I think its unfair to blame people for being stubborn and not adapting. There are many people with different opinion on enjoyment of this game. Some people wanna experience the dungeon playing as a CW dps and they invested so much on his character to make sure they are able to. They are usualy dedicated player that commited to the class they play. Then there are some people that just enjoy to able to participate in the dungeon and will flip to fotm class just to make sure they are able to get in. And then there are player that enjoy playing every class the game has to offer. They are usualy P2W that makes sure every of their character made it to end game or casuals who divide his play time among all character and usualy progress slowly at his own pace.
While It is true that "Every game will see some type of balancing issue that someone disagrees with on how it was done", But thats the challenge isnt it? To make sure that the performance gap is greatly reduce among dps class (that it doesnt matter who takes the dps role) and the role contribution among classes is nicely defined ( for example, scoundrel TR actualy able to effectively play as a CC class in a dungeon) and balanced so that everybody get to play the game. The developer decision on what element comes to play in combat also play a role in class balance. For example, the nerf of CC are making class that specialize in that useless. Developer should have know that better before they make the decision to nerf CC to the ground. Many of the developer decision are working against class balance and eventualy themselves. There are no clear path in what they are doing and how its gonna affect the balance.
Change is inevitable and is the only constant in life except death and taxes. Not changing and adapting to it may seem cruel but it is life. I have also had other toons that they nerfed that I enjoyed playing that I have spent a lot of time and money upgrading. I don't like it and feel sorry for those that it happens to. The fair comes in for me at least when your class can at least do the content that is out there competently. Did the game give your class the ability to do the content in a group well enough that people want to do it with your class. In regard to the CW the MoF build is probably one of the top two buffer/debuffers in the game now and it is in a lot of my end game runs. The fact that someone doesn't want to run it is the definition of stubborn. There are written materials on this exact scenario in books and you might want to read one called "Who Moved My Cheese" as it outlines a very real type of what is happening here.
Balancing is hard but one thing in this is that in theory you will eventually in balancing even everyone out to do the same things and nobody/nothing is special. Capitalism and Socialism and their philosophies apply very well into these context. Yes, to make something special you have to make it rare. Else, everyone in this game would get all of the rewards for just finishing content and everyone would do the same exact damage based on the role they queued into the content as. The pain giver charts would have the dps classes all tied for damage with support classes tied for damage and tanks tied for damage just from participating (this is an exaggeration). Balancing is hard but I want there to be special things in this game so not everyone can achieve everything is fine with me. Not all classes being the best at a specific role in the game is fine with me. Having a class that can't fill any role in the party is not fine with me. While there is still a ways to go in balancing I feel like the last mod made all classes viable in end game content in some way. Maybe not the way the person wanted to play that class but viable.
Its not about life, Its about business. When a decision that cause the company to lose more than gain, Its a bad one. Just look at what did NW loss, a group of player that quit over it & a special feature of content that attract player ( they lost Dps CW option in CW class, which mean dps CW is no longer a viable class and people that like mage dps class wont interested in playing this game). And what did the game gain? Nothing except making a few CW haters happy.
The thing that make each and every class special is that we have so many class with different powers and abilities and not because of their dps performance. And on contrary, if u gives one class dps performance that is on top of all other dps class by alot, u are killing the game. Most people that chase dps chart wants to compete on equal ground, which mean if u let one class to have too much dps advantage, the rest of the class wont see any point in the competition. They will just switch to the said dps fotm class and things will get more boring when everyone and their grandpa is play that one class.
I also see that u have different understanding in class balance than i have. In my understanding, support class are not mean to dps ( except they spec specifically to dps which is gonna put them in dps class) so u shouldnt compare dps among them. Support class should focus on support and tanking class should tank. People need to be given one role and not have both. We take CW as an example. CW class has the most definite design for role. They have dps path, CC path and buffer path (support path). The game tend to give CW that follow dps path the abilities to CC and dps equally good which render CW that follow CC path useless. And this is why people are complaining much about CW in the past, they have both dps and CC. All the developer has to do is to make CW path more define. They have to make sure that dps and buffer path does negligible CC & buffer and CC path will have negligible dps so they only excel in what they are design to do and that they dont contribute in 2 or more areas. Class balancing is about balancing a certain pro and cons of a class as to better define class role so every class retain their uniqueness. Frankly thats the reason i play D&D and making a path lose their viablility crushes that very reason.
Edit: also i want to add that, contribution should be gauge based on the role they play. A dps class contribution is dps which mean their performance is gauge based on dps. The developer just need to close in the gap to balance out dps class. Then buffer and debuffer class is based on how effective their buff and debuff. That has its own balancing to make. If Buffer A buffs gives 30% dmg boost for example, while Buffer B gives 15%, no doubt Buffer A is gonna get hand pick more than Buffer B would. To adjust that balance, instead of nerfing Buffer A buff to 15% that equals with Buufer B and make the game boring, they could penalize Buffer A buff with a shorter duration or to make the cooldown longer so it cant be spam. The same goes with CC roles and so on. They are many ways to balance a class while retaining its uniqness.
Also, my "class" balance does not mean balance between CW, HR, TR etc because the path available to them could turn them into support or dps roles. I mean it by the balance between classification of roles like dps, buffer, tank, controllers etc.
Yes we need more DPS in parties "Sarcasm" That way the 2 or 3 DPS can run off in 3 directions and expect support to be there for them. Just like in mod 3 or 4 they can start screaming and yelling at the tank or healer for why they died or argue at the other DPS for not holding there own
And that my friend is D&D fun. I will have a good laugh at that if it happen.
2
grogthemagnifMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,651Arc User
New Developer Philosophy - Change Balance to balance between Players and monsters. Tweak the Monsters to make them a challenge for the Average (at whatever level the Mod has), less of a challenge for those Above Average and somewhat easy for BIS players, who will find that the Final Boss can still one-shot them, until they learn to beat the Final Dungeon/Trial. End Skirmishes should be a bit easier.
Capitalism and Socialism and their philosophies apply very well into these context. Yes, to make something special you have to make it rare.
I do not get your comparison here.
What is more socialist (do you mean uniformity?) - forcing all CWs to play MoF to be viable end-game, or allowing CWs to play whichever role they prefer, that is, either SS or MoF, and still be viable end-game?
The Devs tried to make CW SS and MoF more equal, that last CW "balance" did that, and compounded by the Lightning enchant nerfs (which disadvantaged the 'proc' CWs, I daresay, more than any other class). However, in the process they have cut off one whole paragon (SS) from end-game viability (without them really realising it to be frank!) that is why there is this thread.
Yes, to make something special you have to make it rare. Else, everyone in this game would get all of the rewards for just finishing content and everyone would do the same exact damage based on the role they queued into the content as. The pain giver charts would have the dps classes all tied for damage with support classes tied for damage and tanks tied for damage just from participating (this is an exaggeration). Balancing is hard but I want there to be special things in this game so not everyone can achieve everything is fine with me.
