Merging Paths with Paragon feats And Revamping Powers

slicey970x
slicey970x Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 40 Arc User


@rgutscheradev @mimicking#6533 @noworries#8859 @asterdahl @nitocris83 @sgrantdev#8718


So since NW Team has been revamping the refining system, the queue system and many other things, i do belive that doing what the title suggests it should be the next step to improve the game.

I’ve been playing Neverwinter for 4 years now, and i can say i am kinda tired of each class not having a different build, and powers being a battle royale of what is better than the other, as Robert mentioned in the devstream few weeks ago, he belives the idea of removing paragon feats, since for most of the classes it’s useless. So i made this thread just to bring a suggestion on how i think it should be done, worked and improved from the present system with a bit of work to it.

Merging Paragon Path and Paragon Feat and Revamping Powers.
So i will use as an example the OathBound Paladin class that right now it’s the closest to this desired revamp:
So what do we know about the class is that it has
2 Paths: oath of devotion and oath of protection
3 Paragon feats: Justice, Bulwark, Light
1 Class Mechanic That is doing something different depending on the Path you choose.

The desired revamp would be like this
1. Merging Paths and Paragon feats, therefor you will not be able to pick other feats from another paragon feat if you choose your selected path.
Oath of Devotion with the Paragon Feat Light
Oath of Protection with the Paragon Feat Bulwark
Oath of Pending... with the Paragon feat Justice
2. Powers(Encounters/Atwills/Class features/Dailies) should be split in tiers:
The first tier of Powers(tier1) that should be COMMON among all the Paths with extra tooltips for each Path for their desired Role
The second tier of Powers(tier2) that each Path will have differently from eachother.

Therefor when choosing 1 path and you wont be able to pick feats from another paragon feat, what would we obtain by narrowing this, is a clear view on the class supposed role to have in the group, therefore narrowing down and point out the class role, it would be easier for balancing the class knowing that the Path we choose it would be a TANK,Heal, DPS, Control or Support Buff/Both of best worlds(Hybrid). All of them (except DPS) with low/moderate damage to complete Dailies/quests etc. But meaningless in Dungeon Groups or PvP.(DPS will outshine them)



* Alot of classes can follow this pattern:
Great weapon fighter
Iron Vanguard -> Destroyer (DPS)
Swordmaster -> Sentinel (Tank)
Kensei -> Instigator( a mix between Tank-DPS - Best of two worlds(Hybrid))


Control wizard
Master of Flame -> Renegade (Support buff)
Spellstorm -> Thaumaturg (DPS)
Pending.. -> Opressor (Control specc)

So the new queue system will have 4 categories in it: Tank, Heal, Dps, Support/ Control/Best of two worlds. .
Now some of them will be better than the other ofc, what is the desired request is to make Dungeons/PvP content in a way for each of the 4 categories can shine, there might be a dungeon where there are alot of mobs, so control will be required the most, there might be a dungeon where u need tank, heal, support and dps etc. Same for PvP there might be gamemodes such as Capture the flag or Battle royale etc So there are unlimited choices to be honest, but making the builds worthwhile you balance the content around the class paths roles.

Now how do we keep them in check and balanced to eachother?
For PvE
- Well that is quite simple to do, we take each DPS specc from each class and we try to even the discrepancy in outgoing damage between them as much as possible e.g:
DPS SPECCS : GWF, HR, CW, TR, SW
TANK SPECCS: GF, OP , GWF
CONTROL SPECCS: HR, CW, TR
HEALING: DC, OP, SW
SUPPORT: DC , OP , SW, CW, HR

We also look at how TANK vs DPS is supposed to be for PvP .
For example if TANK deals 100 damage and DPS is dealing 1000 Damage
You have a TANK that is able to mitigatee 1000 damage to 200, and then you have a DPS takin a full 100 damage, since he doesnt have such good mitigators as a TANK.

Loadouts will make it easier too by changing these roles faster, there will be diversity, classes will have weaknesses, so a DPS class will not have excessive CC/HEAL/TANKINES, a TANK CLASS WILL NOT HAVE EXCESSIVE DMG, HEAL etc.
So if its DONE WELL this can be a huge improvement to the game, and each class can have 3 different Paths that can fulfill different roles, therefor you are creating DIVERSITY.
8 classes with 3 different playstyles = 32 classes.IMO Its way better then releasing a new class, since the gains are way higher..

