orcus set bonus and my eme,y now has less health for example. Now I come to apply the DoT again, will their damage be updated? Or just the timer of the old refreshed? As of now a lot of the DoTs only refresh the timer but not the damage....
What I would like, obviously, is that the maximum of the damage will be applied -> if the current ticks higher or equal to the refreshed (those we try to apply), current stays and only the timer refreshes, else a the new higher damage is applied to the stack, and the timer refreshed.
Same for class skill based DoTs like TR Dualist Flurry Bleed.
PS, if you touch powers and etc.. can we please have TR dualist Flurry always apply bleed stack and not a chance to (as in a single Flurry will apply all 10 stacks). It will make TRing much happier.
In regular 5 man parties ,for the majority of pve players ,200% effectiveness is rare to see.
And you all want to sacrifice the 99% of population so you can have 7% more effectiveness and to make it 207% and finish tia 2 point 4 secs faster :P
My argument is that this 7% is not needed anyway.
I feel that the majority of pug runs could get a boost from the proposed frost rework.The high Il parties don't need the 7% of frost to finish high level content anyway.
The choise is to have curent situation +7% for 1% of population using the vague frost. Or to buff it and the 99% of player base to get a 30% boost from reworked frost.
But High iL NW community has ahown its true colours again.Grats!!!
As a side cooment ,about the CW effectiveness: devs please look at the numbers of buffs posted in this thread ,that a CW can stack .It trivialize the content.MoF buffer build is out of control and it trivializes content .please take a look to it ,for pve.
Ok I need to retract my statement abt terror being mitigated to .9% effectiveness at svardborg.. while it definetly was an eye opener for me when I saw my damage was relegated to that, it does seem upon further testing by sharpedge aka @thefabricant that the boss does in fact have 60%Dr.. I will however request that battle straregies be given out for group content and also state while hovering over queue content to mention what dr the presiding bosses have.. this will help a lot of ppl be prepared for the content. I know fbi does have it but what's mentioned for the dragon turtle is a false positive.. fufilling the requirement mentioned is not enough to stop the turtle from wild slamming and the truth is ranged classes need to stay at range for it to perform as mentioned.
In regular 5 man parties ,for the majority of pve players ,200% effectiveness is rare to see.
And you all want to sacrifice the 99% of population so you can have 7% more effectiveness and to make it 207% and finish tia 2 point 4 secs faster :P
My argument is that this 7% is not needed anyway.
I feel that the majority of pug runs could get a boost from the proposed frost rework.The high Il parties don't need the 7% of frost to finish high level content anyway.
The choise is to have curent situation +7% for 1% of population using the vague frost. Or to buff it and the 99% of player base to get a 30% boost from reworked frost.
But High iL NW community has ahown its true colours again.Grats!!!
As a side cooment ,about the CW effectiveness: devs please look at the numbers of buffs posted in this thread ,that a CW can stack .It trivialize the content.MoF buffer build is out of control and it trivializes content .please take a look to it ,for pve.
-----------------------------
tattica7....
"You have much to learn. "
From you? Doubtfull.
cheers
Who is that Illuminati like High IL community ruling NW in secret? Who are the 99% PuG players craving the 30% frost debuff, to form effective parties with low IL.
Do you do PuG runs? Did you see, who uses Buff/ debuff builds? You can count yourself lucky, if you have a GF in your PuG group and he uses ITF. That is 30% dmg buff for free and 3 our of 4 PuG GFs dont use it. Same with wicked reminder, MOF/rene CW etc.
I get your reasoning. It might be, that the uncapped buff just benefits a minority of players, but this minority of players are 99% of the players using frost enchantment, imo.
As a side cooment ,about the CW effectiveness: devs please look at the numbers of buffs posted in this thread ,that a CW can stack .It trivialize the content.MoF buffer build is out of control and it trivializes content .please take a look to it ,for pve.
If we argue in the same direction, then let's take a cap on buffs. DC trivializes content. But this is not logical.
MoF has a debuff, but MoF does not have high damage, MoF does not protect the group. Each specialization has its own role. And say "let's remove debuffs from debuffers" is incorrect.
I feel that 7% is not needed in high IL elite parties.But..30% is definitelly needed for the majority of new players.
All debuffs work the same way for any IL. And 0-2000 IL players can reach cap using same skills as 4000+ IL. Your argument is more suited for players who don't know the mechanics of skills and players who know.