In terms of longevity, you are missing the picture. If the only viable DPS chars are the top three or four at the moment - GWF, HR, GF and TR - then you will winnow the people (who want to be solely DPS) to only be these classes for future modules. Furthermore, you will get people who want to be DPS who are CW or SW leaving the game because they can't play the game as they want to. This will lead to greater uniformity of class composition in end-game dungeons. In fact, you can see it right now if you search any TONG run, the class composition only varies at most by one or two classes.
While there is still a ways to go in balancing I feel like the last mod made all classes viable in end game content in some way. Maybe not the way the person wanted to play that class but viable.
That's right, a particular paragon may be viable, but then who is dictating who plays the character they prefer? The person or the company? Which is more 'capitalist or socialist' here?
In essence, I do think the devs tried to aim for more variability and inclusion of different classes and paragons in end-game content. However, I do also perceive that they may have missed the mark, quite widely with certain classes and paragons, in particular the CW and SW. The CW used to be a very populous class in NWO history, so you must realise that this probably affects a large number of players currently (those CWs that have stayed on anyway, who are becoming fewer still with each nerf). Which is why I think the OP's question is a valid one, as it has ramifications to players that are seeing their preferred playstyle being looked over for the past couple of Mods, and potentially for future Mods if the Devs are: 1) Not aware of these issues, or 2) Aware, but are heading the game/playstyle in a different direction to what players have initially perceived.
Control Wizard Master of Flame buffer (Oppressor / Renegade)
DPS Ranking:
Great Weapon Fighter
Hunter Ranger
Guardian Fighter
Trickster Rogue
Control Wizard
Scourge Warlock
Here is my own listing on how things should be, by "should be" I am going with the argument that support is more than just providing dps boost, so I broke up support in subcatergories that should ALL be needed at high and low end content.
Support Healing Cleric Paladin Ranger Templock (because seriously, there is something really game immersion breaking if your biggest healer is the one that uses evil vampiric powers to do so).
Support Buffing Paladin Guardian Cleric (The 3 listed should be the main buffers, and the cleric should not be the number one buffer but the number one healer)
Support Threat Guardian Paladin Great Weapon
Support Crowd Control Control Wizard Hunter Rogue Cleric
On the dps side I break it up into glass cannon dps and tanking dps catergories. Being able to have built in game features such as a shield or control immunity of the gwf means you will always have the advantage over those that have no such crutches to make them less squishy. The glass cannons should always have higher dps than the tank dps, the classes with swimming armbands should never be the highest dps classes. Glass Cannon DPS Rogue (since it needs to go up close and risk getting more AOE type attacks) Warlock Ranger Control Wizard
Tanking DPS Great Weapon Guardian Paladin
By making healing, threat, crowd control meaningful support game features, the game designers can provide have more challenging content, not just making everything the same bland dps race it is now. On the dps side, there should be an inverse relationship to dps vs squishiness, not the opposite as it is now.
2
lukejones77Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 282Arc User
Thank you all for your comments. Difficulties related to class relevance generally invite defensive comments from fans of favored classes, but I've really appreciated the way in which all have expressed their views and opinions.
Unfortunately, the thread is clearly a failure. The purpose was for Cryptic to give us any kind of indication as to whether the current state of game is what they intended, and to give those of us that have been out of favor some indication as to whether we should expect more of the same moving forward.
After a week, it's pretty clear that we're not going to get any kind of response from Cryptic.
Disappointing. Even a simple "Sorry, our policy is that we can't comment on game direction", would have been better than been totally ignored - especially as everyone's tone here has been very reasonable.
I'll accept if the moderators want to declare the thread "closed", or "answered" (in as "your answer is that you're not getting one").
It would be cool if it stayed open. Folks have been pretty reasonable presenting things which are relevant and make sense. Personally, it would be great to see more hp and fewer mobs so the game would be less Zerg-y. I miss the teamwork required by games like Everquest and while I realize that that game had its own issues..it was almost 20yrs ago, so please take that with a grain of salt. ...I guess what I mean is that crowd control should be relevant. Mez, snare, rooting, kiting..and generally having to think about, and plan behavior, and group dynamics, should be relevant. Tanks, dPS, and healers should have to manage Aggro.. right now game play feels like a 5year old stomping around making believe they are Godzilla..and that gets boring pretty quickly..
...All classes are viable right now for end game content. The only one's that I see not getting into content are stubborn players who only want to play the game/class one way and not adapt. Is that how the game should be moving forward? ...
If you believe in adaptability where people should give up on playing their preferred class, then that's certainly an opinion that you're entitled to, but this thread is about asking the DEVs to explain what they intend for the game to be.
If their design is that parties should be so support heavy, then they can tell us that. If that is the case, then far too many of us are playing DPS classes. If they're happy with class balance as it is (particularly for DPS), then they can tell us that, and we can decide if we still want to play DPS classes that are very clearly not going to be in the picture when the next module comes around, and support is spamming valuable runs with the stand out DPS class.
Never said that a person should give up playing a class. If a class has the ability to be brought into end game content in a role that meets the bare minimum of what I want in the class balance. I still want my TR and whisperknife to be viable but it isn't good as the primary dps for end game content. At least with the current changes to the CW they are still viable end game.
Guild Leader: Under the Influence Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
If you wanna remove the 4x support meta, and return 3x DPS, make more DPS more valuable than more supports. So either buff literally every DPS class to a frankly ridiculous level or nerf literally every class that can export buffs to a level just as ridiculous.
Issue with this is that we will go back to where there are 5 dps classes in the event as the tanks/healers will convert to dps to finish the content faster and we won't have any type of working together to finish the content. End game content would be more like what the random dungeon with level 70 characters is like right now or content would be so hard nobody could finish it in under an hour or more. In other words the game content would be boring.
Guild Leader: Under the Influence Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
Capitalism and Socialism and their philosophies apply very well into these context. Yes, to make something special you have to make it rare.
I do not get your comparison here.
What is more socialist (do you mean uniformity?) - forcing all CWs to play MoF to be viable end-game, or allowing CWs to play whichever role they prefer, that is, either SS or MoF, and still be viable end-game?
The Devs tried to make CW SS and MoF more equal, that last CW "balance" did that, and compounded by the Lightning enchant nerfs (which disadvantaged the 'proc' CWs, I daresay, more than any other class). However, in the process they have cut off one whole paragon (SS) from end-game viability (without them really realising it to be frank!) that is why there is this thread.
Yes, to make something special you have to make it rare. Else, everyone in this game would get all of the rewards for just finishing content and everyone would do the same exact damage based on the role they queued into the content as. The pain giver charts would have the dps classes all tied for damage with support classes tied for damage and tanks tied for damage just from participating (this is an exaggeration). Balancing is hard but I want there to be special things in this game so not everyone can achieve everything is fine with me.
In terms of longevity, you are missing the picture. If the only viable DPS chars are the top three or four at the moment - GWF, HR, GF and TR - then you will winnow the people (who want to be solely DPS) to only be these classes for future modules. Furthermore, you will get people who want to be DPS who are CW or SW leaving the game because they can't play the game as they want to. This will lead to greater uniformity of class composition in end-game dungeons. In fact, you can see it right now if you search any TONG run, the class composition only varies at most by one or two classes.