Groups such as 2 DCs, 2 CWs, 3 GWFs won’t be a problem and should be allowed aslong as the Queue will be based on the Path Roles, and not the Class… Therefore every player can contribute and join the meta of the desired content, way better than the present system, where the system doesnt give you much of a choice.

Anyway the idea is to simplify all of these, for new players it will be easier to understand this system, since reading the Path description you are to expect it will do exactly that.
In my view the current Power system is like a multiple different Puzzles where all the Pieces are scrambled out on the table, All i am suggesting with this thread is to make everything more clear, viable by separating the pieces of the puzzle that are thrown randomly on the table, and complete the all the puzzles
Everything in the game from Boons, Artifact equipment bonuses TO PvE/PvP content can be balanced around these categories: Tank, DPS, Healing, Support/Control/Best of two worlds

I hope everyone takes their time reading it, i know there might be lacking some explanations, but i’m pretty sure the overall idea is quite a good one. Please restrain from sayin that there is alot of WORK involved, or they do not have RESOURCES or TIME, i am pretty sure this is something that will have a great return… the more the game is attracting players from its review, the growth will definetly be there, its all about DOING the right stuff to actually attract these players, and one of the biggest problems is Class Balancing, and i think with this suggestion we can finally nail it, and after this they should focus on creating CONTENT, REWARDS, and other QoL stuffs.





Comments

  • forumnamesuxs
    forumnamesuxs Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 490 Arc User
    I like this idea. I like it a lot.
    Wolves, big as a horse! I need new pants!

  • mebengalsfan#9264
    mebengalsfan#9264 Member Posts: 3,169 Arc User



    @rgutscheradev @mimicking#6533 @noworries#8859 @asterdahl @nitocris83 @sgrantdev#8718


    So since NW Team has been revamping the refining system, the queue system and many other things, i do belive that doing what the title suggests it should be the next step to improve the game.

    I’ve been playing Neverwinter for 4 years now, and i can say i am kinda tired of each class not having a different build, and powers being a battle royale of what is better than the other, as Robert mentioned in the devstream few weeks ago, he belives the idea of removing paragon feats, since for most of the classes it’s useless. So i made this thread just to bring a suggestion on how i think it should be done, worked and improved from the present system with a bit of work to it.

    Merging Paragon Path and Paragon Feat and Revamping Powers.
    So i will use as an example the OathBound Paladin class that right now it’s the closest to this desired revamp:
    So what do we know about the class is that it has
    2 Paths: oath of devotion and oath of protection
    3 Paragon feats: Justice, Bulwark, Light
    1 Class Mechanic That is doing something different depending on the Path you choose.

    The desired revamp would be like this
    1. Merging Paths and Paragon feats, therefor you will not be able to pick other feats from another paragon feat if you choose your selected path.
    Oath of Devotion with the Paragon Feat Light
    Oath of Protection with the Paragon Feat Bulwark
    Oath of Pending... with the Paragon feat Justice
    2. Powers(Encounters/Atwills/Class features/Dailies) should be split in tiers:
    The first tier of Powers(tier1) that should be COMMON among all the Paths with extra tooltips for each Path for their desired Role
    The second tier of Powers(tier2) that each Path will have differently from eachother.

    Therefor when choosing 1 path and you wont be able to pick feats from another paragon feat, what would we obtain by narrowing this, is a clear view on the class supposed role to have in the group, therefore narrowing down and point out the class role, it would be easier for balancing the class knowing that the Path we choose it would be a TANK,Heal, DPS, Control or Support Buff/Both of best worlds(Hybrid). All of them (except DPS) with low/moderate damage to complete Dailies/quests etc. But meaningless in Dungeon Groups or PvP.(DPS will outshine them)



    * Alot of classes can follow this pattern:
    Great weapon fighter
    Iron Vanguard -> Destroyer (DPS)
    Swordmaster -> Sentinel (Tank)
    Kensei -> Instigator( a mix between Tank-DPS - Best of two worlds(Hybrid))


    Control wizard
    Master of Flame -> Renegade (Support buff)
    Spellstorm -> Thaumaturg (DPS)
    Pending.. -> Opressor (Control specc)

    So the new queue system will have 4 categories in it: Tank, Heal, Dps, Support/ Control/Best of two worlds. .
    Now some of them will be better than the other ofc, what is the desired request is to make Dungeons/PvP content in a way for each of the 4 categories can shine, there might be a dungeon where there are alot of mobs, so control will be required the most, there might be a dungeon where u need tank, heal, support and dps etc. Same for PvP there might be gamemodes such as Capture the flag or Battle royale etc So there are unlimited choices to be honest, but making the builds worthwhile you balance the content around the class paths roles.