"Did you see, who uses Buff/ debuff builds? You can count yourself lucky, if you have a GF in your PuG group and he uses ITF. That is 30% dmg buff for free and 3 our of 4 PuG GFs dont use it."
So basically you accept ,at least partially,my reasoning.At least one saw it ,that is something ,other than the attacks i took
"I think IL does not affect the effectiveness of the debuffs."
True in its absolute form.But you know what I mean: A high IL party is more possible to know the value of debuffs and set them up accordingly than a 1,8k Il party..that's what I meant...
---------------------------------
I write all these ,cause I do pug runs with my alts and sometimes my main. I can centainly feel the game better from a lot of posters in this thread,cause I will blend with the new players or with the players that run a class wrong.And these are the majority.
The point is ,that I know how the majority of players run this game.This is a game designed for the masses ,with option for some to delve into end game run and optimize builds and rotations.
We need more gamers in this game .We need content to be more accesible to them.Frost is a cheap enchant that could fill its role as a cheap boost to low Il/unexperienced players.
The proposed rework would fill that spot: people objected that will lose some efficiency cause now they can get to 207% or to 214% or whatever and started posting formulas like we are ready to launch Saturn-5 to Mars.
I feel that 7% is not needed in high IL elite parties.But..30% is definitelly needed for the majority of new players.
None answered straigh on to my argument:instead one with a second account attacked me.
Edit : I will accept the preview shard's role and i will post no more for that subject.I think the devs made their choise anyway.
treesclimberMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,161Arc User
edited February 2017
Uncaped debuffs should go, lets be creative, lets supose 4 sellsword like companions are debuffing the target also a dancing shield and a ambush drake, so 80% more effectivness, i am on my GWF and someone just used a hearth of black dragon and the target is being affected by frost debuff, the target has a 60% DR, but being negativist the hearth of the black dragon is only giving 5% (i m not considering the target lvl 73) that will make a total of 80 + 5 +7 +10 for my encounters so suposing that a IBS is 100 000 just affected by all other sources is now affected by capped and uncaped debuffs: 100 000 *2 * 2.02 = 404 000, effectivness of 404%, of course it's praticly impossible but it serves to prove how far they can extend the damage.
@hypervoreian you no like rockets =(? In part i agree with you parties that reach 200% already make mobs like butter in a oven but people should be given a reason to debuff and feel like they are part of the debuff being applied on the target so even if at small effectivness everything should count, now filter the debuffs to the lower ranks of the enchants and damage to the upper ranks may not be a bad idea.
0
frozenfirevrMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,475Community Moderator
@hypervoreian, the type of players you're referring to either pick the cheapest enchantment or a DPS one, they don't give a HAMSTER about their builds... Frost is neither. And also, iirc, only Pure/Transcendent version has a worthwhile debuff, people who can afford that, generally, do care about their builds, and therefore most likely know how to use stuff.
0
frozenfirevrMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,475Community Moderator
The enchant in its current form is useless. I am taling about pure/trans level. +7%/-7% and an icd. The proposed change would bring this enchant in line with the other enchants.
It was a well deserved buff.
"transcendent Frost Enchantment You deal an additional 28% weapon damage as Cold damage with your powers. In addition you apply a 30% slow, 28% recharge speed reduction, 30% damage resistance reduction, 30% damage dealt reduction and disable your target for 4 seconds. (No disable in PvP.) This effect may occur no more than once every 20 seconds."
But this was taken back ,by posting ill thought arguments and prioritizing 1% players of the server over the rest 99%.
More or less thier argument was .."With the change ,and the 200% cap,the enchant would not contribute".
While now with 7% it makes it 207% and it is the difference between failure and success.Give me a break.Not to mention the ICD.
For me the solo benefits ,outweight the 7% buff that well organized parties would lose. +23% damage -23% damage taken and people talked against this? Cause you lose 7% effectiveness in tiamat?Where poor tia dies in first phase.
This i is not possible.It is not possible to read such things.it is my eyes.Can't be.
Not to mention that extremely few run pure frost/t frost anyway,even now.
The things posted are not true and in other aspects.