While there is still a ways to go in balancing I feel like the last mod made all classes viable in end game content in some way. Maybe not the way the person wanted to play that class but viable.
That's right, a particular paragon may be viable, but then who is dictating who plays the character they prefer? The person or the company? Which is more 'capitalist or socialist' here?
In essence, I do think the devs tried to aim for more variability and inclusion of different classes and paragons in end-game content. However, I do also perceive that they may have missed the mark, quite widely with certain classes and paragons, in particular the CW and SW. The CW used to be a very populous class in NWO history, so you must realise that this probably affects a large number of players currently (those CWs that have stayed on anyway, who are becoming fewer still with each nerf). Which is why I think the OP's question is a valid one, as it has ramifications to players that are seeing their preferred playstyle being looked over for the past couple of Mods, and potentially for future Mods if the Devs are: 1) Not aware of these issues, or 2) Aware, but are heading the game/playstyle in a different direction to what players have initially perceived.
Will answer in parts: quote one response: Would require a working knowledge from you on benefits of each to understand. Some people will understand but others will have a hard time. I probably could have used a better one but it is fitting because of the complexities involved.
The nerfs you discuss on the CW are tame in comparison of what they did to the TR and SW in the past. They literally made both of those classes worst at their roles in comparison to the other classes and they didn't have any roles they could play in the end game outside of the get carried by someone else role.
quote two respones: In your response you give 4 classes as viable for end game content as main dps. That represents half of the classes in the game right now. I would call that a good number of classes that are good at dps. I see more that needs balanced in the future but I feel we are at least making some progress at least from what I am seeing. Also, the CW can still be the main dps in ToNG as long as your willing to put in a few more minutes in the run. The nerfing of a class path has happened in the past and will probably happen in the future. The TR used to be the most played class in the game and it is not right now. I see this comparison as I agree with you that it feels bad when this happens. I was a main TR for several years even when I was instantly kicked from game queues just for being a TR. The CW has not fallen that far as the TR has nothing else it brings to the party other than dps.
quote three response: I have been a part of the TR exodus as I have come and gone to this game before. That class was the most played at certain parts of this games history and was my main character class. It is a shell of it's popularity in game right now. I even see TR help groups that have been setup to help with people who struggled with changes. I get the anger someone can have on that issue but I also know that it is all part of change in games. The other concept that I think people don't get is that if they make all paths viable as options for high end content (mean they are all good) you will find that there is less theory crafting as it doesn't matter what you build then as every choice is good. The end result is that complete balance means all choices = the same dps in the content no matter the choice. Who wants to play a game where every character on the sheet outputs the same results no matter how they built their character? The game would be pretty boring which is why some imbalance is necessary.
Guild Leader: Under the Influence Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
If you wanna remove the 4x support meta, and return 3x DPS, make more DPS more valuable than more supports. So either buff literally every DPS class to a frankly ridiculous level or nerf literally every class that can export buffs to a level just as ridiculous.
Issue with this is that we will go back to where there are 5 dps classes in the event as the tanks/healers will convert to dps to finish the content faster and we won't have any type of working together to finish the content. End game content would be more like what the random dungeon with level 70 characters is like right now or content would be so hard nobody could finish it in under an hour or more. In other words the game content would be boring.
I actually got an idea that will address the DC stacking issue without nerfing their viability. People wants 2 or more DC in their party because their buff stack with each other. So instead of making their buff stack, developer should make DC buffs and debuff from different paragon cancel each other. This only applied to DC only so buffs from other class could still affect the party and not destroy viability of other class build. For example, when a DO DC is using TI and a AC DC cast AA, the AA has no effect as there is a buff from another paragon is in effect. But if the DO DC is using TI, and a GF is using ITF, they stack. Because some class has a buffing path like tactician GF or a renegade CW, we don't wanna rob away their role from the party.
DC buffs already do not stack if they are the same spell. If you are saying that no buffs from an AC should stack with any buffs from a DO, then you will be killing an entire paragon path, since one path will quickly be determined to be better and only that path will be invited to dungeons.
Capitalism and Socialism and their philosophies apply very well into these context. Yes, to make something special you have to make it rare.
I do not get your comparison here.
What is more socialist (do you mean uniformity?) - forcing all CWs to play MoF to be viable end-game, or allowing CWs to play whichever role they prefer, that is, either SS or MoF, and still be viable end-game?
The Devs tried to make CW SS and MoF more equal, that last CW "balance" did that, and compounded by the Lightning enchant nerfs (which disadvantaged the 'proc' CWs, I daresay, more than any other class). However, in the process they have cut off one whole paragon (SS) from end-game viability (without them really realising it to be frank!) that is why there is this thread.
Yes, to make something special you have to make it rare. Else, everyone in this game would get all of the rewards for just finishing content and everyone would do the same exact damage based on the role they queued into the content as. The pain giver charts would have the dps classes all tied for damage with support classes tied for damage and tanks tied for damage just from participating (this is an exaggeration). Balancing is hard but I want there to be special things in this game so not everyone can achieve everything is fine with me.
In terms of longevity, you are missing the picture. If the only viable DPS chars are the top three or four at the moment - GWF, HR, GF and TR - then you will winnow the people (who want to be solely DPS) to only be these classes for future modules. Furthermore, you will get people who want to be DPS who are CW or SW leaving the game because they can't play the game as they want to. This will lead to greater uniformity of class composition in end-game dungeons. In fact, you can see it right now if you search any TONG run, the class composition only varies at most by one or two classes.
While there is still a ways to go in balancing I feel like the last mod made all classes viable in end game content in some way. Maybe not the way the person wanted to play that class but viable.
That's right, a particular paragon may be viable, but then who is dictating who plays the character they prefer? The person or the company? Which is more 'capitalist or socialist' here?
In essence, I do think the devs tried to aim for more variability and inclusion of different classes and paragons in end-game content. However, I do also perceive that they may have missed the mark, quite widely with certain classes and paragons, in particular the CW and SW. The CW used to be a very populous class in NWO history, so you must realise that this probably affects a large number of players currently (those CWs that have stayed on anyway, who are becoming fewer still with each nerf). Which is why I think the OP's question is a valid one, as it has ramifications to players that are seeing their preferred playstyle being looked over for the past couple of Mods, and potentially for future Mods if the Devs are: 1) Not aware of these issues, or 2) Aware, but are heading the game/playstyle in a different direction to what players have initially perceived.
Will answer in parts: quote one response: Would require a working knowledge from you on benefits of each to understand. Some people will understand but others will have a hard time. I probably could have used a better one but it is fitting because of the complexities involved.
