Let's face the truth, end game players don't spend enought, it's to break the game so people invest more money in the game, that is the only truth behind these nerfs.
Contraire! It is very expensive to make changes to an endgame player. Ever decide to make changes to your enchantments or a companion? Ever decide you want a different WE? Minor changes cost in millions of AD at endgame.
> @mamalion1234 said: > Bonding has 30 duration seconds on preview while tooltip says is 15 seconds. > In top of that it refreshes .( sorry i cant upload a video low upload)>
maybe they just haven't updated the preview server yet but in my opinion the nerf in stats is more than enough, leave the 30 seconds time and the refresh alone, dropping it to 15 seconds and having to wait till the 15 seconds are up for it to re proc is just stupid
0
Options
santralafaxMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,896Arc User
It always felt wrong to me, and still does, that putting our best gear and enchantments on our summoned companion gives more stats then putting it on our char. Imo the addition of bonding runestones to the game was a mistake. The value of non-augument companions should come from what they do, not from stats they pass along.
I felt that way too, at the time they removed stacks from bondings--while I was still using an augment. At this point, it is what it is. Nerfing bondings should at least offer some compensation.
In truth, I've been playing the game less and less because of real life impinging on game time. With these changes I don't feel any urge to log in....
0
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
2nd You allow the powershare to give its benefits X4 extra times through the companion 4th Buffs having multiplicative nature between them (each skill and from each class multiply with each other) so when we stack buff classes, the numbers increase exponentially
Since devs don't want to clarify even tho they have been asked several times I can assume based on another point, the following. The powershare based on a DC share %, can go max to 58.6% its not exactly right as to my understanding the AA will give a portion of MY base power and not the DC, but most of times me and a dc will have similar amount of base power so we can assume its same. Now for rounding numbers lets assume average DC has 40k base. That means the share should be 40k X 58.6% = 23,4 k power. with 50k power it would be 29.3k This fact, makes me believe that the actual numbers we can see (anything from 60k to 100k per powershare) were not meant to to be given. My apologies if it was designed otherwise but either way its over performing.
And last we have the bonding stones which is stated few hundred times gives about 30k extra stat points.
2. Powesharing through companion using bonding that can give anything from +35k extra stat points to all the way to 210k stat points when you stack classes. I can show you screenshots if need be, with a dps being able to go at MAX 315k power with average being at 190k-250k power.
Which of the 2 will make sense to examine correct and/or adjust , using logic and within reason ?
Lets put it another way. Even if you let the current % on bonding stones and upgrade them to R14 but limit or remove the power share to go through bonding we will still lose a great junk of the power creep: Lets Compare
Companion now with r12 and 285% 7017 power, 3451 critical, 1130 armor pen, 700 defense. X 285% = the bonding will add 15.050 stat points Companion with r14 and 285%. since gears are same and we use 9 enchants we will add 6X 300 for enchants and 3X350 for bonding added stats so we will have 1800+1050 X 285%= 8122 more points. THAT'S IT!!
Now lets look at power share even with 195% A dc will gain about 2k extra power when they will go for r14. The companion doesn't matter, so we will have 42k DC (average since we calculated the 1st time with a 40 k DC) giving to the companion ONLY, which now has with R14 9000 power ( it has more but round numbers)
42k X 25% = 10k power from DCs power and AA will be calculated based on companion power, so 33% of 9k =3k power (rounded) so 13k power X 195% = 38.350 TOTAL STAT POINTS. What if we add pally powershare to companion? What if we add DO weapons of light? Just to make something clear, the companion get power and the bondings then add 195% more so its combined the companion gained power 13k and 13k x 195%. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Lets sum up: 8122 points with bonding as is at 285% with r14s VS 38.350 points with bonding at 195% and powershare as is.Or 472% more points from ONLY 1 powershare source to the companion. Imagine with 3 :P
No need to further explain based on how obvious this is.
I have been refraining from commenting on this thread since I am currently not playing this game but seriously, this has got to the point now where I want to clarify some things. @oria1, your comments on this thread are nothing but an attempt to completely delete the AC paragon from existence. With the changes proposed, they are already worse than DO, For comparison, lets make a few assumptions:
1) A fully buffed BiS dps (before buffs from other classes) has somewhere between 60k and 80k power on their own. 2) We don't care about non BiS DpS for this comparison since they likely will not have high ranking bondings and thus won't benefit fully from DC buffs anyhow. 3) We ignoring the legendary bonus for now since when I last played it was somewhat buggy and not everyone has the same number of legendary pets. 4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it. 5) We will ignore the partial uptime of HG that an AC can achieve, this is partially balanced out by ignoring the DpS contribution a DpS DO could contribute.
For AC to compare to DO, we need the power buff from Blessing of Battle+AA to exceed the buff potential of Hallowed Ground+Terrifying Insight. This means you need a damage buff higher than 1.2*1.4 = 1.68.
BoB shares 15% power and AA shares 33% power. If the DpS is at the low end (60k) then the following is true:
Now, this is only assuming there is a single class sharing power. If there is an OP there, or any other power sharing class, a DC would have to share more, which would require an even higher base power. Now, I don't know about what is possible in mod 12, but in mod 11.5, it wasn't even possible for an AC DC to achieve 57628 base power and even if it is now, a DC with that much power would likely struggle to keep up AA and buff reliably with it.
So, now let us look at a different situation. Let us assume the DC is casting HG and only using BoB, that way they are reliably buffing all the time.
Either way, this clearly illustrates that Power Sharing is fine. AC in mod 12.5 is going to be a worse choice than a DO and if AC is worse than DO and you are going out of your way to nerf it, it is definitely not for class balance reasons.
Also, I ask that you stop saying power sharing is, "double dipping," on bondings. It isn't. I used this term once, correctly, to refer to the fact that SoD was scaling in a quadratic manner. This is not a quadratic function. Also, buffs don't scale exponentially, they scale multiplicatively.
> @santralafax said: > Let's face the truth, end game players don't spend enought, it's to break the game so people invest more money in the game, that is the only truth behind these nerfs. > > Contraire! It is very expensive to make changes to an endgame player. Ever decide to make changes to your enchantments or a companion? Ever decide you want a different WE? Minor changes cost in millions of AD at endgame.
I used a con artist until a few days ago when i read about 80% armpen with the new mod. I switched to sellsword (750 000 da )with a necklace giving armpen instead of power. I always used a con artist because i never felt the need to be the 1st dps in every dunjeon run and debuff benefit all in group, i always thought having the 3rd slot dedicated to def is a good thing because i don't want ro rely on aa, hg or others defs buffs from support. I always find it funny when a tank die and say "it's because of dc".
Without my bondings as 13k warlock, i have around 25k power ( thanks to the 6k boon of my guild otherwise it would be 19k -_-) With bondings, i'm something around 40k, i don't considered myself op...
Exept my r12 bondings i have only r9/10 on my toon and a r10 on my pet... Without that bondings, i'll become useless (was already) as a dps to groups compared to hr/gwf...
It's just extremely hard and expensive to get all my enchants over r9. (and no, removing the second enchant for refining isn't the THE solution because i still need an insane amount of rp points, marks and coalescent wards). I open chests from chamber since day 1 on ps4, never had a single coalescent ward...
As a human being does it make more sense to grind for 3 r10 and 3x r12 for pet or grind for r12 enchants to all slots on your toon ?
Even more i read that owl bear cub is dead for us sw on preview... We already were hit many timez by nerfs and it keep going. That's why i'm infuriated by the nerfs on bonding. It wasn't making me overpowered, just "usuable" as a dps. You have no idea the struggle it is to join msva as a 13k sw (even if usually end up 1st dps there for reasons i'll not debate here)...
Now without that and without owl cub, the sw is definetely dead...
So when i read from mods, that's these nerfs ara a good thing, i feel i'm being trolled ( to stay polite)
@thefabricant No, he's not. He's just implying that power share over comp is overpowered. The solution isn't to nerf bondings, it's to change the way power share interacts with comps, or the ability that enables power share itself. Make it a % buff that depends on the user's base power or something - as long as it doesn't affect the companion.
Power sharing is NOT fine. At least not when comps are involved. If it just affects players, it's great, and should stay the way it is (or changed in accordance with written above). And that's the whole point of oria1's post. I'm currently uploading a video, and if you want Fab, I'll send it to you too (and the one I made yesterday), to show what makes powershare more "overpowered" than bondings, which really aren't. They're powerful, but then again, so are weapon enchants. And we get as much DPS from weapon enchants (probably more with unparalleled) compared to bondings. Bondings give a stat increase. Enchants give a straight damage increase. Enchants scale with power, and you get power from power share (moreso than bondings. MUCH more). What means, power share is buffing our weapon hits as power should, AND it's buffing our weapon enchants. Now, my near BiS comp at 6k power with 2x radiant r11 and brutal r12 with loyal avenger gives about 18k power from bondings alone + a bit from protector's camaraderie. Compare that to a DC's power share.
The fact stands, percentage based buffs scale much better than power share ever will, has less issues and is more consistent. You also CAN'T infinitely stack them. If you have 1 ITF for example, you can't get another GF and run another ITF. You can only have a better uptime. But can't have stacking increase in damage. Right now, power share works as stupidly as ITF did back when it scaled with the GF's DR. Although a bit less ridiculous as it buffs from base power, and not buffed up one.
