test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

OFFICIAL M17: Tower of the Mad Mage Feedback

189101214

Comments

  • xavior44xavior44 Posts: 111Member Arc User
    @asterdahl Thank you. The fact you guys are TELLING US you are aware, have implemented some sort of plan to collect data, and eventually plan to make changes is all we can ask for... Please keep the community in the loop as much as possible. One post makes the world of a difference. I will keep doing my thing on Malebot that will hopefully help in the data collection for Warlocks. Keep up the good work you and lassor save more players then you might know.....

    Regards Malebot
  • cellablockcellablock Posts: 243Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    asterdahl said:

    I do understand those who feel that class balance is directly related to the trial. However, for the purpose of gathering feedback on both topics, having to sift through the same thread for both does make it more time consuming. With that in mind, I would normally consider this level of digression to warrant some moderation. However, seeing as we are closing in on launch and most of the feedback on the trial itself has been collected, and most of the groups finishing/progging the trial now are no longer really sending feedback, I'm amenable to let the balance discussion continue in this thread.

    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.

    That being said, I will be the first to acknowledge that we are absolutely not in a position where the current meta reflects that stance. This is true for a few reasons, but the primary reason is that those classes with two roles were overhauled to a more extreme degree than those with only DPS roles. Although a lot of work was done to remove and reign in problematic powers and mechanics that contributed to the massive runaway damage issues present before Module 16, those classes that were altered less retained more of the launch era design philosophies: featuring powers which alter cooldowns or action point gain in significant ways.

    These powers are more difficult to map into the expected DPS for a class, and contribute to the current imbalance. That being said, we would absolutely prefer not to remove or alter these powers in a significant way. So those who fear that the current top tier classes will be nerfed, we'd like to avoid that. We'd also like to leave those mechanics alone, except in cases where there may be a bug or exploit. We have adjusted our expected DPS values, but those are hypothetical and we want to ensure that we are taking into account real world DPS numbers.

    We do believe that classes are closer together than they were before Module 16, and that more classes are viable than ever for most content. However, by introducing content as difficult as ToMM, we realize that the meta will be even more important than ever, as taking a DPS that is 10% weaker may not just result in a run taking a few more minutes, but may prevent the group from finishing.

    In an effort to ensure we don't buff those classes who are currently weaker in the meta to the point that they exceed the current top tier DPS by a notable margin (which would simply create a new problem) we have begun introducing significantly more data gathering hooks for DPS numbers in queued content. We introduced some during Module 16, and will be introducing more along with Module 17.

    While we certainly appreciate everyone's continued suggestions for how to balance each class, and those logs and examples of various classes' performance; it would ultimately be a mistake to balance around any of those suggestions specifically, without having reliable and substantial data.

    We'd like to make changes ASAP once we have some reasonable confidence in the data. I know that an answer without a date isn't the answer anyone wants to hear, lest of all those who would like to play DPS who are currently viewed as weaker in the meta. But we are planning to make changes. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity, please keep playing the class you like in as much content as possible, as that will help us to make changes with higher confidence.

    I do apologize that I don't have a date to give you right this moment on when to expect changes. I also would like to apologize personally for the difference in DPS between those classes considered viable for ToMM and those considered nonviable. We are working to be able to make the necessary corrections as soon as possible.

    @asterdahl only thing right now i would like to see if you looking at the bugs pointed on the barbie for i cant speak every class but we accepted the feats but a main mechanic that core of playstyle of the class not working as it should, we hope this is being worked in the coming weeks .
  • thefabricantthefabricant Posts: 5,045Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    edited August 2019

    They can make so that the 2 dps path can deal different damage, like dots, burst, melee, range, faster cooldowns, from passives, from dailies etc. Each dps path can be unique, so it does create a different playstyle, aswell as it matters what content they are placed in. Some might perform better in some dungeons, the other might be doing better in the trial. In the end both deal dps. But anyway i think we are just overthinking this and i m telling you that no one is missing a thing.. i mean we played mod 1 till mod 15 with classes that had only one viable build, some had 2, some had 3.. i think we should just keep it simple and all DPS should perform the same, because all TANKs and HEAlERS should perform the same

    Playstyles are not a meaningful difference which strongly impacts gameplay. When looking for a DPS, you are not looking for a "DoT DPS" or a "melee dps" you are looking for the class with the highest dps. Changing from a DPS to a healer or tank does make a meaningful difference, it increases the number of party slots you are competing for.
  • tom#6998 tom Posts: 859Member Arc User

    asterdahl said:



    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.