The nerfs you discuss on the CW are tame in comparison of what they did to the TR and SW in the past. They literally made both of those classes worst at their roles in comparison to the other classes and they didn't have any roles they could play in the end game outside of the get carried by someone else role.
quote two respones: In your response you give 4 classes as viable for end game content as main dps. That represents half of the classes in the game right now. I would call that a good number of classes that are good at dps. I see more that needs balanced in the future but I feel we are at least making some progress at least from what I am seeing. Also, the CW can still be the main dps in ToNG as long as your willing to put in a few more minutes in the run. The nerfing of a class path has happened in the past and will probably happen in the future. The TR used to be the most played class in the game and it is not right now. I see this comparison as I agree with you that it feels bad when this happens. I was a main TR for several years even when I was instantly kicked from game queues just for being a TR. The CW has not fallen that far as the TR has nothing else it brings to the party other than dps.
quote three response: I have been a part of the TR exodus as I have come and gone to this game before. That class was the most played at certain parts of this games history and was my main character class. It is a shell of it's popularity in game right now. I even see TR help groups that have been setup to help with people who struggled with changes. I get the anger someone can have on that issue but I also know that it is all part of change in games. The other concept that I think people don't get is that if they make all paths viable as options for high end content (mean they are all good) you will find that there is less theory crafting as it doesn't matter what you build then as every choice is good. The end result is that complete balance means all choices = the same dps in the content no matter the choice. Who wants to play a game where every character on the sheet outputs the same results no matter how they built their character? The game would be pretty boring which is why some imbalance is necessary.
@cherryman1 those are not the only changes that they have made to the CW. They are the most recent changes. The role of the control wizard is no longer control, and the changes have been gradual with many mods. Arcane singularity barely moves mobs with any control resist, Shard of Endless Avalanche is slow and doesn't do much damage, Repel is frowned upon and has very limited use in today's dungeon set up, Entanglement is useless, Steal Time only damages and procs enchantments at the end even though it is a slow and channeling power, Freeze duration lasts a fraction of a second, Chilling presence is only half effective if mobs are not frozen. All bosses are immune to control. Then we have the secondary role of the CW which is a striker, which is bypassed for the majority of other characters in end-game content. You noted (and did not disagree) that 4 classes are rated above the CW in terms of DPS, but currently when there is only space for 1 or 2 DPS in a party, then what is the chance that a SS CW will be chosen to join the dungeon? It is still likely the 5th choice for DPS in a dungeon. You say that the CW still has a viable path, yet that viable path is only one paragon, but is currently a 2nd or 3rd tier support buffer.
If you go back to quintessential D&D, what do you think of when you mention a wizard? Certainly, I did not think it would end up being a 2nd or 3rd tier support buffer in Neverwinter.
Yes, I can understand that you have also experienced the problem with TRs in the past, and that you have overcome that, but not before leaving and returning. TRs are admittedly hard to play to maximise their potential at the end-game. I have seen some amazing TRs do excellent damage in dungeons. But before they reach this point, TRs don't shine as much as other strikers. I do not think SS CWs can reach this point anymore, even with current theorycrafters, and CWs have some of the best theorycrafters around.
I understand you saying that imbalances make the game more interesting because it only allows a certain few classes and paragons within those classes viable. But I take a different view on that: by only making a few chosen classes or paragons viable, they are reducing individuality and variation. Did you do a TONG search and see which are the most used classes in TONG at the moment? Seeing the same few classes over and over again, makes THAT boring to me.
Going back to the OPs question: Is this what the Dev's consider as balanced and working as intended? If so, then players who main SS CWs as primary DPS can make an informed decision of what to do in the future.
DC buffs already do not stack if they are the same spell. If you are saying that no buffs from an AC should stack with any buffs from a DO, then you will be killing an entire paragon path, since one path will quickly be determined to be better and only that path will be invited to dungeons.
Thats why DO and AC power need to rebalance. Letting buff stack among them isn't a solution, in fact it cause another problem like Double DC meta. And that are just a lazy way out than actually looking at the real balance problem between AC & DO at the cost of other roles in the party. To really balance out between DO and AC, we need to reevaluate what their paragon powers do and what makes one more on demand than the other.
DC buffs already do not stack if they are the same spell. If you are saying that no buffs from an AC should stack with any buffs from a DO, then you will be killing an entire paragon path, since one path will quickly be determined to be better and only that path will be invited to dungeons.
Thats why DO and AC power need to rebalance. Letting buff stack among them isn't a solution, in fact it cause another problem like Double DC meta. And that are just a lazy way out than actually looking at the real balance problem between AC & DO at the cost of other roles in the party. To really balance out between DO and AC, we need to reevaluate what their paragon powers do and what makes one more on demand than the other.
If you make it so that DO and AC buffs no longer stack, then one of them will just be replaced by another buffer class. This will also be unfortunate if clerics team up in non-endgame parties. I do not think the problem is with the support classes or paragons per se, but rather the way that buffs are handled.
In end-game, the current meta is 4 support + 1 dps. I think that because buffs multiply with each other, there will always be a preference for buffing classes rather than making room for another DPS char (due to the comparative advantage of a buffer vs another DPS class) in a DPS-optimised party.
DC buffs already do not stack if they are the same spell. If you are saying that no buffs from an AC should stack with any buffs from a DO, then you will be killing an entire paragon path, since one path will quickly be determined to be better and only that path will be invited to dungeons.
Thats why DO and AC power need to rebalance. Letting buff stack among them isn't a solution, in fact it cause another problem like Double DC meta. And that are just a lazy way out than actually looking at the real balance problem between AC & DO at the cost of other roles in the party. To really balance out between DO and AC, we need to reevaluate what their paragon powers do and what makes one more on demand than the other.
If you make it so that DO and AC buffs no longer stack, then they will just be replaced by another buffer class.
The current meta is 4 support + 1 dps. I think the way that buffs are handled (they multiply with each other) means that there will always be a preference for buffing classes rather than making room for another DPS (due to the comparative advantage of a buffer vs another DPS class) in a DPS-optimised party.
Yes, I notice that too. But the reason i leave the other class alone is that
1. their buff are not as great as what DC buff does 2. I do not want to fix an issue and destroy the viability of other class in the meantime. It just defeat the whole purpose of balancing. 3. their buff do not stack. Eg. ITF do not stack with another ITF
It need further observation to decide how its gonna turn out and even if it proves to be over perform, the value of their buff can be readjust to balance the weigh between non dc buff class and dps class. Its just an idea and need to be further work on and tested until proven a solution anyway.
Increasing DPS further wouldn't change anything, except make bosses melt even faster. Buffs magnifying each other needs to be changed. I still think changing buffs to additive instead multiplying is the most reasonable thing to do, but it would change the power curve dramatically and require serious re-tuning for 11k+ dungeons and trials. You could even increase the buffing each class can do to compensate some too. I also think powersharing and statsharing should be converted to (generous) flat percentage buffs like they did with ITF. That would also tone down some of the Bonding power spikes.
The point is that adding another buffer shouldn't more than double the DPSer's damage output, because that will always result in one DPS being most optimal. If no class could buff party members for 100%+ (or even near it, really), and buffs added instead of multiplied, you could bend the support curve back in line. Nerfing all the buffs isn't the answer either, because if they still multiplied, the buffs wouldn't be noticeable unless combined with more buffs.
quote two respones: In your response you give 4 classes as viable for end game content as main dps. That represents half of the classes in the game right now. I would call that a good number of classes that are good at dps. I see more that needs balanced in the future but I feel we are at least making some progress at least from what I am seeing.