I run a main SW, I have 42k power and 70k when my companion procs. If I run aFBI with a PO and a DC I can get over 200k power. So please tell me how the problem the devs insist is there lies with the bonding stones.
1
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
No, he's not. He's just implying that power share over comp is overpowered. The solution isn't to nerf bondings, it's to change the way power share interacts with comps, or the ability that enables power share itself. Make it a % buff that depends on the user's base power or something - as long as it doesn't affect the companion.
Power sharing is NOT fine. At least not when comps are involved. If it just affects players, it's great, and should stay the way it is (or changed in accordance with written above). And that's the whole point of oria1's post.
I'm currently uploading a video, and if you want Fab, I'll send it to you too (and the one I made yesterday), to show what makes powershare more "overpowered" than bondings, which really aren't. They're powerful, but then again, so are weapon enchants. And we get as much DPS from weapon enchants (probably more with unparalleled) compared to bondings. Bondings give a stat increase. Enchants give a straight damage increase. Enchants scale with power, and you get power from power share (moreso than bondings. MUCH more). What means, power share is buffing our weapon hits as power should, AND it's buffing our weapon enchants. Now, my near BiS comp at 6k power with 2x radiant r11 and brutal r12 with loyal avenger gives about 18k power from bondings alone + a bit from protector's camaraderie. Compare that to a DC's power share.
The fact stands, percentage based buffs scale much better than power share ever will, has less issues and is more consistent. You also CAN'T infinitely stack them. If you have 1 ITF for example, you can't get another GF and run another ITF. You can only have a better uptime. But can't have stacking increase in damage.
Right now, power share works as stupidly as ITF did back when it scaled with the GF's DR. Although a bit less ridiculous as it buffs from base power, and not buffed up one.
Solution to what exactly? You are perceiving a problem that doesn't exist and then targeting a nerf towards a specific class to solve it. Without power sharing to pets, the AC paragon is dead. Look at it this way, if power sharing doesn't share with bondings, how much base power does a DC need to have to share enough to be on par with a DO. Well, lets take the values from above but then factor out the bonding buff:
Great. So a DC would have to have more power than most players have after a DC has buffed them in the current system as base power. They would need to have more than twice the amount of power than it is possible to even achieve. I don't see what this, "nerf power share to pets," is trying to achieve other than to kill the paragon entirely.
> @zacoria1405 said: > I run a main SW, I have 42k power and 70k when my companion procs. If I run aFBI with a PO and a DC I can get over 200k power. So please tell me how the problem the devs insist is there lies with the bonding stones.
It depends, sometime they will tell you power creep, sometime they want variety xD
also this is within the framework of why we understand this is happening in the first place. these super fastgroups with ideal make ups are hardly the norm. yes it takes powerful dc's to have this kind of effect.. but that's the effect that's bothering them.
in all honesty I don't think anything is broken for 90 percent of the players. Maybe it looks like everyone is speed running fbi msp and tong, because the only groups completing it for the most part are elite groups with ideal make up. sure there are some stragglers completeing it in half an hour or longer... but the ones who farm it are the bis groups. that means EVERYONE is bis.
and it needs to be nerfed. even though it's like a 1 percenter problem.
there probably is no data for them from the que system (and that should tell them we are struggling not we're over powered.. because if it were reasonable for the average player people would be queing for it. Fbi was released what, a year ago? and no one will pug it.
if you were to take an unideal group with bondings but no buffs or only light buffs. somehow I doubt you'd be seeing 10 minute fbi speedruns.
A solution to the power share issue. It is an issue, no matter what your brilliant mind might conjure from the aether. The fact stands that it's overpowered. It's either that the path is dead or overpowered to the point where it breaks the game. Nerfing bondings DOESN'T fix this and that's the issue here. I'm not proposing that they just outright remove power share to comps but keep it on players, I'm proposing that they make it a PERCENTAGE BUFF to players. The issue with power share is that it buffs the players directly, AND the weapon enchant, making it spike more than it did before. These 1 million left clicks and ticks only appeared with the scaling enchants. Before that it wasn't much of a problem.
This "nerf power share" is trying to achieve "don't <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> up 75%+ of your community, they will start hating you". We're not asking for an ACDC nerf, we're asking for an interaction nerf. Do your fancy calcs, calculate how much of a buff in % is required to match DODC buffs (although it DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO because those are different roles. That's like making all GFs DPSs or all Pallies healers, or all DCs buffers, or all CWs debuffers etc).
Listen, I'm not against you or your points but see this from a different perspective. We DON'T NEED 250k power, that's literally the biggest "power creep" (ehhhh) issue in the game. If ACDC's abilities did a percentage based buffs instead of base power based ones, it would scale infinitely better throughout the game. 10% in early game = 10% in late game. 5k power in early game =/= 5k power in late game. Nerfing bonding does nothing but <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> people off and doesn't even reduce the non-existent power creep from them. They're a big investment that improves your performance. Just like a weapon enchant is. And all of this nerfing doesn't even change the fact that augments won't be viable for ANY DPS whatsoever, and we all know that DPSs are like 60% of the community because everything is a weewee measuring contest on the internet.
I have been refraining from commenting on this thread since I am currently not playing this game but seriously, this has got to the point now where I want to clarify some things. @oria1, your comments on this thread are nothing but an attempt to completely delete the AC paragon from existence. With the changes proposed, they are already worse than DO, For comparison, lets make a few assumptions:
1) A fully buffed BiS dps (before buffs from other classes) has somewhere between 60k and 80k power on their own. 2) We don't care about non BiS DpS for this comparison since they likely will not have high ranking bondings and thus won't benefit fully from DC buffs anyhow. 3) We ignoring the legendary bonus for now since when I last played it was somewhat buggy and not everyone has the same number of legendary pets. 4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it. 5) We will ignore the partial uptime of HG that an AC can achieve, this is partially balanced out by ignoring the DpS contribution a DpS DO could contribute.
For AC to compare to DO, we need the power buff from Blessing of Battle+AA to exceed the buff potential of Hallowed Ground+Terrifying Insight. This means you need a damage buff higher than 1.2*1.4 = 1.68.
BoB shares 15% power and AA shares 33% power. If the DpS is at the low end (60k) then the following is true:
Now, this is only assuming there is a single class sharing power. If there is an OP there, or any other power sharing class, a DC would have to share more, which would require an even higher base power. Now, I don't know about what is possible in mod 12, but in mod 11.5, it wasn't even possible for an AC DC to achieve 57628 base power and even if it is now, a DC with that much power would likely struggle to keep up AA and buff reliably with it.
So, now let us look at a different situation. Let us assume the DC is casting HG and only using BoB, that way they are reliably buffing all the time.
Either way, this clearly illustrates that Power Sharing is fine. AC in mod 12.5 is going to be a worse choice than a DO and if AC is worse than DO and you are going out of your way to nerf it, it is definitely not for class balance reasons.
Also, I ask that you stop saying power sharing is, "double dipping," on bondings. It isn't. I used this term once, correctly, to refer to the fact that SoD was scaling in a quadratic manner. This is not a quadratic function. Also, buffs don't scale exponentially, they scale multiplicatively.
If i may ask a question, what DID I SAY that has anything to do with what you said. ? Your rant about what the AC needs or not, is TOTALLY off topic and of base if I may add.
We are talking here about the bonding issue and I point out that it may not be a bonding issue but a mechanic that the devs were never clear about and seemed that its A. Not working as intended and B. overpowering. Which overpowering aspect led us to nerfing the bonding stones for ALL the players and you are saying we should ALL lose on our bondings so your cleric can keep its position on runs? AMAZING
From what I see you didn't say ANYTHING about that specific point and avoided talking at ALL but went on a rant as to what the AC will need or not. THIS IS NOT a POST about what THE AC needs. And in your passion to talk about AC DC you didn't even see that I proposed a buff to the AC power share and direct it only to players so the class will still be relevant.
But thank you for proving my point that the ONLY way according to you for an AC to play is use the companion powershare and for that yeah, lets nerf everyone bonding stones and solve zero problems about the power creep.
"@oria1, your comments on this thread are nothing but an attempt to completely delete the AC paragon from existence" I will only say this. Out of respect for the time I know you I will leave the others to judge your words and mine.
I suggested that an AC and a pally should take a buff in powershare and they should adjust as much as the devs think its right to lose the power creep and still keep the game fair not for AC but for all classes. Unless you don't agree with that
I never mention a NERF to the AC... simply because its not anything to me. If anything an AC in makes me look better in my game whatever class I play. But this is not about you or me sharp. Its about what is right and wrong.
...and in this case you are wrong.
Free to chat in game or on vox anytime... like the previous one.
@lifeofrisk Yep. That's the ideal course of action - I don't know about the percentages as I haven't done any calcs on them but that seems about right. That's just how it should be because we don't know what the future mods will hold and then we might get such a stupid base power spike due to some weird reason like the mod6 disaster, just kinda in reverse, and then everyone freakkin' one-shots avatar of orcus or smth. It's an issue. Stat-based buffs are bad and should be avoided.