200% effectiveness can be achieved by a 20-50% of the server population in raids with more than 5 people parties (tia edemo etc).But that is irrelevant. Cause it does not matter anymore,power creep will kill tia or poor demo in first phase or in 6-7 secs even with 150% effectiveness.Take 25 3,5k GWFs ad leave them to se what happens there.
You guys make it to seem like tia or demo require some kind of skill or cordination.
To make it short : group content where 200% effectiveness is achieved ,is already trivial with or with out 200% cap.Edemo ,tia are a joke already.
Msva died out cause of mod11.
In a 5 man parties 200% effectiveness can be achieved by 1% of the population.Even then from that 1% i doubt 5% run frost anyway.
---------------------------------------
Please buff frost ! thanks!
One CW can make 200% effectiveness in solo: RI > 60%, Ray of Enfeeblement in tab - 35%, Combustive Action - 24%, Swath of Destruction x2 - 40%, Bitter Cold - 5% The maximum value of DR mobs 60%, then: effectiveness = (1-DR+RI+SummDRdebuffs) = (1-0.6+0.6+0.35+0.24+0.4+0.05) = 2.04 ~ 2.00 = 200% cap reached. HR can too. GF too. And other class can make 180%+ effectiveness in solo.
I don't agree. It's a bad precedent. Fixing the mistakes of the past should not be founded on retaining those mistakes.
I'm talking about flexibility. If the mechanic works but wasn't what you had planned for (but people enjoy it), I don't think it needs to be changed. I don't see anything game-breaking here at all. In fact it makes things more interesting.
I actually agree with both of you. If players find something fun, then even if it's working in a way that wasn't intended, it can be good to keep it. But if something is really mistaken, it needs to be fixed.
The part that's fun (well, for the people engaging in this system, which is probably a minority of the player base, although it is a lot of people on this thread!) is figuring out which of these debuffs to use and which not to use. And I agree it's not fundamentally broken from a balance or overall power level point of view.
But what is bad is that it's so ridiculously opaque. There's just a list of things that work one way, and another list of things that work a different way, with no rhyme or reason to it. That's bad. People should be able to make sense of things. Also, it's not fun to find out that your particular power/enhancement/companion/gizmo isn't doing anything for you because of some totally mysterious reasons.
However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.
Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous.
Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.
Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?
Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
In the time we had for these M11 enchantment changes (which, remember, started out as "buff Flaming and Barkshield"!), I don't think we could have gotten to a good solution to the overall debuff stacking issue. So that will have to wait. In the meantime, I think it makes more sense to do nothing (with the debuff stacking issues) rather than make some temporary tweak that would then change again when we did the real thing.
But at some point I would like to improve this system so it makes a bit more sense.
Hi, imo the way player powers are handled is fine: high debuff numbers allowing players who don´t have good gear yet a significant contribution(if they know), low opportunity cost to replace if the cap is already reached by other means. There should however be an ingame tutorial revealing both that unlike armor penetration, debuffs can make the target more than 100% dmg, and that there is a cap...finding the combat log function isn´t that easy without guidiance, and figuring out how to makes sense of the numbers even harder.
Feats, companions and most importantly enchantments are a different matter, because the opportuntiy costs of changeing them scale from high to insanely high in said order. Imo they should always deliver what the tooltip promises, regardless of the targets dmg resistance, level, or what other players in the same run are doing. Otherwise ppl will rightfully feel cheated if they ever find out how things truly work, like for example if someone who bought the TR booster Pack for the greenscale bowman companion(I think its called), since its a ranged companion promising 5% debuff, only to find out its getting double mitigated into less than 2% where it would matter most. If that results trivialising the game too much, tune down the base numbers.
If you insist that debuffs need to be mitigated, I wouldn´t base it off the targets level(currently to 75% effectivness at 73) or dmg resistance(currently theres a mitigation on some debuffs that strangely can´t be lifted by having enough resistance ignored). I´d make them full effect in single player and content for up to 5 players, and apply appropriate factors for 10 or more player raids, and communicate them ingame.
@asterdahl , Ty for the changes on terror. I finally did get around to testing it and while the update with respect to the 6% debuff hasnt been patched in , currently working at 4% debuff .. I noticed it straight off the bat that you removed the DR mitigation from terror and now only 75% effective vs level 73 mobs is applied and so terror has a constant 3% debuff up all the time. This change is awesome and welcoming atleast by me . I'm hoping this stays as it is when the update does get patched at preview. So now with a 6% debuff which only will get mitigated by level 73 mobs and a 8% reduction of outgoing damage makes this enchant viable for supporting roles. Appreciate all the good work put in.