    Now how do we keep them in check and balanced to eachother?
    For PvE
    - Well that is quite simple to do, we take each DPS specc from each class and we try to even the discrepancy in outgoing damage between them as much as possible e.g:
    DPS SPECCS : GWF, HR, CW, TR, SW
    TANK SPECCS: GF, OP , GWF
    CONTROL SPECCS: HR, CW, TR
    HEALING: DC, OP, SW
    SUPPORT: DC , OP , SW, CW, HR

    We also look at how TANK vs DPS is supposed to be for PvP .
    For example if TANK deals 100 damage and DPS is dealing 1000 Damage
    You have a TANK that is able to mitigatee 1000 damage to 200, and then you have a DPS takin a full 100 damage, since he doesnt have such good mitigators as a TANK.

    Loadouts will make it easier too by changing these roles faster, there will be diversity, classes will have weaknesses, so a DPS class will not have excessive CC/HEAL/TANKINES, a TANK CLASS WILL NOT HAVE EXCESSIVE DMG, HEAL etc.
    So if its DONE WELL this can be a huge improvement to the game, and each class can have 3 different Paths that can fulfill different roles, therefor you are creating DIVERSITY.
    8 classes with 3 different playstyles = 32 classes.IMO Its way better then releasing a new class, since the gains are way higher..

    Groups such as 2 DCs, 2 CWs, 3 GWFs won’t be a problem and should be allowed aslong as the Queue will be based on the Path Roles, and not the Class… Therefore every player can contribute and join the meta of the desired content, way better than the present system, where the system doesnt give you much of a choice.

    Anyway the idea is to simplify all of these, for new players it will be easier to understand this system, since reading the Path description you are to expect it will do exactly that.
    In my view the current Power system is like a multiple different Puzzles where all the Pieces are scrambled out on the table, All i am suggesting with this thread is to make everything more clear, viable by separating the pieces of the puzzle that are thrown randomly on the table, and complete the all the puzzles
    Everything in the game from Boons, Artifact equipment bonuses TO PvE/PvP content can be balanced around these categories: Tank, DPS, Healing, Support/Control/Best of two worlds

    I hope everyone takes their time reading it, i know there might be lacking some explanations, but i’m pretty sure the overall idea is quite a good one. Please restrain from sayin that there is alot of WORK involved, or they do not have RESOURCES or TIME, i am pretty sure this is something that will have a great return… the more the game is attracting players from its review, the growth will definetly be there, its all about DOING the right stuff to actually attract these players, and one of the biggest problems is Class Balancing, and i think with this suggestion we can finally nail it, and after this they should focus on creating CONTENT, REWARDS, and other QoL stuffs.



    I like the thought of this but if the devs do this, they better make sure that the paragon paths are both equally viable. For instance as a DC, the only path worth investing into is Righteous as it offers the best buffs and debuffs for DCs.

    Also, many build have feats that go into more than one paragon path. For example, my CW both DPS and Buffer have feats in more than one paragon path, in fact all my builds do.

    If the devs do this, they have to REVAMP all classes to ensure there is some balance, especially if all classes end up with a DPS build based on paragon path updates.

    As I pointed out in another thread, NW is approaching year 5 and typically a game hits a wall around year 5/6 and does a full on revamp to improve the game. NW is approaching that wall and an idea like this is a good way for something like this to happen.
  • preechr#2215
    preechr#2215 Member Posts: 488 Arc User
    I don't mean to hijack your thread, because I support what you are doing here and don't want to ruin it, so I can delete all this if you think its off topic or just wrong and don't want it in your thread... but I've also been thinking about what @rgutscheradev said and I wanted to riff on it a bit too, and I don't think you and I are very far apart


    DPS SPECCS : GWF, HR, CW, TR, SW, DC, GF
    TANK SPECCS: GF, OP , GWF
    CONTROL SPECCS: HR, CW, TR, GWF
    HEALING: DC, OP, SW
    SUPPORTBUFF/DEBUFF: DC , OP , SW, CW, HR, GF, TR

    Generally speaking, mostly yes to your whole post, however I think the "Best of two worlds" idea is a bit broken... Wouldn't it be better to just allow three real role options to classes that don't have options? GWF is a great example because currently while they have a tanky tree, they have no force aggro mechanism available to them so they can't tank... Pigeonholed into a DPS role

    I noticed you didn't have 3 options for every class, and I didn't know if that was an oversight or just unexplained, so I added in a few entries above to balance it... no offense intended... If they were to make each tree represent a role for each class, each class should get a choice of three roles, right?