2
Options
jumpingmorksMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 876Arc User
2nd You allow the powershare to give its benefits X4 extra times through the companion 4th Buffs having multiplicative nature between them (each skill and from each class multiply with each other) so when we stack buff classes, the numbers increase exponentially
Since devs don't want to clarify even tho they have been asked several times I can assume based on another point, the following. The powershare based on a DC share %, can go max to 58.6% its not exactly right as to my understanding the AA will give a portion of MY base power and not the DC, but most of times me and a dc will have similar amount of base power so we can assume its same. Now for rounding numbers lets assume average DC has 40k base. That means the share should be 40k X 58.6% = 23,4 k power. with 50k power it would be 29.3k This fact, makes me believe that the actual numbers we can see (anything from 60k to 100k per powershare) were not meant to to be given. My apologies if it was designed otherwise but either way its over performing.
And last we have the bonding stones which is stated few hundred times gives about 30k extra stat points.
2. Powesharing through companion using bonding that can give anything from +35k extra stat points to all the way to 210k stat points when you stack classes. I can show you screenshots if need be, with a dps being able to go at MAX 315k power with average being at 190k-250k power.
Which of the 2 will make sense to examine correct and/or adjust , using logic and within reason ?
Lets put it another way. Even if you let the current % on bonding stones and upgrade them to R14 but limit or remove the power share to go through bonding we will still lose a great junk of the power creep: Lets Compare
Companion now with r12 and 285% 7017 power, 3451 critical, 1130 armor pen, 700 defense. X 285% = the bonding will add 15.050 stat points Companion with r14 and 285%. since gears are same and we use 9 enchants we will add 6X 300 for enchants and 3X350 for bonding added stats so we will have 1800+1050 X 285%= 8122 more points. THAT'S IT!!
Now lets look at power share even with 195% A dc will gain about 2k extra power when they will go for r14. The companion doesn't matter, so we will have 42k DC (average since we calculated the 1st time with a 40 k DC) giving to the companion ONLY, which now has with R14 9000 power ( it has more but round numbers)
42k X 25% = 10k power from DCs power and AA will be calculated based on companion power, so 33% of 9k =3k power (rounded) so 13k power X 195% = 38.350 TOTAL STAT POINTS. What if we add pally powershare to companion? What if we add DO weapons of light? Just to make something clear, the companion get power and the bondings then add 195% more so its combined the companion gained power 13k and 13k x 195%. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Lets sum up: 8122 points with bonding as is at 285% with r14s VS 38.350 points with bonding at 195% and powershare as is.Or 472% more points from ONLY 1 powershare source to the companion. Imagine with 3 :P
No need to further explain based on how obvious this is.
I have been refraining from commenting on this thread since I am currently not playing this game but seriously, this has got to the point now where I want to clarify some things. @oria1, your comments on this thread are nothing but an attempt to completely delete the AC paragon from existence. With the changes proposed, they are already worse than DO, For comparison, lets make a few assumptions:
1) A fully buffed BiS dps (before buffs from other classes) has somewhere between 60k and 80k power on their own. 2) We don't care about non BiS DpS for this comparison since they likely will not have high ranking bondings and thus won't benefit fully from DC buffs anyhow. 3) We ignoring the legendary bonus for now since when I last played it was somewhat buggy and not everyone has the same number of legendary pets. 4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it. 5) We will ignore the partial uptime of HG that an AC can achieve, this is partially balanced out by ignoring the DpS contribution a DpS DO could contribute.
For AC to compare to DO, we need the power buff from Blessing of Battle+AA to exceed the buff potential of Hallowed Ground+Terrifying Insight. This means you need a damage buff higher than 1.2*1.4 = 1.68.
BoB shares 15% power and AA shares 33% power. If the DpS is at the low end (60k) then the following is true:
Now, this is only assuming there is a single class sharing power. If there is an OP there, or any other power sharing class, a DC would have to share more, which would require an even higher base power. Now, I don't know about what is possible in mod 12, but in mod 11.5, it wasn't even possible for an AC DC to achieve 57628 base power and even if it is now, a DC with that much power would likely struggle to keep up AA and buff reliably with it.
So, now let us look at a different situation. Let us assume the DC is casting HG and only using BoB, that way they are reliably buffing all the time.
Either way, this clearly illustrates that Power Sharing is fine. AC in mod 12.5 is going to be a worse choice than a DO and if AC is worse than DO and you are going out of your way to nerf it, it is definitely not for class balance reasons.
Also, I ask that you stop saying power sharing is, "double dipping," on bondings. It isn't. I used this term once, correctly, to refer to the fact that SoD was scaling in a quadratic manner. This is not a quadratic function. Also, buffs don't scale exponentially, they scale multiplicatively.
The proverbial foot of Homer Simpson has hit the floor xD Nice to see you by the way
1
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
A solution to the power share issue. It is an issue, no matter what your brilliant mind might conjure from the aether.
The fact stands that it's overpowered. It's either that the path is dead or overpowered to the point where it breaks the game. Nerfing bondings DOESN'T fix this and that's the issue here. I'm not proposing that they just outright remove power share to comps but keep it on players, I'm proposing that they make it a PERCENTAGE BUFF to players. The issue with power share is that it buffs the players directly, AND the weapon enchant, making it spike more than it did before. These 1 million left clicks and ticks only appeared with the scaling enchants. Before that it wasn't much of a problem.
This "nerf power share" is trying to achieve "don't HAMSTER up 75%+ of your community, they will start hating you". We're not asking for an ACDC nerf, we're asking for an interaction nerf. Do your fancy calcs, calculate how much of a buff in % is required to match DODC buffs (although it DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO because those are different roles. That's like making all GFs DPSs or all Pallies healers, or all DCs buffers, or all CWs debuffers etc).
Listen, I'm not against you or your points but see this from a different perspective. We DON'T NEED 250k power, that's literally the biggest "power creep" (ehhhh) issue in the game. If ACDC's abilities did a percentage based buffs instead of base power based ones, it would scale infinitely better throughout the game. 10% in early game = 10% in late game. 5k power in early game =/= 5k power in late game.
Nerfing bonding does nothing but HAMSTER people off and doesn't even reduce the non-existent power creep from them. They're a big investment that improves your performance. Just like a weapon enchant is. And all of this nerfing doesn't even change the fact that augments won't be viable for ANY DPS whatsoever, and we all know that DPSs are like 60% of the community because everything is a weewee measuring contest on the internet.
You could do that sure, make AA a buff ranging from 40-50% (to account for the fact that it requires some skill to use unlike HG) and make BoB a 20% buff. I don't like this idea for the following reasons:
1) It kills build diversity. Currently an AC DC can build to buff. Furthermore, their buffs are not, "super OP" they are balanced. Changing AA to work this way would simply be moving how dc buffs from 1 medium to another and not changing how much they buff. 2) It removes an element of skill from playing AC. Currently there is a marked difference between an AC who knows what they are doing and builds correctly and 1 who does not. Granted, there would still be the skill requirement for positioning etc, but there wouldn't be as much. 3) The reason for change is given more out of a misunderstanding of how things work than an actual reason. It isn't OP, it doesn't need to be nerfed and all that changing it from a %based buff to a flat buff does is kill builds in the process. It isn't comparable to ITF. ITF was different since there was no relative increase involved. Here, if the DPS increases their power, the DC buffs less relative to how much they were buffing before and they had to increase their power to compensate. In the case of ITF, there was no balancing act between the power of the dps and the buff provided by the gf. AC at the moment is really well balanced compared to DO, they are quite close. having 250k power isn't a problem unless you only see the number and not what it represents.
A solution to the power share issue. It is an issue, no matter what your brilliant mind might conjure from the aether.
The fact stands that it's overpowered. It's either that the path is dead or overpowered to the point where it breaks the game. Nerfing bondings DOESN'T fix this and that's the issue here. I'm not proposing that they just outright remove power share to comps but keep it on players, I'm proposing that they make it a PERCENTAGE BUFF to players. The issue with power share is that it buffs the players directly, AND the weapon enchant, making it spike more than it did before. These 1 million left clicks and ticks only appeared with the scaling enchants. Before that it wasn't much of a problem.
This "nerf power share" is trying to achieve "don't HAMSTER up 75%+ of your community, they will start hating you". We're not asking for an ACDC nerf, we're asking for an interaction nerf. Do your fancy calcs, calculate how much of a buff in % is required to match DODC buffs (although it DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO because those are different roles. That's like making all GFs DPSs or all Pallies healers, or all DCs buffers, or all CWs debuffers etc).
Listen, I'm not against you or your points but see this from a different perspective. We DON'T NEED 250k power, that's literally the biggest "power creep" (ehhhh) issue in the game. If ACDC's abilities did a percentage based buffs instead of base power based ones, it would scale infinitely better throughout the game. 10% in early game = 10% in late game. 5k power in early game =/= 5k power in late game.
Nerfing bonding does nothing but HAMSTER people off and doesn't even reduce the non-existent power creep from them. They're a big investment that improves your performance. Just like a weapon enchant is. And all of this nerfing doesn't even change the fact that augments won't be viable for ANY DPS whatsoever, and we all know that DPSs are like 60% of the community because everything is a weewee measuring contest on the internet.