Yup. Balance is an on going process and should not have stop here. So its not about adaption, its about improvement and progression to a point where anyone could play any class without feeling not contributed or discriminated from end game content.
Also, the CW can still be the main dps in ToNG as long as your willing to put in a few more minutes in the run. The nerfing of a class path has happened in the past and will probably happen in the future. The TR used to be the most played class in the game and it is not right now. I see this comparison as I agree with you that it feels bad when this happens. I was a main TR for several years even when I was instantly kicked from game queues just for being a TR. The CW has not fallen that far as the TR has nothing else it brings to the party other than dps.
TR, SW can be main dps too. Just that its not about few more minutes longer, its more like who wanna run it with u when there are fotm dps in the market to pick. Though I have to agree that TR path has lesser viable path as a choice in current PVE model. They got executioner which obviously is the dps path, scoundrel is the CC path and then saboteur which is stealth path. Perhaps they could add trap making or disability to saboteur while adding a few viable traps in the dungeon. Or maybe an extra chest at the end if u have saboteur in ur party. Reviving CC back to this game might make scoundrel viable again.
The other concept that I think people don't get is that if they make all paths viable as options for high end content (mean they are all good) you will find that there is less theory crafting as it doesn't matter what you build then as every choice is good. The end result is that complete balance means all choices = the same dps in the content no matter the choice. Who wants to play a game where every character on the sheet outputs the same results no matter how they built their character? The game would be pretty boring which is why some imbalance is necessary.
Actually its the other way around. By making all tree & paragon viable means more option for player to theory crafting. People don't just makes one dps build, they could theory craft for support build or mix around for hybrid build & etc. If u remove one paragon or tree, making it not viable, there will be lesser option for theory crafting. Just look at HR before mod 10 where the only viable path is trapper. All HR player are just theory crafting trapper path. None ever look at archery or combat path. The result the same old trapper dps build. Its just that who has the better ones.
The other concept that I think people don't get is that if they make all paths viable as options for high end content (mean they are all good) you will find that there is less theory crafting as it doesn't matter what you build then as every choice is good. The end result is that complete balance means all choices = the same dps in the content no matter the choice. Who wants to play a game where every character on the sheet outputs the same results no matter how they built their character? The game would be pretty boring which is why some imbalance is necessary.
Actually its the other way around. By making all tree & paragon viable means more option for player to theory crafting. People don't just makes one dps build, they could theory craft for support build or mix around for hybrid build & etc. If u remove one paragon or tree, making it not viable, there will be lesser option for theory crafting. Just look at HR before mod 10 where the only viable path is trapper. All HR player are just theory crafting trapper path. None ever look at archery or combat path. The result the same old trapper dps build. Its just that who has the better ones.
If you make each path viable you either are doing it to where everything is equal choice making everything a good choice or you do it by making part of the paths good choices. If I make every choice good then it doesn't matter where I put points for feats I just have to put points in any place. This means there is no theory crafting in this type of game since all choices are equal. Each point you put in your character sheet in this scenario would essentially say add 100 damage to your attacks for all of the difference of choice you would get. If you make only some choices good with others average/bad in the game eventually one path will be better than the others. This opens the game for theory crafting but also means that people who want to pick the lesser choices or have the choices they chose initially become the lesser choice may feel slighted. Where I would like to get is to have less volatility in the choices to where one path may be lesser than another but not as big of a difference as we see right now. With all of the ways things influence each other in the game this is hard to implement. This is essentially chaos theory that we are discussing. High chaos systems you have a lot of choice and freedom to make choices but don't know where everything is located at all times. Low chaos systems you restrict freedoms and you know where everything is located at all times. The closer you get to one or the other you have more or less freedom but is always linear in either direction. The same can be stated here as the more differences in choice means more differences in how each path performs. Eventually one path will be better than another. Where I want to get to is where the differences in choices are closer than where they are at today.
Guild Leader: Under the Influence Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
Where I would like to get is to have less volatility in the choices to where one path may be lesser than another but not as big of a difference as we see right now ... Eventually one path will be better than another. Where I want to get to is where the differences in choices are closer than where they are at today.
So are you saying that the differences between certain paragon paths are ideal or could be made better? Or that we should change our paragons and accept that a paragon can still run end-game dungeons (even though they are 2nd or 3rd rate buffers)? Or that the differences and poor performance of certain paragons currently allow for more theorycrafting? What is the point of theorycrafting if that class is still unwanted in majority of end-game parties?
DC buffs already do not stack if they are the same spell. If you are saying that no buffs from an AC should stack with any buffs from a DO, then you will be killing an entire paragon path, since one path will quickly be determined to be better and only that path will be invited to dungeons.
Thats why DO and AC power need to rebalance. Letting buff stack among them isn't a solution, in fact it cause another problem like Double DC meta. And that are just a lazy way out than actually looking at the real balance problem between AC & DO at the cost of other roles in the party. To really balance out between DO and AC, we need to reevaluate what their paragon powers do and what makes one more on demand than the other.
If you make it so that DO and AC buffs no longer stack, then one of them will just be replaced by another buffer class. This will also be unfortunate if clerics team up in non-endgame parties. I do not think the problem is with the support classes or paragons per se, but rather the way that buffs are handled.
In end-game, the current meta is 4 support + 1 dps. I think that because buffs multiply with each other, there will always be a preference for buffing classes rather than making room for another DPS char (due to the comparative advantage of a buffer vs another DPS class) in a DPS-optimised party.
The preference for support party meta is relatively new. It only exists because there are many options for self-healing, or damage avoidance/soaking. DC's were always wanted in parties, but they used to be necessary to keep the party alive long enuff to kill the boss. I think the only way to break the current meta is to return the clerics ( and other healer builds) to that role.
If you make each path viable you either are doing it to where everything is equal choice making everything a good choice or you do it by making part of the paths good choices. If I make every choice good then it doesn't matter where I put points for feats I just have to put points in any place. This means there is no theory crafting in this type of game since all choices are equal. Each point you put in your character sheet in this scenario would essentially say add 100 damage to your attacks for all of the difference of choice you would get. If you make only some choices good with others average/bad in the game eventually one path will be better than the others. This opens the game for theory crafting but also means that people who want to pick the lesser choices or have the choices they chose initially become the lesser choice may feel slighted. Where I would like to get is to have less volatility in the choices to where one path may be lesser than another but not as big of a difference as we see right now. With all of the ways things influence each other in the game this is hard to implement. This is essentially chaos theory that we are discussing. High chaos systems you have a lot of choice and freedom to make choices but don't know where everything is located at all times. Low chaos systems you restrict freedoms and you know where everything is located at all times. The closer you get to one or the other you have more or less freedom but is always linear in either direction. The same can be stated here as the more differences in choice means more differences in how each path performs. Eventually one path will be better than another. Where I want to get to is where the differences in choices are closer than where they are at today.