    As a DC, I don't think a Battle Cleric is a terribly stupid concept, obviously... and adding a team support role to TRs would most likely be welcomed... GFs can already build as DPS and Tactician... though the only problem with the above distribution is that poor Pallys are the only class without a DPS tree, which would likely cause a ruckus

    It does make sense, though, that a Paladin would fill a healing role, same as a Cleric, and obviously they Tank (though that doesn't exactly square with what a D&D Pally would be) because that is built so deeply into the game... and a Paladin traditionally has auras that buff/debuff, so that categorization is obvious... Maybe the only thing keeping them from being allowed a DPS role is that they were originally thrown into the Tank role because the game needed a second Tank Class

    Obviously, with so many Pally Tanks in the game now you couldn't take that away, so I'm at a loss

    One kind of big problem with this concept, however, is that it would make it dangerously easy for your system to produce exactly 24 builds available to players (3 per class)... as you couldn't really offer much range in choices in each tree, at least not while keeping the current feat tree structure we have

    I say tree because that's what we call them, but they are just branches, really

    To offer real choices in each branch they would probably have to be restructured as actual trees, and with all the trouble devs are having balancing the rather simple feat/power system we have now (not saying they are doing a bad job... I understand they are doing their best with what they have to work with and they- I think -didn't build the foundations, which is the broken part) would designing balancing and then maintaining a new feat system with so much more complexity even be feasible?

    Another issue comes up when you look at Control Wizards, for instance: Wizards draw power from Fire, Ice and Arcane magics... though why it can't be all the elemental forces I don't know... Would you confine each of these in one particular tree? (Fire=DPS, Ice=Control, Arcane=Buff/Debuff would make sense) If so, wouldn't that be sort of boring? It would make some logical sense, and maybe be cool, but would you want to be forced to be a fire Wizard if you wanted to run DPS? A Wizard should have access to all kinds of crazy spells to use situationally as needed... But if specced for Control (Ice) he wouldn't serve much purpose in MSVA or FBI (though Neverwinter seems to have simply ignored the concept that fire shouldn't hurt a fire elemental and stuff like that)

    Which circles back to the trees thing... another reason I picked the CW, so as to explain this easier... If the DPS, Control and Buff/Debuff trees each had Fire, Ice and Arcane branches, you could offer real choices with that structure... but, again, think of the work involved in designing all those feats! That's a lot to ask for...

    Fighter Classes, GF and GWF, could have Offensive, Defensive and Parrying branches... DC and OP could have Offensive, Defensive and Devine... HR gets Offensive, Defensive and Druidic... TR gets Offensive, Parrying and the Trickster part I guess... SW gets Offensive, Defensive and Dark Magic

    It just seems easier to stick with the CW class as an example, so her DPS tree would progress along a path that now allowed her to add feat points to DPS oriented Fire, Ice or Arcane based magic feats at each increment progressing along to what could only be a choice of three different capstones, so it would look like the feat trees we have now but with an extra row and the same amount of columns

    The reason I like using the CW to explain this is because Fire=DPS, Ice=Control, Arcane=Buff/Debuff does make sense, and there could be the same kind of synergy for the other classes and their proposed roles as well

    Looking at the CW DPS tree: Each increment of feats would offer a choice between Offensive Fire, Controlling Ice or Buff/Debuff Arcane feats, but they would all be DPS oriented in such a way to allow a DPS tree Wizard to actually play as a Control or Buff/Debuff Wizard... The Fire feats would focus on pure damaging Fire feats, the Control and Buff/Debuff feats would proc %damage bonuses or augment the Fire feats

    In the Control tree, the Ice branch would offer the biggest control feats, and the damaging Fire and Arcane Buff/Debuff feats would proc and augment those, and so on

    Just my thoughts... not meant to contradict the OP or tangentialize what I think is a great post
  • artifleur
    artifleur Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    I think it would make sense to merge powers as well. There are too many buttons to press.