You could do that sure, make AA a buff ranging from 40-50% (to account for the fact that it requires some skill to use unlike HG) and make BoB a 20% buff. I don't like this idea for the following reasons:
1) It kills build diversity. Currently an AC DC can build to buff. Furthermore, their buffs are not, "super OP" they are balanced. Changing AA to work this way would simply be moving how dc buffs from 1 medium to another and not changing how much they buff. 2) It removes an element of skill from playing AC. Currently there is a marked difference between an AC who knows what they are doing and builds correctly and 1 who does not. Granted, there would still be the skill requirement for positioning etc, but there wouldn't be as much. 3) The reason for change is given more out of a misunderstanding of how things work than an actual reason. It isn't OP, it doesn't need to be nerfed and all that changing it from a %based buff to a flat buff does is kill builds in the process. It isn't comparable to ITF. ITF was different since there was no relative increase involved. Here, if the DPS increases their power, the DC buffs less relative to how much they were buffing before and they had to increase their power to compensate. In the case of ITF, there was no balancing act between the power of the dps and the buff provided by the gf. AC at the moment is really well balanced compared to DO, they are quite close. having 250k power isn't a problem unless you only see the number and not what it represents.
what represents 250k power in the following case ( you claim isn't a problem) .
That is at 35k power without a bonding-power share the weapon damage of plaguefire.
and here with 106k power after the full power share buffing (mine only) watch how much increased the weapon damage.
( note also my companion is dancing shield 3 defence slot !) .
125% weapon damage became 242% weapon damage at 250k how much will be?
The thing is, ACDCs aren't very viable until they get to a level where they have a lotta power, at least not compared to a DODC as you said. Elitism is by far the thing I hate the most and lately I'm just outright leaving LFG channel queues if I see something like "LF1m 14k DPS ETOS". I'd rather carry others than be carried, I don't like feeling like dead weight and that's the only reason I want to improve myself - so I can help others get to the same level. And this would just make others feel the same - dead weight compared to the top tiers running around with banks literally capped on AD.
There USED to be a relative increase with ITF depending on your gear, and when I saw GFs running with 3x defensive bonding and hitting 150% DR (and therefore 150% DPS increase)... that was ridiculous, and so is this. ITF too "required skill" (to some extent) as you had to time that cast when your DR is at its peak, but that's what made it ridiculous. It scaled with stats, but that was indeed much worse because it didn't use base but buffed stats.
My issue with the bonding nerf is that it doesn't actually do anything but <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> people off. I think you may understand that minmaxing a build takes a long time, and when you have to do it every 2 months (1st for the 85% RI, now for this too) it gets boring and annoying. Sure it kills diversity but I think that went out of window when they literally killed every other GWF path other than destroyer (instigator still kinda works, sentinel is just broken, final paragon doesn't work at all), TRs are just completely underpowered compared to HRs for instance, SWs don't do nearly as much as they could before, some people managed to adjust but that's such a miniscule minority...
While I do agree that it does kill diversity, I prefer balance and fun gameplay over diversity. The fact that scaling enchants are a thing (which also kinda killed TRs as their BiS is still vorpal as they don't proc <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> with their abilities), and you can get so much power is an issue that needs to be resolved. And now with R14 radiants, that's a LOT more power than before, you'll see even more ridiculous figures. You'll still have <22 minute TNG runs because of this. But then we return to the same issue I have with basically everything in this mod - elitism. Top tiers will be even more top tiers, mid tiers will just trail behind, be farther away than ever and so on. It will create an invisible barrier for everyone who's not in some god-tier guild that's filled with people who can destroy stuff, and get dragged through until they're top tier too.
Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw described this perfectly - the difference between top tiers and lower tiers, although this is for a PvP game. Still works. I'll censor it in advance for your own safety: "It's a rear-end recruitment drive. You start playing as a fresh-faced Level 1 and get murdered by rear-ends. Obviously, you don't give a half-ounce of creamy baby <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> about helping your team win; your only real motivation is to avenge yourself upon the rear-ends. But by the time you've got the better guns that the rear-ends used on you, they've moved on to firing dark-matter yogurt rockets out of their Level 40 diamantine blasters, and so you can only avenge yourself on their lower-level teammates, ensuring that the bleak cycle will begin anew. Congratulations, you're part of the rear-end system".
Basically shows that you have to either join the top tiers somehow or roll in the mud, dreaming of the stars and then quitting because you've realized that it's impossible to get there because you're not powerful enough to do hard content. And to join top tiers usually, you have to become one, somehow. And that's where the invisible barrier comes. Unless you make a hefty investment you won't be able to get there unless you grind until your eyes bleed and you're drooling because your brain just melted. And this works especially bad with the new random queue system.
1
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
If i may ask a question, what DID I SAY that has anything to do with what you said. ? Your rant about what the AC needs or not, is TOTALLY off topic and of base if I may add.
We are talking here about the bonding issue and I point out that it may not be a bonding issue but a mechanic that the devs were never clear about and seemed that its A. Not working as intended and B. overpowering. Which overpowering aspect led us to nerfing the bonding stones for ALL the players and you are saying we should ALL lose on our bondings so your cleric can keep its position on runs? AMAZING
From what I see you didn't say ANYTHING about that specific point and avoided talking at ALL but went on a rant as to what the AC will need or not. THIS IS NOT a POST about what THE AC needs. And in your passion to talk about AC DC you didn't even see that I proposed a buff to the AC power share and direct it only to players so the class will still be relevant.
But thank you for proving my point that the ONLY way according to you for an AC to play is use the companion powershare and for that yeah, lets nerf everyone bonding stones and solve zero problems about the power creep.
"@oria1, your comments on this thread are nothing but an attempt to completely delete the AC paragon from existence" I will only say this. Out of respect for the time I know you I will leave the others to judge your words and mine.
I suggested that an AC and a pally should take a buff in powershare and they should adjust as much as the devs think its right to lose the power creep and still keep the game fair not for AC but for all classes. Unless you don't agree with that
I never mention a NERF to the AC... simply because its not anything to me. If anything an AC in makes me look better in my game whatever class I play. But this is not about you or me sharp. Its about what is right and wrong.
...and in this case you are wrong.
Free to chat in game or on vox anytime... like the previous one.
What you keep saying is:
1) Power is shared to the companion and thus to the player additional times (True). 2) Statement 1 is overpowered and needs to be reduced for the sake of balance (False).
My long writeup was in regards to 2), showing how it isn't overpowered and the only reason people think it is overpowered is because they see 250k power and they think that number is big and must mean it is OP without understanding what it means, or the context of it at all.
Now, at no point did I say they should or should not nerf anyone's bondings, so don't put words into my mouth. My writeup was solely about demonstrating how what AC does is comparable to what DO does and how power sharing to bondings isn't overpowered.
P.S, you might want to start a nerf HR crusade next since groups will favour those over MoFs.
Sharp I see you keep avoiding my answer. This thread is not about what DC can or can't do or what they should or should't do. I can understand your "pain" since your investment on your dc clearly doesn't let you see this objectively.
The question here is about the powershare that comes through bondings and not the powershare of dc specifically. No matter how you try to hide it or mask it by deflecting and diverting the conversation to the "IF the poor AC should be viable or not" quick answer: of course he should and feel free to make a post about it on dc forums.
Now for what I know and you also said a LOT of times , roughly 400 power is 1% damage So 4000% is 10% so 40.000 is 100% damage. What do we call 210k power? Notice here we dont care from where that power came or who gave more you or a pally, but how much it affects the power creep.
If the powershare doesn't go through the bonding which is the topic in hand and not the AC how much less power creep would we have and therefore can possible avoid to have the bonding changed at all?
If you don't want to answer I can link several of your posts about the % of power to damage. (and not the relative % a AC can give which n all honestly its irrelevant to the thread.
Are you officially telling us that the AC only viable way to play is buffing our companions to buff the DPS? and IF so should that class mechanic remain as is? and affect everyone else investment? Should it have been there in the first place? Again focus on the mechanic and not the AC.
Those are the topics in hand and not what the AC should or not become.
Since you said I misinform why don't you show us where I misinform always knowing that mistakes happen. After all I'm not the "Tester" i m just a player.
After you answer I will show you though were you did.
As always my Gamevox is open to chat like the last time we did when you were again wrong and apologized.
EDIT : we probably posted together so If the power is not important then why do you make it as the No1 factor for AC to be? Why is everyone asking for it? and on top you hint for more? . You cant have it both ways. As for how much damage it actually is let me show you in ACT on my next post.
Second I didn't say its OP. I keep comparing the bonding VS powershare and keep find it overperforming from the two. I would suggest again to read my posts.
I didn't put words in to your mouth, we have 2 solutions here. Either nerf the bonding and keep powershare or not in regard to the current topic that its bonding nerf thread... By choosing one you automatically NOT choose the other.
My recommendation sharp in case you missed it is leave bondings as IS with the 285% and remove the ability to push the powershare X 4 to players and buff the direct AC powershare to the player to the point its NOT power creep anymore.
You recommend changes to AC....
The post is about bonding and power creep NOT AC DC.