I don't understand what u are trying to say. I mean putting point in icy vein is not the same as putting point in spell twisting? Every feat does different thing? the more viable feat u have the more option for theory crafting? The less viable feat u have the less option and the more similar build people are going to theory craft?
Edit : nvm I think u misunderstand the part class balance played and the part chaos theory play in game design. The chaos theory u mention already exist in this game. For example things like variety of classes, powers, enchantment, feat & etc that does different things and fill different roles. While balancing is use to govern those feature so that they stay well balance and viable. Balancing is important to maintain the chaos among those feature. Tipping the balance will cause less variety of feature to come into play and so things became less chaos. Taking a real life example, like our wild life out there. Its full of different species with different role to play (chaos theory) in the food chain. Tipping any number of one type of species and the food chain is gonna crumble. That is where balancing comes in to regulate the number so eco system stays healthy.
Oh speaking of chaos theory I find that this game are getting less and less chaotic. Take DDO (another D&D MMO) for example, they has so many things comes into place when u are in a dungeon. Thing like dps, buff, debuff, CC, traps, instant kill effect, blind, heals, poison or disease, level drain etc and all of them are in balance state and viable. NWO are so much lesser. We only have dps, buff, debuff and well..DPS. Even compare to the past NWO, we still have CC & heals but the developer killed it. We even have trap in earlier version of dungeon which require TR to disarm, but it was never continued. I think NWO should be focus more in future game content on variety of those element instead of making time trial instance that only promote dps, buff & debuff. Or at least revive some of our past feature like CC and heals. Its all those little things that makes D&D interesting.
DC buffs already do not stack if they are the same spell. If you are saying that no buffs from an AC should stack with any buffs from a DO, then you will be killing an entire paragon path, since one path will quickly be determined to be better and only that path will be invited to dungeons.
Thats why DO and AC power need to rebalance. Letting buff stack among them isn't a solution, in fact it cause another problem like Double DC meta. And that are just a lazy way out than actually looking at the real balance problem between AC & DO at the cost of other roles in the party. To really balance out between DO and AC, we need to reevaluate what their paragon powers do and what makes one more on demand than the other.
If you make it so that DO and AC buffs no longer stack, then one of them will just be replaced by another buffer class. This will also be unfortunate if clerics team up in non-endgame parties. I do not think the problem is with the support classes or paragons per se, but rather the way that buffs are handled.
In end-game, the current meta is 4 support + 1 dps. I think that because buffs multiply with each other, there will always be a preference for buffing classes rather than making room for another DPS char (due to the comparative advantage of a buffer vs another DPS class) in a DPS-optimised party.
The preference for support party meta is relatively new. It only exists because there are many options for self-healing, or damage avoidance/soaking. DC's were always wanted in parties, but they used to be necessary to keep the party alive long enuff to kill the boss. I think the only way to break the current meta is to return the clerics ( and other healer builds) to that role.
I have played Righteous DC pretty much from mod 4 on ran with a 2 DC setup in groups and 1 main DPS. Only since mod 12 has so many other found out the advantages all because if the changes made to terrifying insight. I can also say because of running a righteous DC i was excluded from many runs out side of certain group of friends. I never complained or did i make changes to fit the mods meta at them times and still don't. I do find it funny how after so many mods all the DCs are jumping into the righteous tree when many used to talk down or would refuse to run with me. But all this crying about DCs or Buffs is getting so old either learn to DPS or learn to buff so you have a roll. But of course most want to have there cake and eat it to. And to be honest i do believe 90% of the complaints that come from DPS and there class have just not figured out how to do good DPS on there character and needs to blame the changes.
oh i m sure u will do fine with whatever changes thrown at DC. I mean with ur ability to figure out how to be a good DC, I m sure u wont blame anyone for suggesting those changes would u?
DC buffs already do not stack if they are the same spell. If you are saying that no buffs from an AC should stack with any buffs from a DO, then you will be killing an entire paragon path, since one path will quickly be determined to be better and only that path will be invited to dungeons.
Thats why DO and AC power need to rebalance. Letting buff stack among them isn't a solution, in fact it cause another problem like Double DC meta. And that are just a lazy way out than actually looking at the real balance problem between AC & DO at the cost of other roles in the party. To really balance out between DO and AC, we need to reevaluate what their paragon powers do and what makes one more on demand than the other.
If you make it so that DO and AC buffs no longer stack, then one of them will just be replaced by another buffer class. This will also be unfortunate if clerics team up in non-endgame parties. I do not think the problem is with the support classes or paragons per se, but rather the way that buffs are handled.
In end-game, the current meta is 4 support + 1 dps. I think that because buffs multiply with each other, there will always be a preference for buffing classes rather than making room for another DPS char (due to the comparative advantage of a buffer vs another DPS class) in a DPS-optimised party.
The preference for support party meta is relatively new. It only exists because there are many options for self-healing, or damage avoidance/soaking. DC's were always wanted in parties, but they used to be necessary to keep the party alive long enuff to kill the boss. I think the only way to break the current meta is to return the clerics ( and other healer builds) to that role.
Well that's a start. There are 6 different option of path and paragon a DC that can be played but people only seem to utilize few of the path due to how the game design revolve too much around buff, debuff & dps. I mean we got 2 DC tree that is based on heal which make 4 different types of cleric are buried into ground just because heal aren't viable.
You people will not be happy unbtil either the devs listen to you few and end up breaking the CW to the point no other class is viable tp run in game like it was in early mods. I think even the OP is sick of seeing the few here go back and forth complaining and has even asked to have the thread locked.
Nah you're wrong here. I don't think anyone who reported on the forums said we want any class to be overpowered like the CW was in mods 1-4. That is exaggerating it. If you read the OP's post carefully, it's more like that there is little place for said class in these instances instead. Reporting what they have experienced in the game is true, I've experienced it myself. I also see what you're saying: particular mods brings a bit of discrimination to certain classes which changes over time - but are you saying we shouldn't report what we are experiencing? Just be quiet and play the game that is no longer enjoyable due to these factors listed?
A statistical analysis by PWE of party compositions for the first few months of module 12 (when drops are at their most valuable) would show the most incredible class discrimination that you could ever have imagined. As a CW, I noticed that fellow CW friends reacted in different ways: - Left the game - Abandoned their preferred class to go play a DC, GWF or OP. - Temporarily abandoned their class to get the cross-class gear they needed. - Switched from "hero" to "beggar", getting carried by friends, once the "meta" figured it out enough to carry them. For me, that's a "no thanks". - Stayed with their class, playing the same old boring T2 content, accumulating the newest gear in very slow fashion - generally frustrated. -
The problem is that clerics have never been just about healing. I've played this game since open beta and, while healing used to be more welcome before all this self-healing, it was partially due to Guardian Fighters' broken aggro (Paladins didn't exist). If tanks are able to keep aggro and players crowd-control most enemies, no healing is needed except for bosses... and in that case might as well use a Stone of Health and bring another dps to burn the boss faster.