    Right mouse button for killing stuff and left mouse button for healing.
  • hawkeyel
    hawkeyel Member Posts: 389 Arc User
    edited October 2017

    As I pointed out in another thread, NW is approaching year 5 and typically a game hits a wall around year 5/6 and does a full on revamp to improve the game. NW is approaching that wall and an idea like this is a good way for something like this to happen. While this is a quote from another player it does share a very honest truth. They can either keep working toward a major rework of this current system or they can announce they are working on a all new, from the ground up NW2. Most of the very long list of issues and wants from the player base cant really be done due to the fact that it was built into the core of the game .Allowing for a fresh start so that when they fix something it doesnt in fact break a half a dozen other things is the point we are at. I think if they would just spend the time and money to create a new NW2 they would end up coming out ahead rather than to keep trying to keep this current system going. They could bring this story line to its finish and give us a fresh new and easier to fix game . I believe this would in fact be better for everyone.They could even think on allowing current toons to transfer over to the new game depending on just how they go about the change.So it might not have to be the very end of your current toons but a new begining.
  • random1self
    random1self Member Posts: 34 Arc User
    How does this work for a warlock?

    Hellbringer = templock because PoP to help buff/help

    Soul Binder = fury

    HB and SB are quite different.

    Plus I like having a hybrid dps/buff MoF Thaum/OP CW, please don't force me to be MoF de/buff only. So, no, I don't like this idea.
  • ladypeanut66
    ladypeanut66 Member Posts: 78 Arc User
    I like this idea. To separate heals and support would be cool, and to give the DPS classes some 'magic' would be nice too, so they would not be restricted to DPS only. So, if you have more people to supply the roles more needed, you should get your queues to fire faster. The only problem is to balance this whole thing out: if TRs get a support role option, that 'build' should be useful, not garbage, for example.
  • hadestemplar#9918
    hadestemplar#9918 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,027 Arc User
    edited October 2017

    @slicey970x,
    Lets put jokes around and lets look to what we have and what you offering.

    1) merging paragon paths with feats.
    AS your example:
    Control wizard
    Master of Flame -> Renegade (Support buff)
    Spellstorm -> Thaumaturg (DPS)
    Pending.. -> Opressor (Control specc)

    Which bring question, Opressor? We have 2 paragon paths. and 3 paragon tress.. So we losing 1 tree if we will use your suggestion.

    2) less customize gamelay(obvious)
    3) certain builds become focused on specific paragon path.
    As good example, your suggestion warlock DPS build must be SB, < scr*** you. I want be hellbringer dps warlock. Also maybe want to keep templock Hb too.


    These paragon paths and paragon trees are tools to customize your character, don't like don't use them. But no need to kill features you don't like.
    Also, rework powers, do you even realize that it's same as request, cut all classes, and rebuild them.
    Post edited by hadestemplar#9918 on
    ========================================================================
    “The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.
    Gustave Le Bon.

    ==================================================
  • shadowyoppressor
    shadowyoppressor Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    I like this idea. 3 working specs for each class is better than only having like 1, or none if you play a disliked class. Also being able to break the roles up into like tanking, healing, support (buff/debuff), control, and dps would make balancing groups in queues (such as the coming random queue stuff easier). After all there would be 5 roles, and 5 slots in each group. Multiple classes having a spec that could fill the tanking or the healing roles would help to alleviate the lack of tanks and healers in queues. Also when balancing it would focus more on each paragon in comparison to the other paragon classes in the designated role. As opposed to now when people just say class X or power Y is over or under powered; which often feels overly complicated and messy. I feel that more functioning variety is greater that more hypothetical variety that is often 1 to 2 best builds per class in reality.

    However this would basically be a full rework. For every class. And would add 1 new paragon to every class. Somehow I just think that neither would the devs have the time nor would the company have the appetite for something this large.