The cleric in your scenario buffs ~70k power. At your amount of 36k power it increases the pf-dmg from 125% to 242% => 242/125= 1,936. => Relative dmg increase of 93,6%.
Now your power-multiplier moves from 1,9 to 3,66 => 3,66/1,9 = 1,931. => Relative dmg increase of 93,1%.
Difference because of rounding.
Now let's say you start at 180k power and then add your buffs, reaching 250k power. Your power-multiplier moves from 5,5 to 7,25 => 3,66/1,9 = 1,318. Relative dmg increase of 31,8%.
In that case the displayed value from your pf would move from 125% *5,5/1,9 = 362% to 125% *7,25/1,9 = 477% => Relative dmg increase of 31,8%.
Keep in mind that these wpn enchants are not getting double buffed, the displayed value is already affected by the power-buff and will not be affected again by it. How is the 31,8% dmg buff that your cleric would provide to reach the 250k power overpowered?
2
Options
thefabricantMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 5,248Arc User
Sharp I see you keep avoiding my answer. This thread is not about what DC can or can't do or what they should or should't do. I can understand your "pain" since your investment on your dc clearly doesn't let you see this objectively.
The question here is about the powershare that comes through bondings and not the powershare of dc specifically. No matter how you try to hide it or mask it by deflecting and diverting the conversation to the "IF the poor AC should be viable or not" quick answer: of course he should and feel free to make a pots about it on dc forums.
Now for what I know and you also said a LOT of times , roughly 400 power is 1% damage So 4000% is 10% so 40.000 is 100% damage. What do we call 210k power? Notice here we dont care from where that power came or who gave more you or a pally, but how much it affects the power creep.
If the powershare doesn't go through the bonding which is the topic in hand and not the AC how much less power creep would we have and therefore can possible avoid to have the bonding changed at all?
If you don't want to answer I can link several of your posts about the % of power to damage. (and not the relative % a AC can give which n all honestly its irrelevant to the thread.
Are you officially telling us that the AC only viable way to play is buffing our companions to buff the DPS? and IF so should that class mechanic remain as is? and affect everyone else investment? Should it have been there in the first place? Again focus on the mechanic and not the AC.
Those are the topics in hand and not what the AC should or not become.
Since you said I misinform why don't you show us where I misinform always knowing that mistakes happen. After all I'm not the "Tester" i m just a player.
After you answer I will show you though were you did.
As always my Gamevox is open to chat like the last time we did when you were again wrong and apologized.
EDIT : we probably posted together so If the power is not important then why do you make it as the No1 factor for AC to be? Why is everyone asking for it? and on top you hint for more? . You cant have it both ways. As for how much damage it actually is let me show you in ACT on my next post.
Second I didn't say its OP. I keep comparing the bonding VS powershare and keep find it overperforming from the two. I would suggest again to read my posts.
I didn't put words in to your mouth, we have 2 solutions here. Either nerf the bonding and keep powershare or not in regard to the current topic that its bonding nerf thread... By choosing one you automatically NOT choose the other.
Um, I am DO not AC, the nerf doesn't effect me. My post above shows how it isn't OP. Mechanics of power. You know what though, if you really want it to be a flat buff, let it be a flat buff. I am sure the AC DCs would love to have AA get a buff over what it currently does. Also, I don't see why there are, "2 options" as you put it. You only perceive there are 2 options since you perceive power share as being OP.
I ll post this again because I'm sure you missed it @thefabricant
If the power is not important then why do you make it as the No1 factor for AC to be? Why is everyone asking for it? and on top you hint for more? . You cant have it both ways. As for how much damage it actually is let me show you in ACT on my next post.
Second I didn't say its OP. I keep comparing the bonding VS powershare and keep find it overperforming from the two. I would suggest again to read my posts.
I didn't put words in to your mouth, we have 2 solutions here. Either nerf the bonding and keep powershare or not in regard to the current topic that its bonding nerf thread... By choosing one you automatically NOT choose the other.
My recommendation sharp in case you missed it is leave bondings as IS with the 285% and remove the ability to push the powershare X 4 to players and buff the direct AC powershare to the player to the point its NOT power creep anymore.
You recommend changes to AC and not talka about the bonding at all ot the bug....
The post is about bonding and power creep NOT AC DC.
...and you still don't answer to the point. From the 2 scenarios that affect the bonding which one leads to more power creep? The bonding staying at 285% with rank 14 OR the powershare through bonding (which should not happen anyway).
Should we care about the players OR just the AC?? simple This is what is at stake here and not the AC future. We are talking about power creep and you want to add more...
The video is in response to a player that said he can't test the reduced power bondings on Preview because he dies every few seconds in the jungles of Chult without the original bonding stats.
The point is that a toon should not revolve around a single item of gear, and that a well-rounded toon can do just fine in Chult without bondings, indeed without R12 offense/defense enchants. If character power comes from a single gear item rather than layers of abilities and player skill, it devolves to an arcade shoot'em. I don't want Neverwinter to be that.
We live in a climate where people that express an opinion you don't share denigrated (just watch the news for plenty of examples). Rather than calling people that we disagree trolls or whatnot, let's try and understand their point of view.
It's great, but what you want is irrelevant when the Devs positioned an Item to have the best value/return, and where warned about it. Again, like I've said in that post, one player can do, is not an indicator of an average expiriance.
They needed to correct bonding to allow the game to grow over the next 5+ years. It also the reason why R7/R8/R9 duplicate enchantments & runes are no longer required (which many have been asking for 1-2 years) since they originally went away with R10-R12 when SMOP's were first introduced.
Note a R7 Bonding also starts at 30% augmentation not 20%; yet the augmentation growth is more stable and consistent similar to how power growth.
Still a R14 Bonding represents a greater than 4 to 1 Benefit over a R14 Eldritch. A R14 Bonding will give +1040 to either Offense or Defense but also a 65% Augmentation boost. A R14 Eldritch will provide 25% and only if loaded into a companions 0-3 defensive slots. That's 4x greater benefit before you factor in that bonding gives not only benefits the companion who have 3 to 4 attack powers, but still passes those same benefits along to the player at a far greater rate.
The Augment has no attack powers to trigger the bonding augment boost; but at least now with Eldritch R14 being expanded up to 25% augments are a viable option with this and other Runes. Also depending on a players Class, Feat Choices, or their Companion some (not all) might prefer pairing 2 Bonding Stones with another Rune.
For example: You may wish to slot an Empowered to give your Companion greater hit points. Now it's not just a one sized fit's all solution there are finally options to explore based on your Class/Feat Choices/Companion or overall build.
I have been seriously exploring the possible use of an augment based on these changes and I am actually disappointed. The amount they offer is still not good enough when you bear in mind:
* limited number of augments & functionality * limited gear slot types to maximise effectiveness - currently rings are the go-to choice as most decent cloaks, belts etc are artifacts - which cannot be slotted on companions. * no attack powers with buffing/debuffing capability * no power sharing feedback
People run companions with bondings because they bring a multi-layer benefit and there are a wide selection to choose from. If you want to bring augments to the same level then you need to address these issues.
They do not intend to make Augments superior to other companions but make them viable options for some to consider depending upon their Class / Feat Choices / Companion / Build. A Legendary Augment with 2 defensive Runestone Slots which is the most all but a 'very limited' few have could provide up to 165% augmentation with no attack powers.
They did not want to make the Augment Superior to other companions as one of the DEV's addressed that in the Technical Details thread.
Yeah if you actually read my wording you'll note I didn't say I was looking for 'superior'. I clearly indicated I was looking at 'viability' and whilst augments will now be better, I can't see a case where one would offer enough to make it worthwhile.
The improvements to the runes themselves are probably fair but if they are to be used we will need more functionality from augments themselves. 100% stats are not enough to do that.
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
i think its a disgrace, people have spent a lot of time and or money to gear their characters and balance stats, then you guys decide to change it all. so now rank 14 enchants are best but you need 150k ad per new mark to upgrade them, but hang on thats not enough of a kick in the teeth, you decide to nerf bondings as well. i cant for the life of me work out why you cannot just boost the other runestones and balance things out that way. let me guess, greed? you want even more money off people? and in 6 months, what will you decide to do to screw us over then? like many people have said, i doubt that people will actually quit because they like the game, but boy it would be funny as hell when you do take it to far and no one spends a dime through fear of what they are buying with their hard earned cash will become useless the next time you have one of your bright ideas. SHAMBLES.
A solution to the power share issue. It is an issue, no matter what your brilliant mind might conjure from the aether.
The fact stands that it's overpowered. It's either that the path is dead or overpowered to the point where it breaks the game. Nerfing bondings DOESN'T fix this and that's the issue here. I'm not proposing that they just outright remove power share to comps but keep it on players, I'm proposing that they make it a PERCENTAGE BUFF to players. The issue with power share is that it buffs the players directly, AND the weapon enchant, making it spike more than it did before. These 1 million left clicks and ticks only appeared with the scaling enchants. Before that it wasn't much of a problem.
This "nerf power share" is trying to achieve "don't HAMSTER up 75%+ of your community, they will start hating you". We're not asking for an ACDC nerf, we're asking for an interaction nerf. Do your fancy calcs, calculate how much of a buff in % is required to match DODC buffs (although it DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO because those are different roles. That's like making all GFs DPSs or all Pallies healers, or all DCs buffers, or all CWs debuffers etc).