New feedback: The new reduced proc rate on encounters like Dreadtheft and Blades of Vanquished armies is extreme. Only 1 proc for Dreadtheft? Only 5 procs for Blades of Vanquished Armies? Right now a GF or GWF stacking +%damage from buffs/debuffs and spamming at-wills can get more out of the new enchants than an SW. What would be the point of these changes if you're ultimately only buffing the builds that don't even need buffing?
A more objective proc reduction rebalancing method for encounter powers would focus on power uptime (x procs every few seconds), with special consideration for powers that don't starting cooling down as soon as they are cast (don't look at me, I'm not the one who made powers like Dreadtheft/Wraith's Shadow/Blades of Vanquished Armies behave that way). You can then use that as the standard for determining proc rate (by buffing or nerfing number of procs every 3 seconds, for example). Right now everything SW encounter-wise just seems busted. There's no rhyme nor reason to proc rates at all.
You there. New to the game? Feeling overwhelmed? Maybe you think getting to end-game is impossible for a casual player like yourself, or maybe you just need to be around a community that helps each other stay sane and competitive with the latest news, current trends, random chitchat and most of all LEGIT (that is, we try to keep things fair) gameplay. If you don't mind being around quirky people and the rare occasional drama (one of our prominent TR members is apparently a mafia godfather) join nw_legit_community at http://www.nwlegitcommunity.shivtr.com/forum_threads/2330542.
1
ghoulz66Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,748Arc User
New feedback: The new reduced proc rate on encounters like Dreadtheft and Blades of Vanquished armies is extreme. Only 1 proc for Dreadtheft? Only 5 procs for Blades of Vanquished Armies? Right now a GF or GWF stacking +%damage from buffs/debuffs and spamming at-wills can get more out of the new enchants than an SW. What would be the point of these changes if you're ultimately only buffing the builds that don't even need buffing?
A more objective proc reduction rebalancing method for encounter powers would focus on power uptime (x procs every few seconds), with special consideration for powers that don't starting cooling down as soon as they are cast (don't look at me, I'm not the one who made powers like Dreadtheft/Wraith's Shadow/Blades of Vanquished Armies behave that way). You can then use that as the standard for determining proc rate (by buffing or nerfing number of procs every 3 seconds, for example). Right now everything SW encounter-wise just seems busted. There's no rhyme nor reason to proc rates at all.
They have unified both aspects of it (PVE and PVP) and this is how they intend to work on all enchants more or less with their tooltips. When the change does get pushed through to preview , it will have a 6%DR debuff and 8% outgoing damage reduction applied for both venues.
They have unified both aspects of it (PVE and PVP) and this is how they intend to work on all enchants more or less with their tooltips. When the change does get pushed through to preview , it will have a 6%DR debuff and 8% outgoing damage reduction applied for both venues.
Who came up with this "strange" idea of unifying Terror enchantment? Are the devs in their right mind?
We understand there is a lot of frustration with plague fire and frost being folded into the resistance cap, we are currently discussing the best way to proceed forward given your feedback. Please keep in mind that given the fact that all weapon damage values on these enchantments now scale with your power, the amount of damage they are contributing has received quite a boost. As such, the enchantments across the board add noteworthy contributions to damage on top of whatever utility they posses.
In the meantime, I have made some adjustments to terror, like with frost and plague fire I will share the standard and transcendent level tooltips, please keep in mind the % weapon damage value is without any contribution from power, it will be higher on your character:
Transcendent Terror Enchantment You deal an additional 30% weapon damage as Necrotic damage with your powers. In addition you apply a 6% damage resistance reduction and a 8% damage dealt reduction to your target.
When you strike a foe you have a 10% chance to root the target for 3 seconds. This effect may occur no more than once every 30 seconds.
Terror Enchantment You deal an additional 10% weapon damage as Necrotic damage with your powers. In addition you apply a 4% damage resistance reduction to your target.
As with frost and plague fire, Terror's PvP and PvE effects have been unified and buffed. Compared with live, the damage resistance reduction is now 6% up from 4%. Where there was no outgoing damage dealt reduction in PvE before (only power reduction in PvP) there is now an 8% damage dealt reduction to targets with the pure and transcendent rank.