    Then again if the do...
    TR:
    Master Infiltrator - Saboteur feat line - buff/debuff - group usefulness + better stealth would be fun
    Whisperknife - Scoundrel feat line - control - ranged control
    Assassin (or something else) - Executioner feat line - dps - full focus on damage to finally see a decent ranking on paingiver screen


    Though I do think it would be really cool if they would revamp like 1 class per month to your system starting with the least liked classes that need help the most.
  • majorcharvenak
    majorcharvenak Member Posts: 783 Arc User
    Ummm....No. Now while I applaud your initiative OP, revamping the trees into something like this will produce second and third order of effects that you don't highlight in your idea. Everything seems to be all pros with the only cons identified being the ones associated with the current system that folks already seem to know about. You don't spell out the potential cons of converting to the system from the status quo. Cons such as - Lack of customization, Some paragon paths falling into complete disuse because they wouldn't be viable or needed by the party, the number of bugs that will be present (and we all know there will be) if the type of change your proposing went live. These are just a few off the top of my head and I suspect there are more. It would probably be helpful and persuasive to include those as well so we get the good, bad and ugly and can make a better informed choice to rally behind.

    Again, @slicey970x my intention is NOT to belittle your efforts. My hood is off to you for putting these thoughts down. It's just that I'm worried that your recommended solution might cause more problems than it solves, and feel we'd all be better served if we knew and spelled what they could be, took them into account, and either agree to live with them - or not, before rallying behind and recommending it to the devs. That's my two coppers.
    ~Shia~

    House Miliskeera in exile (NW)
    Sereska Miliskeera, Lvl 70 OP - Devotion (Just.)/Protection (Just.)
    Shizlee Miliskeera, Lvl 70 DC - Divine Oracle (Right.)/Anoited Champion (Faith.)
    Finithey Miliskeera, Lvl 70 HR - Stormwarden (Combat)/Pathfinder (Trapper)
    Maya Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 CW - Spellstorm
    Irae Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 TR - Master Inflitrator

    Member - Houseclan t'Charvon (STO)
    Shiarrael e'Tal'Aura t'Charvon, LvL 60, Rom Sci
    S'aana ir'Virinat t'Charvon, Lvl 60, Rom Eng
    T'Lyra, LvL 60, Fed, Vul Sci
    Ta'el, Lvl 60, Rom Tac
  • ladypeanut66
    ladypeanut66 Member Posts: 78 Arc User

    Ummm....No. Now while I applaud your initiative OP, revamping the trees into something like this will produce second and third order of effects that you don't highlight in your idea. Everything seems to be all pros with the only cons identified being the ones associated with the current system that folks already seem to know about. You don't spell out the potential cons of converting to the system from the status quo. Cons such as - Lack of customization, Some paragon paths falling into complete disuse because they wouldn't be viable or needed by the party, the number of bugs that will be present (and we all know there will be) if the type of change your proposing went live. These are just a few off the top of my head and I suspect there are more. It would probably be helpful and persuasive to include those as well so we get the good, bad and ugly and can make a better informed choice to rally behind.

    Again, @slicey970x my intention is NOT to belittle your efforts. My hood is off to you for putting these thoughts down. It's just that I'm worried that your recommended solution might cause more problems than it solves, and feel we'd all be better served if we knew and spelled what they could be, took them into account, and either agree to live with them - or not, before rallying behind and recommending it to the devs. That's my two coppers.

    I see where you are going, but:

    - Some paragons falling in disuse: it is already happening. Does any OP use the capstone from the Light Tree? I am not an expert in the class, but from the builds I have seen the only viable path is Justice? And not only OPs, do any GWFs use the not-destroyer paths and get somewhere?
    - Bugs: they are already present xD

    Lack of customization may be a thing, though. I have thought about it and, if you can do this revamp into roles and then add some flavour, like there are still meaningful choices instead of a linear path, depending on the implementation it may be good. But still, too much work and probably won't be done :(
  • random1self
    random1self Member Posts: 34 Arc User
    One thing I've not really seen mentioned is that this is focused on group play/dungeons, but I spend very little time in a group/dungeon. Most of my time is solo questing for boons, sva keys, etc. For example if you take control powers out of a dps cw it's going to make life very difficult for a solo cw. And if you take the dps out of control they won't have the power to effectively kill enemies.
  • majorcharvenak
    majorcharvenak Member Posts: 783 Arc User

    Ummm....No. Now while I applaud your initiative OP, revamping the trees into something like this will produce second and third order of effects that you don't highlight in your idea. Everything seems to be all pros with the only cons identified being the ones associated with the current system that folks already seem to know about. You don't spell out the potential cons of converting to the system from the status quo. Cons such as - Lack of customization, Some paragon paths falling into complete disuse because they wouldn't be viable or needed by the party, the number of bugs that will be present (and we all know there will be) if the type of change your proposing went live. These are just a few off the top of my head and I suspect there are more. It would probably be helpful and persuasive to include those as well so we get the good, bad and ugly and can make a better informed choice to rally behind.