I know there are people who would like to shoehorn cleric into a pure healer role, but healing has never been the sole function (geddit?) of the class and doing so would just make sure DCs are never again welcome in high-end groups. If that day ever comes when clerics wrongfully lose their buffing/debuffing capabilities and are forced to play healbots, many main DC players will quit. Of course there are some who love to play a healer, but it should be one of the options and not the only one.
Honestly the DC is so far away from being a "threatened species" in endcontent. I run it myself, the class got the best buffing-, debuffing (mof excludet)- and mitiagtion-tools. It´s a "Jack of all trades", only weakness might be the inability of dealing relevant focus dps on bosses as a dps-spec. A good party needs buffs, debuffs and mitigation also. Maybe there is a way to downgrade without destroying a class, i would welcome a solution. Atm it´s like this in codg: "Hmm, dealing no dps and spamming scrolls of masslife in a row? ....Ah all DC/OP died, let´s wipe and restart"
A lot of player pretend as if mitigation is from no interest. Mitigation is one ot the strongest abilities a DC can share, the class is build arround it, and beside some premade BIS-parties this ablility is very welcome, allways. AA, HG, DG, BtS, AS, broken classfeatures, devine armor, exaltation, BoB, and a lot of feats not mentioned here. This class is not about healing beside the buffs/debuffs it shares, it´s about mitigation. All the debuffs and buffs (except TI) work outside your group (AA, HG, DG, BtS/FF, AS etc.), wich is not granted same way for other classes and their buffs.
Comments
The thing that make each and every class special is that we have so many class with different powers and abilities and not because of their dps performance. And on contrary, if u gives one class dps performance that is on top of all other dps class by alot, u are killing the game. Most people that chase dps chart wants to compete on equal ground, which mean if u let one class to have too much dps advantage, the rest of the class wont see any point in the competition. They will just switch to the said dps fotm class and things will get more boring when everyone and their grandpa is play that one class.
I also see that u have different understanding in class balance than i have. In my understanding, support class are not mean to dps ( except they spec specifically to dps which is gonna put them in dps class) so u shouldnt compare dps among them. Support class should focus on support and tanking class should tank. People need to be given one role and not have both. We take CW as an example. CW class has the most definite design for role. They have dps path, CC path and buffer path (support path). The game tend to give CW that follow dps path the abilities to CC and dps equally good which render CW that follow CC path useless. And this is why people are complaining much about CW in the past, they have both dps and CC. All the developer has to do is to make CW path more define. They have to make sure that dps and buffer path does negligible CC & buffer and CC path will have negligible dps so they only excel in what they are design to do and that they dont contribute in 2 or more areas. Class balancing is about balancing a certain pro and cons of a class as to better define class role so every class retain their uniqueness. Frankly thats the reason i play D&D and making a path lose their viablility crushes that very reason.
Edit: also i want to add that, contribution should be gauge based on the role they play. A dps class contribution is dps which mean their performance is gauge based on dps. The developer just need to close in the gap to balance out dps class. Then buffer and debuffer class is based on how effective their buff and debuff. That has its own balancing to make. If Buffer A buffs gives 30% dmg boost for example, while Buffer B gives 15%, no doubt Buffer A is gonna get hand pick more than Buffer B would. To adjust that balance, instead of nerfing Buffer A buff to 15% that equals with Buufer B and make the game boring, they could penalize Buffer A buff with a shorter duration or to make the cooldown longer so it cant be spam. The same goes with CC roles and so on. They are many ways to balance a class while retaining its uniqness.
Also, my "class" balance does not mean balance between CW, HR, TR etc because the path available to them could turn them into support or dps roles. I mean it by the balance between classification of roles like dps, buffer, tank, controllers etc.
Make the monsters better, don't nerf the players.
What is more socialist (do you mean uniformity?) - forcing all CWs to play MoF to be viable end-game, or allowing CWs to play whichever role they prefer, that is, either SS or MoF, and still be viable end-game?
The Devs tried to make CW SS and MoF more equal, that last CW "balance" did that, and compounded by the Lightning enchant nerfs (which disadvantaged the 'proc' CWs, I daresay, more than any other class). However, in the process they have cut off one whole paragon (SS) from end-game viability (without them really realising it to be frank!) that is why there is this thread. In terms of longevity, you are missing the picture. If the only viable DPS chars are the top three or four at the moment - GWF, HR, GF and TR - then you will winnow the people (who want to be solely DPS) to only be these classes for future modules. Furthermore, you will get people who want to be DPS who are CW or SW leaving the game because they can't play the game as they want to. This will lead to greater uniformity of class composition in end-game dungeons. In fact, you can see it right now if you search any TONG run, the class composition only varies at most by one or two classes. That's right, a particular paragon may be viable, but then who is dictating who plays the character they prefer? The person or the company? Which is more 'capitalist or socialist' here?
In essence, I do think the devs tried to aim for more variability and inclusion of different classes and paragons in end-game content. However, I do also perceive that they may have missed the mark, quite widely with certain classes and paragons, in particular the CW and SW. The CW used to be a very populous class in NWO history, so you must realise that this probably affects a large number of players currently (those CWs that have stayed on anyway, who are becoming fewer still with each nerf). Which is why I think the OP's question is a valid one, as it has ramifications to players that are seeing their preferred playstyle being looked over for the past couple of Mods, and potentially for future Mods if the Devs are: 1) Not aware of these issues, or 2) Aware, but are heading the game/playstyle in a different direction to what players have initially perceived.
Support Healing
Cleric
Paladin
Ranger
Templock (because seriously, there is something really game immersion breaking if your biggest healer is the one that uses evil vampiric powers to do so).
Support Buffing
Paladin
Guardian
Cleric
(The 3 listed should be the main buffers, and the cleric should not be the number one buffer but the number one healer)
Support Threat
Guardian
Paladin
Great Weapon
Support Crowd Control
Control Wizard
Hunter
Rogue
Cleric
On the dps side I break it up into glass cannon dps and tanking dps catergories. Being able to have built in game features such as a shield or control immunity of the gwf means you will always have the advantage over those that have no such crutches to make them less squishy. The glass cannons should always have higher dps than the tank dps, the classes with swimming armbands should never be the highest dps classes.
Glass Cannon DPS
Rogue (since it needs to go up close and risk getting more AOE type attacks)
Warlock
Ranger
Control Wizard
Tanking DPS
Great Weapon
Guardian
Paladin
By making healing, threat, crowd control meaningful support game features, the game designers can provide have more challenging content, not just making everything the same bland dps race it is now. On the dps side, there should be an inverse relationship to dps vs squishiness, not the opposite as it is now.
Difficulties related to class relevance generally invite defensive comments from fans of favored classes, but I've really appreciated the way in which all have expressed their views and opinions.
Unfortunately, the thread is clearly a failure. The purpose was for Cryptic to give us any kind of indication as to whether the current state of game is what they intended, and to give those of us that have been out of favor some indication as to whether we should expect more of the same moving forward.
After a week, it's pretty clear that we're not going to get any kind of response from Cryptic.