In addition, the base weapon damage value has been increased, up 5% on transcendent from 25% to 30%. (For reference, with around 20k power transcendent terror will grant an additional 52% weapon damage.) The root effect remains unchanged.
both of this 2 have higher damage number in current build then the one u mention here does it means they will get damage nerf to?
It's not the case that any of these values have been lowered compared with the current build. As @rgutscheradev previously noted earlier in the thread, all of the enchantments which state "deal additional % weapon damage" now scale with your power. I've simply stated the base value as the actual value will depend on your character.
For example, on my cleric with around ~20k power, Frost reads "...28% weapon damage..." and Plague Fire reads "...21% weapon damage as Fire damage. In addition your foe burns for 8.7% weapon damage..."
0
beckylunaticMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 14,231Arc User
I actually agree with both of you. If players find something fun, then even if it's working in a way that wasn't intended, it can be good to keep it. But if something is really mistaken, it needs to be fixed.
The part that's fun (well, for the people engaging in this system, which is probably a minority of the player base, although it is a lot of people on this thread!) is figuring out which of these debuffs to use and which not to use. And I agree it's not fundamentally broken from a balance or overall power level point of view.
But what is bad is that it's so ridiculously opaque. There's just a list of things that work one way, and another list of things that work a different way, with no rhyme or reason to it. That's bad. People should be able to make sense of things. Also, it's not fun to find out that your particular power/enhancement/companion/gizmo isn't doing anything for you because of some totally mysterious reasons.
However, figuring out the right way to have everything work isn't obvious.
Should everything be completely uncapped? That sounds really dangerous.
Should everything be capped? That will make all of you very sad, I think.
Maybe everything should be capped, but the cap should be raised a lot. By how much?
Maybe some things should be capped, and others shouldn't, but there should be some logical pattern to it. What should the pattern be? And probably the cap should be raised or lowered once that's been sorted out. In which direction, and by how much?
Other options include things like stack groups or diminishing returns (how exactly these should work is even less obvious).
Back when I ran group content regularly, I was a huge fan of stacking different types of debuffs. Even a casual player can very much see the difference between using them and not using them when a demonic overload HE gets triggered. If the list of icons is longer than the critter's name, it will melt. If it's only 6-10 li'l icons, you are in for a rough time.
In my opinion, debuffs that work differently in practice than on paper are the worst offender. It's terrible to spend on something that you later find out doesn't work, or works a little but less well than it said it would. The comment up-thread about the high cost of investing into enchants and companions is really important to heed. Most players can't afford to make mistakes here. You probably see a lot of players following the tested most-effective meta and a lot of players using whatever was cheapest, and not many willing to experiment with anything that's likely to cost them a ton of AD and prove to not work very well anyway.
As for how things should work Uncapped? Probably not. Everything capped? Removes value from items that debuff when coordinated players can reach the cap for free with skills. Cap raised by a lot? I don't know. The list of things currently not effected by this cap is fairly short. It's not like "just" +200% effectiveness is bad. But as you observed, seeing how you can push those limits is fun. Where is the threshold where raised cap is safe while uncapped is not? Cap some things and not others? This is an interesting idea and one where I see some potential for making broad distinctions such as a debuff weapon enchant always adds value to the group even if they can reach the cap without it. This respects people's investment into their equipment, and respects players who spec into support builds.
Another thing to get straight is whether or not the same debuff from multiple sources should stack. The game has mostly followed a rule where they do not, but there are exceptions. Not allowing multiple sources of something like Plaguefire is a point of frustration as not everyone can afford to change enchants in order to optimize a party all the time, but allowing can contribute to runaway power creep, so that's not easy to resolve either.
Stack groups and diminishing returns don't sound like methods that lend themselves to being clearly and transparently documented in an accessible fashion.
Anyway, thanks for engaging and enlightening, and I hope that shaping up a more unified and transparent system is something you will be granted the bandwidth to do.
We've discussed the issue more and given all of your feedback I've come to the decision to revert plague fire and cold to their original state whereby they bypass the normal 200% cap, at the same time I may be walking back some of the increases to their damage resistance reduction. I will post the full details once they are finalized later today.