    Again, @slicey970x my intention is NOT to belittle your efforts. My hood is off to you for putting these thoughts down. It's just that I'm worried that your recommended solution might cause more problems than it solves, and feel we'd all be better served if we knew and spelled what they could be, took them into account, and either agree to live with them - or not, before rallying behind and recommending it to the devs. That's my two coppers.

    I see where you are going, but:

    - Some paragons falling in disuse: it is already happening. Does any OP use the capstone from the Light Tree? I am not an expert in the class, but from the builds I have seen the only viable path is Justice? And not only OPs, do any GWFs use the not-destroyer paths and get somewhere?
    - Bugs: they are already present xD

    Lack of customization may be a thing, though. I have thought about it and, if you can do this revamp into roles and then add some flavour, like there are still meaningful choices instead of a linear path, depending on the implementation it may be good. But still, too much work and probably won't be done :(
    The trees - Yes, I would agree that, in the case of the OP, Justice is pretty much the only viable path for both paragons. The problem (potential con) would be : Do the devs really take the time to go back and work on the disused trees to make them viable or do they match them up with their respective paragons as is with only some minor adjustments. Doing the former takes time, while the latter (while it might be faster to implement) locks Devotion Protection OPs into two semi-viable (at best) paths (Light and Bulwark) while the unnamed Paragon path getting the currently viable one (Justice). Additionally, there might also be an additional financial cost to the players of classes in similar situations unless the devs offer a third free loadout, otherwise that OP tank or heals is locked into only two options instead of three. This is what I mean when I say I'd like to hear more about the mechanics of how this might work, and what are the potential drawbacks before I jump on board with it.

    Bugs: You're right. They are. :p However, I'd be much happier if the Devs focused on fixing the ones that already exist rather than try to chase down and fix new ones created by implementing this type of change, but thats just my feelings on the matter. Anyways, I hope the OP gives us some additional details.
    ~Shia~

    House Miliskeera in exile (NW)
    Sereska Miliskeera, Lvl 70 OP - Devotion (Just.)/Protection (Just.)
    Shizlee Miliskeera, Lvl 70 DC - Divine Oracle (Right.)/Anoited Champion (Faith.)
    Finithey Miliskeera, Lvl 70 HR - Stormwarden (Combat)/Pathfinder (Trapper)
    Maya Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 CW - Spellstorm
    Irae Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 TR - Master Inflitrator

    Member - Houseclan t'Charvon (STO)
    Shiarrael e'Tal'Aura t'Charvon, LvL 60, Rom Sci
    S'aana ir'Virinat t'Charvon, Lvl 60, Rom Eng
    T'Lyra, LvL 60, Fed, Vul Sci
    Ta'el, Lvl 60, Rom Tac
  • preechr#2215
    preechr#2215 Member Posts: 488 Arc User
    I don't think the OP's intention was to suggest fully remodeling each class out of the clear blue sky
    @rgutscheradev already stated he wasn't happy with the paragon system as it is, and @slicey970x was just thinking about how a rework might be done best and making suggestions, which is what we all should be doing
    If it is stated that something like this is coming, would you rather wait until Cryptic's internal meetings on the matter are all over and they are invested in a plan and all we can do is ask for minor changes (think RQ system) or wouldn't it be better to get ahead of it and hopefully put a bug in their ear?
  • majorcharvenak
    majorcharvenak Member Posts: 783 Arc User
    I know and that's the thing @preechr. The recommendation proposed to fix a problem identified by the devs is commendable, I only think it should be fleshed out a bit more and 'wargamed' by the playerbase for lack of a better term. Its merits and potential demerit, problems or pitfalls identified and addressed before it gets picked up (if incorporated by the devs) otherwise it might cause more problems than it solves. As you stated, while it might not have been @slicey970x's intention, a full rework of each class, that might be what's required entail to implement the OP's suggestion based on the original recommendation above. The example you mentioned of the upcoming RQs and how its been poorly received is kind of what I'm talking about. It was an idea developed and implemented (unfortunately) to fix a problem (real or imagined) which may have unintended consequences down the road. I suspect that RQs might not have received the level of scrutiny it's had and probably would have been better received if the problems and pitfalls were identified and addressed before it dropped onto preview. Bottom line for me is - It's an interesting idea that needs a bit more work, so that if (or when) its taken and implemented, it will give the appearance of and feel like an improvement rather than the opposite.
    ~Shia~