Disappointing. Even a simple "Sorry, our policy is that we can't comment on game direction", would have been better than been totally ignored - especially as everyone's tone here has been very reasonable.
I'll accept if the moderators want to declare the thread "closed", or "answered" (in as "your answer is that you're not getting one").
...I guess what I mean is that crowd control should be relevant. Mez, snare, rooting, kiting..and generally having to think about, and plan behavior, and group dynamics, should be relevant. Tanks, dPS, and healers should have to manage Aggro.. right now game play feels like a 5year old stomping around making believe they are Godzilla..and that gets boring pretty quickly..
Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
quote one response: Would require a working knowledge from you on benefits of each to understand. Some people will understand but others will have a hard time. I probably could have used a better one but it is fitting because of the complexities involved.
The nerfs you discuss on the CW are tame in comparison of what they did to the TR and SW in the past. They literally made both of those classes worst at their roles in comparison to the other classes and they didn't have any roles they could play in the end game outside of the get carried by someone else role.
quote two respones: In your response you give 4 classes as viable for end game content as main dps. That represents half of the classes in the game right now. I would call that a good number of classes that are good at dps. I see more that needs balanced in the future but I feel we are at least making some progress at least from what I am seeing. Also, the CW can still be the main dps in ToNG as long as your willing to put in a few more minutes in the run. The nerfing of a class path has happened in the past and will probably happen in the future. The TR used to be the most played class in the game and it is not right now. I see this comparison as I agree with you that it feels bad when this happens. I was a main TR for several years even when I was instantly kicked from game queues just for being a TR. The CW has not fallen that far as the TR has nothing else it brings to the party other than dps.
quote three response: I have been a part of the TR exodus as I have come and gone to this game before. That class was the most played at certain parts of this games history and was my main character class. It is a shell of it's popularity in game right now. I even see TR help groups that have been setup to help with people who struggled with changes. I get the anger someone can have on that issue but I also know that it is all part of change in games. The other concept that I think people don't get is that if they make all paths viable as options for high end content (mean they are all good) you will find that there is less theory crafting as it doesn't matter what you build then as every choice is good. The end result is that complete balance means all choices = the same dps in the content no matter the choice. Who wants to play a game where every character on the sheet outputs the same results no matter how they built their character? The game would be pretty boring which is why some imbalance is necessary.
Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
If you go back to quintessential D&D, what do you think of when you mention a wizard? Certainly, I did not think it would end up being a 2nd or 3rd tier support buffer in Neverwinter.
Yes, I can understand that you have also experienced the problem with TRs in the past, and that you have overcome that, but not before leaving and returning. TRs are admittedly hard to play to maximise their potential at the end-game. I have seen some amazing TRs do excellent damage in dungeons. But before they reach this point, TRs don't shine as much as other strikers. I do not think SS CWs can reach this point anymore, even with current theorycrafters, and CWs have some of the best theorycrafters around.
I understand you saying that imbalances make the game more interesting because it only allows a certain few classes and paragons within those classes viable. But I take a different view on that: by only making a few chosen classes or paragons viable, they are reducing individuality and variation. Did you do a TONG search and see which are the most used classes in TONG at the moment? Seeing the same few classes over and over again, makes THAT boring to me.
Going back to the OPs question: Is this what the Dev's consider as balanced and working as intended? If so, then players who main SS CWs as primary DPS can make an informed decision of what to do in the future.
In end-game, the current meta is 4 support + 1 dps. I think that because buffs multiply with each other, there will always be a preference for buffing classes rather than making room for another DPS char (due to the comparative advantage of a buffer vs another DPS class) in a DPS-optimised party.
1. their buff are not as great as what DC buff does
2. I do not want to fix an issue and destroy the viability of other class in the meantime. It just defeat the whole purpose of balancing.
3. their buff do not stack. Eg. ITF do not stack with another ITF
It need further observation to decide how its gonna turn out and even if it proves to be over perform, the value of their buff can be readjust to balance the weigh between non dc buff class and dps class. Its just an idea and need to be further work on and tested until proven a solution anyway.
The point is that adding another buffer shouldn't more than double the DPSer's damage output, because that will always result in one DPS being most optimal. If no class could buff party members for 100%+ (or even near it, really), and buffs added instead of multiplied, you could bend the support curve back in line. Nerfing all the buffs isn't the answer either, because if they still multiplied, the buffs wouldn't be noticeable unless combined with more buffs.
Actually its the other way around. By making all tree & paragon viable means more option for player to theory crafting. People don't just makes one dps build, they could theory craft for support build or mix around for hybrid build & etc. If u remove one paragon or tree, making it not viable, there will be lesser option for theory crafting. Just look at HR before mod 10 where the only viable path is trapper. All HR player are just theory crafting trapper path. None ever look at archery or combat path. The result the same old trapper dps build. Its just that who has the better ones.
Yule (Barb): 72k : Siren (TR): 78k : Torun (DC): 73k : Siren OP (OP): 76k : Siren SW (SW): 78k : Modern (F): 80k : Cherry1 (CW) : 68k Siren HR (HR): 78k
Edit : nvm I think u misunderstand the part class balance played and the part chaos theory play in game design. The chaos theory u mention already exist in this game. For example things like variety of classes, powers, enchantment, feat & etc that does different things and fill different roles. While balancing is use to govern those feature so that they stay well balance and viable. Balancing is important to maintain the chaos among those feature. Tipping the balance will cause less variety of feature to come into play and so things became less chaos. Taking a real life example, like our wild life out there. Its full of different species with different role to play (chaos theory) in the food chain. Tipping any number of one type of species and the food chain is gonna crumble. That is where balancing comes in to regulate the number so eco system stays healthy.
I know there are people who would like to shoehorn cleric into a pure healer role, but healing has never been the sole function (geddit?) of the class and doing so would just make sure DCs are never again welcome in high-end groups. If that day ever comes when clerics wrongfully lose their buffing/debuffing capabilities and are forced to play healbots, many main DC players will quit. Of course there are some who love to play a healer, but it should be one of the options and not the only one.
I run it myself, the class got the best buffing-, debuffing (mof excludet)- and mitiagtion-tools.
It´s a "Jack of all trades", only weakness might be the inability of dealing relevant focus dps on bosses as a dps-spec.
A good party needs buffs, debuffs and mitigation also. Maybe there is a way to downgrade without destroying a class, i would welcome a solution.
Atm it´s like this in codg: "Hmm, dealing no dps and spamming scrolls of masslife in a row? ....Ah all DC/OP died, let´s wipe and restart"
A lot of player pretend as if mitigation is from no interest.
Mitigation is one ot the strongest abilities a DC can share, the class is build arround it, and beside some premade BIS-parties this ablility is very welcome, allways.
AA, HG, DG, BtS, AS, broken classfeatures, devine armor, exaltation, BoB, and a lot of feats not mentioned here.
This class is not about healing beside the buffs/debuffs it shares, it´s about mitigation.
All the debuffs and buffs (except TI) work outside your group (AA, HG, DG, BtS/FF, AS etc.), wich is not granted same way for other classes and their buffs.