Listen, I'm not against you or your points but see this from a different perspective. We DON'T NEED 250k power, that's literally the biggest "power creep" (ehhhh) issue in the game. If ACDC's abilities did a percentage based buffs instead of base power based ones, it would scale infinitely better throughout the game. 10% in early game = 10% in late game. 5k power in early game =/= 5k power in late game.
Nerfing bonding does nothing but HAMSTER people off and doesn't even reduce the non-existent power creep from them. They're a big investment that improves your performance. Just like a weapon enchant is. And all of this nerfing doesn't even change the fact that augments won't be viable for ANY DPS whatsoever, and we all know that DPSs are like 60% of the community because everything is a weewee measuring contest on the internet.
You could do that sure, make AA a buff ranging from 40-50% (to account for the fact that it requires some skill to use unlike HG) and make BoB a 20% buff. I don't like this idea for the following reasons:
1) It kills build diversity. Currently an AC DC can build to buff. Furthermore, their buffs are not, "super OP" they are balanced. Changing AA to work this way would simply be moving how dc buffs from 1 medium to another and not changing how much they buff.
Balanced... compared to what? The other DC Paragon? Maybe that. because it's not balanced in comparison to almost anything else. AC DC and DO DC has been and will be a part of every BiS meta party that has been for quite some, and will be for quite some time looking forward.
I'm not sure that's "balanced". And how this sharing works right now is a huge part of that. You are also claiming it would "kill" a spec... Yeah that's entirely possible. As if AC DC does not occupy a party spot for something else than DC, essentially killing not just a specs but whole classes for parties running for efficiency/meta parties.
I don't have anything against protecting what you see as fine, but calling "balanced" on anything related to current AC DC, or DC in general? Not a big fan of that.
@thefabricant The issue is, 250k power IS a lot. I do understand exactly what it means. Try this. Compare any scaling enchant when you have 50k power and when you have 100k power. You'll see, it does more damage. Seems obvious, right?
Now that you are doing let's say 50% more damage from power alone (it's probably not 50%, i'm just using a random number). Now, if with 50k power you're doing 50k damage, at 100k it increases to 75k damage via power alone. Seems right, doesn't it? But then you add the enchant in the mix. As you benefit from power on 2 sides - power as a multiplier for damage, and power as a multiplier for the enchantment what's another multi for damage, you get ridiculous DPS. So it jumps to 75k from the power, and then, let's say holy avenger - jumps to 111k. That's an increase of over 48%. So just by increasing power by 50k, you get (over) 98% damage increase (it's actually more, closer to 110%, since it's increased twice by a percentage, so it's 50k+50%=75k+48%=111k) . While on the other side, you could just have a flat 50% increase, and that would make you do 75k damage instead. It would make the whole thing work BECAUSE you don't get that double increase. All of these are just figurative numbers, but are somewhat realistic. 99.9% of solo players can't reach 80k power. But in a group, even without bondings as my video shows, 76k isn't an issue. Add bondings in and that number shoots from my base 35k to 76k + 2.85*(76-35) = 192.85k power. That would make DPS just go straight through the roof. Percentage based buffs are simpler, scale better, and they don't have the possibility of being exploited like the ITF's DR-based increase a few mods ago.
And what happens next is - both sides are satisfied. The dungeons actually start feeling hard again because you're not doing 30 billion damage per hit and buffs aren't as overpowered in general, AND you don't get so many people pissed off because they worked hard for the stuff they got, and then it got pummeled into the dirt. So devs are happy because there's the easiness and power creep gone, and players are happy cause they get to keep their shinies, and they have something to look forward to upgrade into without the urgency to be competitive still that turns people away.
This all makes sense to me.. I agree with Oria1. I think that the Powershare should be buffed slightly and go through to the Player only and not through the companion and then back to the player again.
I like this because it makes the game more challenging and will make you work harder for stuff. How is a game where everything dies so easy even fun? To me the more I am challenged in a Dung or Fight the more fun it is.
Stop with all this junk where everything is just given to you. Work for it or quit. Simple solution!
Comments
> Bonding has 30 duration seconds on preview while tooltip says is 15 seconds.
> In top of that it refreshes .( sorry i cant upload a video low upload)>
maybe they just haven't updated the preview server yet but in my opinion the nerf in stats is more than enough, leave the 30 seconds time and the refresh alone, dropping it to 15 seconds and having to wait till the 15 seconds are up for it to re proc is just stupid
In truth, I've been playing the game less and less because of real life impinging on game time. With these changes I don't feel any urge to log in....
1) A fully buffed BiS dps (before buffs from other classes) has somewhere between 60k and 80k power on their own.
2) We don't care about non BiS DpS for this comparison since they likely will not have high ranking bondings and thus won't benefit fully from DC buffs anyhow.
3) We ignoring the legendary bonus for now since when I last played it was somewhat buggy and not everyone has the same number of legendary pets.
4) We are ignoring Weapons of Light since DO also has it.
5) We will ignore the partial uptime of HG that an AC can achieve, this is partially balanced out by ignoring the DpS contribution a DpS DO could contribute.
For AC to compare to DO, we need the power buff from Blessing of Battle+AA to exceed the buff potential of Hallowed Ground+Terrifying Insight. This means you need a damage buff higher than 1.2*1.4 = 1.68.
BoB shares 15% power and AA shares 33% power. If the DpS is at the low end (60k) then the following is true:
A DC needs to share 68000 power reliably to buff more than DO.
To share that much power an AC needs 48023 base power.
Now, let us look at the high end, a DpS with 80k base power:
A DC needs to share 81600 power reliably to buff more than DO.
To share that much power an AC needs 57628 base power.
Now, this is only assuming there is a single class sharing power. If there is an OP there, or any other power sharing class, a DC would have to share more, which would require an even higher base power. Now, I don't know about what is possible in mod 12, but in mod 11.5, it wasn't even possible for an AC DC to achieve 57628 base power and even if it is now, a DC with that much power would likely struggle to keep up AA and buff reliably with it.
So, now let us look at a different situation. Let us assume the DC is casting HG and only using BoB, that way they are reliably buffing all the time.
A DC needs to share 20000 power with BoB alone assuming the DpS has 60k power.
This means they need at least 45198 power.
Alternatively, if the DpS has 80k base power:
A DC needs to share 24000 power with BoB alone assuming the DpS has 80k power.
This means they need at least 54237 power.
Either way, this clearly illustrates that Power Sharing is fine. AC in mod 12.5 is going to be a worse choice than a DO and if AC is worse than DO and you are going out of your way to nerf it, it is definitely not for class balance reasons.
Also, I ask that you stop saying power sharing is, "double dipping," on bondings. It isn't. I used this term once, correctly, to refer to the fact that SoD was scaling in a quadratic manner. This is not a quadratic function. Also, buffs don't scale exponentially, they scale multiplicatively.
> Let's face the truth, end game players don't spend enought, it's to break the game so people invest more money in the game, that is the only truth behind these nerfs.
>
> Contraire! It is very expensive to make changes to an endgame player. Ever decide to make changes to your enchantments or a companion? Ever decide you want a different WE? Minor changes cost in millions of AD at endgame.
I used a con artist until a few days ago when i read about 80% armpen with the new mod.
I switched to sellsword (750 000 da )with a necklace giving armpen instead of power.
I always used a con artist because i never felt the need to be the 1st dps in every dunjeon run and debuff benefit all in group, i always thought having the 3rd slot dedicated to def is a good thing because i don't want ro rely on aa, hg or others defs buffs from support.
I always find it funny when a tank die and say "it's because of dc".
Without my bondings as 13k warlock, i have around 25k power ( thanks to the 6k boon of my guild otherwise it would be 19k -_-)
With bondings, i'm something around 40k, i don't considered myself op...
Exept my r12 bondings i have only r9/10 on my toon and a r10 on my pet...
Without that bondings, i'll become useless (was already) as a dps to groups compared to hr/gwf...
It's just extremely hard and expensive to get all my enchants over r9.
(and no, removing the second enchant for refining isn't the THE solution because i still need an insane amount of rp points, marks and coalescent wards).
I open chests from chamber since day 1 on ps4, never had a single coalescent ward...
As a human being does it make more sense to grind for 3 r10 and 3x r12 for pet or grind for r12 enchants to all slots on your toon ?
Even more i read that owl bear cub is dead for us sw on preview...
We already were hit many timez by nerfs and it keep going.
That's why i'm infuriated by the nerfs on bonding.
It wasn't making me overpowered, just "usuable" as a dps.
You have no idea the struggle it is to join msva as a 13k sw (even if usually end up 1st dps there for reasons i'll not debate here)...
Now without that and without owl cub, the sw is definetely dead...
So when i read from mods, that's these nerfs ara a good thing, i feel i'm being trolled ( to stay polite)
No, he's not. He's just implying that power share over comp is overpowered. The solution isn't to nerf bondings, it's to change the way power share interacts with comps, or the ability that enables power share itself. Make it a % buff that depends on the user's base power or something - as long as it doesn't affect the companion.