As promised, here are the updated details, starting with the Frost enchantment:
Transcendent Frost Enchantment You deal an additional 28% weapon damage as Cold damage with your powers. In addition you apply a 30% slow, 25% recharge speed reduction, 10% damage resistance reduction, and 10% damage dealt reduction to your target for 10 seconds. Non-player targets are also disabled for 4 seconds. This effect may occur no more than once every 20 seconds.
Frost Enchantment You deal an additional 8% weapon damage as Cold damage with your powers. In addition you apply a 30% slow and 10% recharge speed reduction to your target for 10 seconds. Non-player targets are also disabled for 4 seconds. This effect may occur no more than once every 20 seconds.
Although the tooltip does not address this change, frost will once again bypass the standard cap. In addition I took the feedback many of you provided about the uptime into account and made some changes to the duration, aside from the disable all effects now persist for 10 seconds, with the same 20 second cooldown for a 50% overall uptime. In accordance with the cap and duration changes, some of the effects have been adjusted, namely the damage resistance and damage dealt reductions have been reduced to 10%, which is still significantly higher than their original values.
On the subject of plague fire, as it changed very little from its live counterpart, I have made no adjustments since the original post aside from reverting it to a state where it is no longer affected by the cap. For the time being we have no immediate plan to make any changes, but again I would advise caution with regards to investing in either of these exclusively because the resistance effect is uncapped. As always, thank you all for your continued feedback!
3
ghoulz66Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 3,748Arc User
Yes, THAT'S what we're talking about. Now we just need that same love for holy avenger. There's no good reason to not have decent uptime for it's buff. Even at 50%+ DR, endgame content is rippy for non-tanks.
After that, not a whole lot of severe issues left. Flaming's performance is sketchy still.
Comments
Cuz its not fine at all.
Other enchants deal 17 % dmg and do much more then Flaming with 17 % .
PLS just 5 min not looking on paper ,rather go to test server and use it hit something and look at the log (you dont need ACT) .
- No, definetly not everything uncapped.
- Make differencies. I.E powers can be switched on-demand according to the party setup, but what about feats/enchants? And who the debuff affects?
- Not a common rise. See later
- Yes, a good idea. See my opinion below.
1. Powers - encounters/at-wills/dailies can be switched on-demand - should be capped. DC/TR/CW debuffs came in my mind.2. Feats affecting allies should be capped. Debuffing powers can be switched to something else on-demand <- btw can it even happen feats are going above 100% party wide DR debuff?
3. Feats/skills affecting only the caster should be uncapped. Check if this could go over 100%, if so I have to rethink this point or add a cap of 100% for this like @treesclimber suggested. All other party/raid/group wide debuffs are already capped by 1.-2.
4. Enchants should behave like point 3. (uncapped) even though affect allies. Switching WE b/c of this is unacceptable for me. Same enchants regardless of the rank shall not stack to prevent over(de)buffing. Use the same patter as for point 3.
Sidenote: 200% effectivenes means 100% DR debuff. Any damage below 100% effectivenes means enemy's DR>attacker's resistance ignore=dealt damage<base damage. Just to clarify.
RI > 60%,
Ray of Enfeeblement in tab - 35%,
Combustive Action - 24%,
Swath of Destruction x2 - 40%,
Bitter Cold - 5%
The maximum value of DR mobs 60%, then:
effectiveness = (1-DR+RI+SummDRdebuffs) = (1-0.6+0.6+0.35+0.24+0.4+0.05) = 2.04 ~ 2.00 = 200% cap reached.
HR can too. GF too. And other class can make 180%+ effectiveness in solo.
And add that all uncapped debuffs are not DR debuffs. http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter#/discussion/1226436/pve-damage-resistance-debuffs-effectiveness
However, in pvp can. However, in pvp pvp_RI = pve_RI*(1-Tenacity_RI_resist). Maybe it will be interesting for somebody
Now I come to apply the DoT again, will their damage be updated? Or just the timer of the old refreshed? As of now a lot of the DoTs only refresh the timer but not the damage....
What I would like, obviously, is that the maximum of the damage will be applied -> if the current ticks higher or equal to the refreshed (those we try to apply), current stays and only the timer refreshes, else a the new higher damage is applied to the stack, and the timer refreshed.
Same for class skill based DoTs like TR Dualist Flurry Bleed.
PS, if you touch powers and etc.. can we please have TR dualist Flurry always apply bleed stack and not a chance to (as in a single Flurry will apply all 10 stacks). It will make TRing much happier.