    House Miliskeera in exile (NW)
    Sereska Miliskeera, Lvl 70 OP - Devotion (Just.)/Protection (Just.)
    Shizlee Miliskeera, Lvl 70 DC - Divine Oracle (Right.)/Anoited Champion (Faith.)
    Finithey Miliskeera, Lvl 70 HR - Stormwarden (Combat)/Pathfinder (Trapper)
    Maya Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 CW - Spellstorm
    Irae Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 TR - Master Inflitrator

    Member - Houseclan t'Charvon (STO)
    Shiarrael e'Tal'Aura t'Charvon, LvL 60, Rom Sci
    S'aana ir'Virinat t'Charvon, Lvl 60, Rom Eng
    T'Lyra, LvL 60, Fed, Vul Sci
    Ta'el, Lvl 60, Rom Tac
  • mebengalsfan#9264
    mebengalsfan#9264 Member Posts: 3,169 Arc User
    hawkeyel said:


    As I pointed out in another thread, NW is approaching year 5 and typically a game hits a wall around year 5/6 and does a full on revamp to improve the game. NW is approaching that wall and an idea like this is a good way for something like this to happen. While this is a quote from another player it does share a very honest truth. They can either keep working toward a major rework of this current system or they can announce they are working on a all new, from the ground up NW2. Most of the very long list of issues and wants from the player base cant really be done due to the fact that it was built into the core of the game .Allowing for a fresh start so that when they fix something it doesnt in fact break a half a dozen other things is the point we are at. I think if they would just spend the time and money to create a new NW2 they would end up coming out ahead rather than to keep trying to keep this current system going. They could bring this story line to its finish and give us a fresh new and easier to fix game . I believe this would in fact be better for everyone.They could even think on allowing current toons to transfer over to the new game depending on just how they go about the change.So it might not have to be the very end of your current toons but a new begining.

    They can do a full revamp while continuing current development of the game. I seen this in other MMOs where there was enough behind the door changes that the game got better but the game itself still played very close to what players were use to.

    NW2, no thanks. Just a revamped NW will work. With a full revamp also comes changes to content, not just our classes, companion, gear, enchantments, etc...
  • hawkeyel
    hawkeyel Member Posts: 389 Arc User
    I would like to think you are correct.But looking at how they only went half way on this first pass on balancing the different classes in this game . And the time at which they are doing things it would seem this game has run its course. Major resources would be needed to get it into a worth going forward state. We can just enjoy what we have but I hold out no hope of this getting much better any time soon, if at all. As long as this game has been out and still having this many issues with the different classes should tell you something.
  • hadestemplar#9918
    hadestemplar#9918 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,027 Arc User
    edited October 2017
    hawkeyel said:

    I would like to think you are correct.But looking at how they only went half way on this first pass on balancing the different classes in this game . And the time at which they are doing things it would seem this game has run its course. Major resources would be needed to get it into a worth going forward state. We can just enjoy what we have but I hold out no hope of this getting much better any time soon, if at all. As long as this game has been out and still having this many issues with the different classes should tell you something.

    And they are still far far far from balancing whole game, even heck they haven't return back old(legacy) dungeons.

    Here @mebengalsfan, mentioned that after 5 years games hit wall and then had to do grand game rework. Wrong.
    Unlike other games, neverwinter online is Dungeons & Dragons based game, so whole D&D francaise backing up neverwinter. New novels got written and Developers can take that stories idea for game development.
    Not mentioned, unlike other games neverwinter have Foundry<. Which mean each player can create new dungeon and start own adventure.

    As for class rework and new ones introduction.. It's hardly possible way. All it's because for us neverwinter is game, for company PWI/Cryptic is business. And each big rework is risky investments. To do all classes powers rework would be way to big risk.
    Game is not new, neither have edge over other games, neither combat, neither story telling, neither visually. Such big step would actually reduce NWO population too much, which would lead to point for games termination.

    I have seen how some games did so called big rework. Which ended up with game server termiantion/closure.

    Post edited by hadestemplar#9918 on
    ========================================================================
    “The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.
    Gustave Le Bon.

    ==================================================