Power sharing is NOT fine. At least not when comps are involved. If it just affects players, it's great, and should stay the way it is (or changed in accordance with written above). And that's the whole point of oria1's post.
I'm currently uploading a video, and if you want Fab, I'll send it to you too (and the one I made yesterday), to show what makes powershare more "overpowered" than bondings, which really aren't. They're powerful, but then again, so are weapon enchants. And we get as much DPS from weapon enchants (probably more with unparalleled) compared to bondings. Bondings give a stat increase. Enchants give a straight damage increase. Enchants scale with power, and you get power from power share (moreso than bondings. MUCH more). What means, power share is buffing our weapon hits as power should, AND it's buffing our weapon enchants. Now, my near BiS comp at 6k power with 2x radiant r11 and brutal r12 with loyal avenger gives about 18k power from bondings alone + a bit from protector's camaraderie. Compare that to a DC's power share.
The fact stands, percentage based buffs scale much better than power share ever will, has less issues and is more consistent. You also CAN'T infinitely stack them. If you have 1 ITF for example, you can't get another GF and run another ITF. You can only have a better uptime. But can't have stacking increase in damage.
Right now, power share works as stupidly as ITF did back when it scaled with the GF's DR. Although a bit less ridiculous as it buffs from base power, and not buffed up one.
A DC would need 141667 base power to share enough power to be comparable to DO assuming the DPS has 60k power.
a DC would need 170000 base power to share enough to be comparable to DO assuming the DPS has 80k power.
Great. So a DC would have to have more power than most players have after a DC has buffed them in the current system as base power. They would need to have more than twice the amount of power than it is possible to even achieve. I don't see what this, "nerf power share to pets," is trying to achieve other than to kill the paragon entirely.
> I run a main SW, I have 42k power and 70k when my companion procs. If I run aFBI with a PO and a DC I can get over 200k power. So please tell me how the problem the devs insist is there lies with the bonding stones.
It depends, sometime they will tell you power creep, sometime they want variety xD
in all honesty I don't think anything is broken for 90 percent of the players. Maybe it looks like everyone is speed running fbi msp and tong, because the only groups completing it for the most part are elite groups with ideal make up. sure there are some stragglers completeing it in half an hour or longer... but the ones who farm it are the bis groups. that means EVERYONE is bis.
and it needs to be nerfed. even though it's like a 1 percenter problem.
there probably is no data for them from the que system (and that should tell them we are struggling not we're over powered.. because if it were reasonable for the average player people would be queing for it. Fbi was released what, a year ago? and no one will pug it.
if you were to take an unideal group with bondings but no buffs or only light buffs. somehow I doubt you'd be seeing 10 minute fbi speedruns.
A solution to the power share issue. It is an issue, no matter what your brilliant mind might conjure from the aether.
The fact stands that it's overpowered. It's either that the path is dead or overpowered to the point where it breaks the game. Nerfing bondings DOESN'T fix this and that's the issue here. I'm not proposing that they just outright remove power share to comps but keep it on players, I'm proposing that they make it a PERCENTAGE BUFF to players. The issue with power share is that it buffs the players directly, AND the weapon enchant, making it spike more than it did before. These 1 million left clicks and ticks only appeared with the scaling enchants. Before that it wasn't much of a problem.
This "nerf power share" is trying to achieve "don't <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> up 75%+ of your community, they will start hating you". We're not asking for an ACDC nerf, we're asking for an interaction nerf. Do your fancy calcs, calculate how much of a buff in % is required to match DODC buffs (although it DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO because those are different roles. That's like making all GFs DPSs or all Pallies healers, or all DCs buffers, or all CWs debuffers etc).
Listen, I'm not against you or your points but see this from a different perspective. We DON'T NEED 250k power, that's literally the biggest "power creep" (ehhhh) issue in the game. If ACDC's abilities did a percentage based buffs instead of base power based ones, it would scale infinitely better throughout the game. 10% in early game = 10% in late game. 5k power in early game =/= 5k power in late game.
Nerfing bonding does nothing but <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> people off and doesn't even reduce the non-existent power creep from them. They're a big investment that improves your performance. Just like a weapon enchant is. And all of this nerfing doesn't even change the fact that augments won't be viable for ANY DPS whatsoever, and we all know that DPSs are like 60% of the community because everything is a weewee measuring contest on the internet.
what DID I SAY that has anything to do with what you said. ? Your rant about what the AC needs or not, is TOTALLY off topic and of base if I may add.
We are talking here about the bonding issue and I point out that it may not be a bonding issue but a mechanic that the devs were never clear about and seemed that its
A. Not working as intended and
B. overpowering.
Which overpowering aspect led us to nerfing the bonding stones for ALL the players and you are saying we should ALL lose on our bondings so your cleric can keep its position on runs? AMAZING
From what I see you didn't say ANYTHING about that specific point and avoided talking at ALL but went on a rant as to what the AC will need or not. THIS IS NOT a POST about what THE AC needs. And in your passion to talk about AC DC you didn't even see that I proposed a buff to the AC power share and direct it only to players so the class will still be relevant.
But thank you for proving my point that the ONLY way according to you for an AC to play is use the companion powershare and for that yeah, lets nerf everyone bonding stones and solve zero problems about the power creep.
"@oria1, your comments on this thread are nothing but an attempt to completely delete the AC paragon from existence"
I will only say this. Out of respect for the time I know you I will leave the others to judge your words and mine.
I suggested that an AC and a pally should take a buff in powershare and they should adjust as much as the devs think its right to lose the power creep and still keep the game fair not for AC but for all classes. Unless you don't agree with that
I never mention a NERF to the AC... simply because its not anything to me. If anything an AC in makes me look better in my game whatever class I play. But this is not about you or me sharp. Its about what is right and wrong.
...and in this case you are wrong.
Free to chat in game or on vox anytime... like the previous one.
Yep. That's the ideal course of action - I don't know about the percentages as I haven't done any calcs on them but that seems about right. That's just how it should be because we don't know what the future mods will hold and then we might get such a stupid base power spike due to some weird reason like the mod6 disaster, just kinda in reverse, and then everyone freakkin' one-shots avatar of orcus or smth. It's an issue. Stat-based buffs are bad and should be avoided.
The proverbial foot of Homer Simpson has hit the floor xD Nice to see you by the way
1) It kills build diversity. Currently an AC DC can build to buff. Furthermore, their buffs are not, "super OP" they are balanced. Changing AA to work this way would simply be moving how dc buffs from 1 medium to another and not changing how much they buff.
2) It removes an element of skill from playing AC. Currently there is a marked difference between an AC who knows what they are doing and builds correctly and 1 who does not. Granted, there would still be the skill requirement for positioning etc, but there wouldn't be as much.
3) The reason for change is given more out of a misunderstanding of how things work than an actual reason. It isn't OP, it doesn't need to be nerfed and all that changing it from a %based buff to a flat buff does is kill builds in the process. It isn't comparable to ITF. ITF was different since there was no relative increase involved. Here, if the DPS increases their power, the DC buffs less relative to how much they were buffing before and they had to increase their power to compensate. In the case of ITF, there was no balancing act between the power of the dps and the buff provided by the gf. AC at the moment is really well balanced compared to DO, they are quite close. having 250k power isn't a problem unless you only see the number and not what it represents.
That is at 35k power without a bonding-power share the weapon damage of plaguefire.
and here with 106k power after the full power share buffing (mine only) watch how much increased the weapon damage.
( note also my companion is dancing shield 3 defence slot !) .
125% weapon damage became 242% weapon damage at 250k how much will be?
There USED to be a relative increase with ITF depending on your gear, and when I saw GFs running with 3x defensive bonding and hitting 150% DR (and therefore 150% DPS increase)... that was ridiculous, and so is this. ITF too "required skill" (to some extent) as you had to time that cast when your DR is at its peak, but that's what made it ridiculous. It scaled with stats, but that was indeed much worse because it didn't use base but buffed stats.
My issue with the bonding nerf is that it doesn't actually do anything but <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> people off. I think you may understand that minmaxing a build takes a long time, and when you have to do it every 2 months (1st for the 85% RI, now for this too) it gets boring and annoying. Sure it kills diversity but I think that went out of window when they literally killed every other GWF path other than destroyer (instigator still kinda works, sentinel is just broken, final paragon doesn't work at all), TRs are just completely underpowered compared to HRs for instance, SWs don't do nearly as much as they could before, some people managed to adjust but that's such a miniscule minority...
While I do agree that it does kill diversity, I prefer balance and fun gameplay over diversity. The fact that scaling enchants are a thing (which also kinda killed TRs as their BiS is still vorpal as they don't proc <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> with their abilities), and you can get so much power is an issue that needs to be resolved. And now with R14 radiants, that's a LOT more power than before, you'll see even more ridiculous figures. You'll still have <22 minute TNG runs because of this.
But then we return to the same issue I have with basically everything in this mod - elitism. Top tiers will be even more top tiers, mid tiers will just trail behind, be farther away than ever and so on. It will create an invisible barrier for everyone who's not in some god-tier guild that's filled with people who can destroy stuff, and get dragged through until they're top tier too.
Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw described this perfectly - the difference between top tiers and lower tiers, although this is for a PvP game. Still works. I'll censor it in advance for your own safety:
"It's a rear-end recruitment drive. You start playing as a fresh-faced Level 1 and get murdered by rear-ends. Obviously, you don't give a half-ounce of creamy baby <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> about helping your team win; your only real motivation is to avenge yourself upon the rear-ends. But by the time you've got the better guns that the rear-ends used on you, they've moved on to firing dark-matter yogurt rockets out of their Level 40 diamantine blasters, and so you can only avenge yourself on their lower-level teammates, ensuring that the bleak cycle will begin anew. Congratulations, you're part of the rear-end system".
Basically shows that you have to either join the top tiers somehow or roll in the mud, dreaming of the stars and then quitting because you've realized that it's impossible to get there because you're not powerful enough to do hard content. And to join top tiers usually, you have to become one, somehow. And that's where the invisible barrier comes. Unless you make a hefty investment you won't be able to get there unless you grind until your eyes bleed and you're drooling because your brain just melted. And this works especially bad with the new random queue system.
1) Power is shared to the companion and thus to the player additional times (True).
2) Statement 1 is overpowered and needs to be reduced for the sake of balance (False).
My long writeup was in regards to 2), showing how it isn't overpowered and the only reason people think it is overpowered is because they see 250k power and they think that number is big and must mean it is OP without understanding what it means, or the context of it at all.
Now, at no point did I say they should or should not nerf anyone's bondings, so don't put words into my mouth. My writeup was solely about demonstrating how what AC does is comparable to what DO does and how power sharing to bondings isn't overpowered.
P.S, you might want to start a nerf HR crusade next since groups will favour those over MoFs.
The question here is about the powershare that comes through bondings and not the powershare of dc specifically. No matter how you try to hide it or mask it by deflecting and diverting the conversation to the "IF the poor AC should be viable or not" quick answer: of course he should and feel free to make a post about it on dc forums.
Now for what I know and you also said a LOT of times , roughly 400 power is 1% damage So 4000% is 10% so 40.000 is 100% damage.
What do we call 210k power? Notice here we dont care from where that power came or who gave more you or a pally, but how much it affects the power creep.
If the powershare doesn't go through the bonding which is the topic in hand and not the AC how much less power creep would we have and therefore can possible avoid to have the bonding changed at all?
If you don't want to answer I can link several of your posts about the % of power to damage. (and not the relative % a AC can give which n all honestly its irrelevant to the thread.
Are you officially telling us that the AC only viable way to play is buffing our companions to buff the DPS? and IF so should that class mechanic remain as is? and affect everyone else investment? Should it have been there in the first place? Again focus on the mechanic and not the AC.
Those are the topics in hand and not what the AC should or not become.
Since you said I misinform why don't you show us where I misinform always knowing that mistakes happen. After all I'm not the "Tester" i m just a player.
After you answer I will show you though were you did.
As always my Gamevox is open to chat like the last time we did when you were again wrong and apologized.
EDIT : we probably posted together so
If the power is not important then why do you make it as the No1 factor for AC to be? Why is everyone asking for it? and on top you hint for more? . You cant have it both ways. As for how much damage it actually is let me show you in ACT on my next post.
Second I didn't say its OP. I keep comparing the bonding VS powershare and keep find it overperforming from the two. I would suggest again to read my posts.
I didn't put words in to your mouth, we have 2 solutions here. Either nerf the bonding and keep powershare or not in regard to the current topic that its bonding nerf thread... By choosing one you automatically NOT choose the other.
My recommendation sharp in case you missed it is leave bondings as IS with the 285% and remove the ability to push the powershare X 4 to players and buff the direct AC powershare to the player to the point its NOT power creep anymore.
You recommend changes to AC....
The post is about bonding and power creep NOT AC DC.
The cleric in your scenario buffs ~70k power.
At your amount of 36k power it increases the pf-dmg from 125% to 242% => 242/125= 1,936.
=> Relative dmg increase of 93,6%.
Now your power-multiplier moves from 1,9 to 3,66 => 3,66/1,9 = 1,931.
=> Relative dmg increase of 93,1%.
Difference because of rounding.
Now let's say you start at 180k power and then add your buffs, reaching 250k power.
Your power-multiplier moves from 5,5 to 7,25 => 3,66/1,9 = 1,318.
Relative dmg increase of 31,8%.
In that case the displayed value from your pf would move
from 125% *5,5/1,9 = 362%
to 125% *7,25/1,9 = 477%
=> Relative dmg increase of 31,8%.
Keep in mind that these wpn enchants are not getting double buffed, the displayed value is already affected by the power-buff and will not be affected again by it.
How is the 31,8% dmg buff that your cleric would provide to reach the 250k power overpowered?
If the power is not important then why do you make it as the No1 factor for AC to be? Why is everyone asking for it? and on top you hint for more? . You cant have it both ways. As for how much damage it actually is let me show you in ACT on my next post.
Second I didn't say its OP. I keep comparing the bonding VS powershare and keep find it overperforming from the two. I would suggest again to read my posts.
I didn't put words in to your mouth, we have 2 solutions here. Either nerf the bonding and keep powershare or not in regard to the current topic that its bonding nerf thread... By choosing one you automatically NOT choose the other.
My recommendation sharp in case you missed it is leave bondings as IS with the 285% and remove the ability to push the powershare X 4 to players and buff the direct AC powershare to the player to the point its NOT power creep anymore.
You recommend changes to AC and not talka about the bonding at all ot the bug....
The post is about bonding and power creep NOT AC DC.
...and you still don't answer to the point. From the 2 scenarios that affect the bonding which one leads to more power creep? The bonding staying at 285% with rank 14 OR the powershare through bonding (which should not happen anyway).
Should we care about the players OR just the AC?? simple This is what is at stake here and not the AC future. We are talking about power creep and you want to add more...
The improvements to the runes themselves are probably fair but if they are to be used we will need more functionality from augments themselves. 100% stats are not enough to do that.
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
so now rank 14 enchants are best but you need 150k ad per new mark to upgrade them, but hang on thats not enough of a kick in the teeth, you decide to nerf bondings as well.
i cant for the life of me work out why you cannot just boost the other runestones and balance things out that way.
let me guess, greed? you want even more money off people?
and in 6 months, what will you decide to do to screw us over then?
like many people have said, i doubt that people will actually quit because they like the game, but boy it would be funny as hell when you do take it to far and no one spends a dime through fear of what they are buying with their hard earned cash will become useless the next time you have one of your bright ideas.
SHAMBLES.
AC DC and DO DC has been and will be a part of every BiS meta party that has been for quite some, and will be for quite some time looking forward.
I'm not sure that's "balanced". And how this sharing works right now is a huge part of that.
You are also claiming it would "kill" a spec... Yeah that's entirely possible. As if AC DC does not occupy a party spot for something else than DC, essentially killing not just a specs but whole classes for parties running for efficiency/meta parties.
I don't have anything against protecting what you see as fine, but calling "balanced" on anything related to current AC DC, or DC in general? Not a big fan of that.
[PS4] Alliance - House Stargaryen
The issue is, 250k power IS a lot. I do understand exactly what it means. Try this. Compare any scaling enchant when you have 50k power and when you have 100k power. You'll see, it does more damage. Seems obvious, right?
Now that you are doing let's say 50% more damage from power alone (it's probably not 50%, i'm just using a random number). Now, if with 50k power you're doing 50k damage, at 100k it increases to 75k damage via power alone. Seems right, doesn't it? But then you add the enchant in the mix. As you benefit from power on 2 sides - power as a multiplier for damage, and power as a multiplier for the enchantment what's another multi for damage, you get ridiculous DPS. So it jumps to 75k from the power, and then, let's say holy avenger - jumps to 111k. That's an increase of over 48%. So just by increasing power by 50k, you get (over) 98% damage increase (it's actually more, closer to 110%, since it's increased twice by a percentage, so it's 50k+50%=75k+48%=111k) . While on the other side, you could just have a flat 50% increase, and that would make you do 75k damage instead. It would make the whole thing work BECAUSE you don't get that double increase. All of these are just figurative numbers, but are somewhat realistic. 99.9% of solo players can't reach 80k power. But in a group, even without bondings as my video shows, 76k isn't an issue. Add bondings in and that number shoots from my base 35k to 76k + 2.85*(76-35) = 192.85k power. That would make DPS just go straight through the roof. Percentage based buffs are simpler, scale better, and they don't have the possibility of being exploited like the ITF's DR-based increase a few mods ago.
And what happens next is - both sides are satisfied. The dungeons actually start feeling hard again because you're not doing 30 billion damage per hit and buffs aren't as overpowered in general, AND you don't get so many people pissed off because they worked hard for the stuff they got, and then it got pummeled into the dirt. So devs are happy because there's the easiness and power creep gone, and players are happy cause they get to keep their shinies, and they have something to look forward to upgrade into without the urgency to be competitive still that turns people away.
I like this because it makes the game more challenging and will make you work harder for stuff. How is a game where everything dies so easy even fun? To me the more I am challenged in a Dung or Fight the more fun it is.
Stop with all this junk where everything is just given to you. Work for it or quit. Simple solution!