In regular 5 man parties ,for the majority of pve players ,200% effectiveness is rare to see.
And you all want to sacrifice the 99% of population so you can have 7% more effectiveness and to make it 207% and finish tia 2 point 4 secs faster :P
My argument is that this 7% is not needed anyway.
I feel that the majority of pug runs could get a boost from the proposed frost rework.The high Il parties don't need the 7% of frost to finish high level content anyway.
The choise is to have curent situation +7% for 1% of population using the vague frost.
Or to buff it and the 99% of player base to get a 30% boost from reworked frost.
But High iL NW community has ahown its true colours again.Grats!!!
As a side cooment ,about the CW effectiveness: devs please look at the numbers of buffs posted in this thread ,that a CW can stack .It trivialize the content.MoF buffer build is out of control and it trivializes content .please take a look to it ,for pve.
-----------------------------
tattica7....
"You have much to learn. "
From you? Doubtfull.
cheers
Do you do PuG runs? Did you see, who uses Buff/ debuff builds? You can count yourself lucky, if you have a GF in your PuG group and he uses ITF. That is 30% dmg buff for free and 3 our of 4 PuG GFs dont use it. Same with wicked reminder, MOF/rene CW etc.
I get your reasoning. It might be, that the uncapped buff just benefits a minority of players, but this minority of players are 99% of the players using frost enchantment, imo.
MoF has a debuff, but MoF does not have high damage, MoF does not protect the group. Each specialization has its own role. And say "let's remove debuffs from debuffers" is incorrect. All debuffs work the same way for any IL. And 0-2000 IL players can reach cap using same skills as 4000+ IL.
Your argument is more suited for players who don't know the mechanics of skills and players who know.
So basically you accept ,at least partially,my reasoning.At least one saw it ,that is something ,other than the attacks i took
"I think IL does not affect the effectiveness of the debuffs."
True in its absolute form.But you know what I mean: A high IL party is more possible to know the value of debuffs and set them up accordingly than a 1,8k Il party..that's what I meant...
---------------------------------
I write all these ,cause I do pug runs with my alts and sometimes my main.
I can centainly feel the game better from a lot of posters in this thread,cause I will blend with the new players or with the players that run a class wrong.And these are the majority.
The point is ,that I know how the majority of players run this game.This is a game designed for the masses ,with option for some to delve into end game run and optimize builds and rotations.
We need more gamers in this game .We need content to be more accesible to them.Frost is a cheap enchant that could fill its role as a cheap boost to low Il/unexperienced players.
The proposed rework would fill that spot: people objected that will lose some efficiency cause now they can get to 207% or to 214% or whatever and started posting formulas like we are ready to launch Saturn-5 to Mars.
I feel that 7% is not needed in high IL elite parties.But..30% is definitelly needed for the majority of new players.
None answered straigh on to my argument:instead one with a second account attacked me.
Edit : I will accept the preview shard's role and i will post no more for that subject.I think the devs made their choise anyway.
Peace
@hypervoreian you no like rockets =(? In part i agree with you parties that reach 200% already make mobs like butter in a oven but people should be given a reason to debuff and feel like they are part of the debuff being applied on the target so even if at small effectivness everything should count, now filter the debuffs to the lower ranks of the enchants and damage to the upper ranks may not be a bad idea.
Swath x2 is kind of a bug, unreliable, and can be fixed any time.
Having RoE on Tab, Bitter Cold, and 2x Swath together is close to impossible.
So you can remove 37.5% as those are not constant.
Feats, companions and most importantly enchantments are a different matter, because the opportuntiy costs of changeing them scale from high to insanely high in said order.
Imo they should always deliver what the tooltip promises, regardless of the targets dmg resistance, level, or what other players in the same run are doing.
Otherwise ppl will rightfully feel cheated if they ever find out how things truly work, like for example if someone who bought the TR booster Pack for the greenscale bowman companion(I think its called), since its a ranged companion promising 5% debuff, only to find out its getting double mitigated into less than 2% where it would matter most.
If that results trivialising the game too much, tune down the base numbers.
If you insist that debuffs need to be mitigated, I wouldn´t base it off the targets level(currently to 75% effectivness at 73) or dmg resistance(currently theres a mitigation on some debuffs that strangely can´t be lifted by having enough resistance ignored). I´d make them full effect in single player and content for up to 5 players, and apply appropriate factors for 10 or more player raids, and communicate them ingame.
Ty for the changes on terror. I finally did get around to testing it and while the update with respect to the 6% debuff hasnt been patched in , currently working at 4% debuff .. I noticed it straight off the bat that you removed the DR mitigation from terror and now only 75% effective vs level 73 mobs is applied and so terror has a constant 3% debuff up all the time. This change is awesome and welcoming atleast by me
The new reduced proc rate on encounters like Dreadtheft and Blades of Vanquished armies is extreme. Only 1 proc for Dreadtheft? Only 5 procs for Blades of Vanquished Armies? Right now a GF or GWF stacking +%damage from buffs/debuffs and spamming at-wills can get more out of the new enchants than an SW.
What would be the point of these changes if you're ultimately only buffing the builds that don't even need buffing?
A more objective proc reduction rebalancing method for encounter powers would focus on power uptime (x procs every few seconds), with special consideration for powers that don't starting cooling down as soon as they are cast (don't look at me, I'm not the one who made powers like Dreadtheft/Wraith's Shadow/Blades of Vanquished Armies behave that way). You can then use that as the standard for determining proc rate (by buffing or nerfing number of procs every 3 seconds, for example).
Right now everything SW encounter-wise just seems busted. There's no rhyme nor reason to proc rates at all.
In addition, the base weapon damage value has been increased, up 5% on transcendent from 25% to 30%. (For reference, with around 20k power transcendent terror will grant an additional 52% weapon damage.) The root effect remains unchanged. It's not the case that any of these values have been lowered compared with the current build. As @rgutscheradev previously noted earlier in the thread, all of the enchantments which state "deal additional % weapon damage" now scale with your power. I've simply stated the base value as the actual value will depend on your character.
For example, on my cleric with around ~20k power, Frost reads "...28% weapon damage..." and Plague Fire reads "...21% weapon damage as Fire damage. In addition your foe burns for 8.7% weapon damage..."
In my opinion, debuffs that work differently in practice than on paper are the worst offender. It's terrible to spend on something that you later find out doesn't work, or works a little but less well than it said it would. The comment up-thread about the high cost of investing into enchants and companions is really important to heed. Most players can't afford to make mistakes here. You probably see a lot of players following the tested most-effective meta and a lot of players using whatever was cheapest, and not many willing to experiment with anything that's likely to cost them a ton of AD and prove to not work very well anyway.
As for how things should work
Uncapped? Probably not.
Everything capped? Removes value from items that debuff when coordinated players can reach the cap for free with skills.
Cap raised by a lot? I don't know. The list of things currently not effected by this cap is fairly short. It's not like "just" +200% effectiveness is bad. But as you observed, seeing how you can push those limits is fun. Where is the threshold where raised cap is safe while uncapped is not?
Cap some things and not others? This is an interesting idea and one where I see some potential for making broad distinctions such as a debuff weapon enchant always adds value to the group even if they can reach the cap without it. This respects people's investment into their equipment, and respects players who spec into support builds.
Another thing to get straight is whether or not the same debuff from multiple sources should stack. The game has mostly followed a rule where they do not, but there are exceptions. Not allowing multiple sources of something like Plaguefire is a point of frustration as not everyone can afford to change enchants in order to optimize a party all the time, but allowing can contribute to runaway power creep, so that's not easy to resolve either.
Stack groups and diminishing returns don't sound like methods that lend themselves to being clearly and transparently documented in an accessible fashion.
Anyway, thanks for engaging and enlightening, and I hope that shaping up a more unified and transparent system is something you will be granted the bandwidth to do.
Neverwinter Census 2017
All posts pending disapproval by Cecilia
On the subject of plague fire, as it changed very little from its live counterpart, I have made no adjustments since the original post aside from reverting it to a state where it is no longer affected by the cap. For the time being we have no immediate plan to make any changes, but again I would advise caution with regards to investing in either of these exclusively because the resistance effect is uncapped. As always, thank you all for your continued feedback!
Yes, THAT'S what we're talking about. Now we just need that same love for holy avenger. There's no good reason to not have decent uptime for it's buff. Even at 50%+ DR, endgame content is rippy for non-tanks.
After that, not a whole lot of severe issues left. Flaming's performance is sketchy still.