    I still believe this is a fundamental design flaw, because they are not 2 different classes and by treating 1 class as 2 different classes it creates a situation where the classes which are not treated as 2 different classes have less meaningful choices and are objectively worse.

    Let us assume that a class has 2 dps paths and that both do the same dps, the only difference is the gameplay style. There is no meaningful difference between choosing to play 1 or the other path, so the choice isn't real. You are still competing for the same 3 (or 6) spots in the party and thus there is no advantage to being able to switch. On the other hand, let us assume you are a tank+dps. Both roles are fundamentally different, they do different things and they compete for different party slots. If both of your roles are equally viable to the "pure" versions of those roles (a hypothetical tank+tank) as well as the dps+dps, you now contest for 4 (or 8) party slots.

    This is not balance and it is not equal. The second choice is meaningful, the first choice is not. Classes with more meaningful choices between roles, should have a consequence or malus as a result of this.
    i get your point sharp, i however think that the grief that is caused by having some paths intentionally lack behind would be greater then the grief it may cause for the "pure" dps classes, to have others perform equally. It might be slightly unfair for the pure dps classes, but i think unless they implement your "token" idea, (which i doubt they will) making them equally is imo, the better of 2 unfair solutions.
  • thefabricantthefabricant Posts: 5,045Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    tom#6998 said:

    asterdahl said:



    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.



    I still believe this is a fundamental design flaw, because they are not 2 different classes and by treating 1 class as 2 different classes it creates a situation where the classes which are not treated as 2 different classes have less meaningful choices and are objectively worse.

    Let us assume that a class has 2 dps paths and that both do the same dps, the only difference is the gameplay style. There is no meaningful difference between choosing to play 1 or the other path, so the choice isn't real. You are still competing for the same 3 (or 6) spots in the party and thus there is no advantage to being able to switch. On the other hand, let us assume you are a tank+dps. Both roles are fundamentally different, they do different things and they compete for different party slots. If both of your roles are equally viable to the "pure" versions of those roles (a hypothetical tank+tank) as well as the dps+dps, you now contest for 4 (or 8) party slots.

    This is not balance and it is not equal. The second choice is meaningful, the first choice is not. Classes with more meaningful choices between roles, should have a consequence or malus as a result of this.
    i get your point sharp, i however think that the grief that is caused by having some paths intentionally lack behind would be greater then the grief it may cause for the "pure" dps classes, to have others perform equally. It might be slightly unfair for the pure dps classes, but i think unless they implement your "token" idea, (which i doubt they will) making them equally is imo, the better of 2 unfair solutions.
    Adding a token which does this is actually easier (imo) then reworking all the classes, since it is a flat modification. I don't believe anyone should be arguing for the lesser of 2 evils, when a perfectly valid solution exists which addresses the issues on both sides.
  • xavior44xavior44 Posts: 111Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    (I still believe this is a fundamental design flaw, because they are not 2 different classes and by treating 1 class as 2 different classes it creates a situation where the classes which are not treated as 2 different classes have less meaningful choices and are objectively worse.

    Let us assume that a class has 2 dps paths and that both do the same dps, the only difference is the gameplay style. There is no meaningful difference between choosing to play 1 or the other path, so the choice isn't real. You are still competing for the same 3 (or 6) spots in the party and thus there is no advantage to being able to switch. On the other hand, let us assume you are a tank+dps. Both roles are fundamentally different, they do different things and they compete for different party slots. If both of your roles are equally viable to the "pure" versions of those roles (a hypothetical tank+tank) as well as the dps+dps, you now contest for 4 (or 8) party slots.

    This is not balance and it is not equal. The second choice is meaningful, the first choice is not. Classes with more meaningful choices between roles, should have a consequence or malus as a result of this.)


    @thefabricant I disagree as well. I have played warlock since the release, I never wanted to be a healer, EVER. To force my dps lower because they were too lazy, or did not have the resources to make a full new healing class, is just not right. I think they see it this way as well, hence asterdahl's stance on the topic
  • cherryman1cherryman1 Posts: 306Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    micky1p00 said:


    The suggestion is to have limited quantity for free. It is simpler and cheaper than class change tokens you suggested.

    In essence designating a role as main role on said class. You can change the cost to a long cool-down to achieve the same idea.

    There is no perfect solution that is also easy to implement. As I've said before, the simple equalization as aimed by the devs and you ask for, will put all the single role classes at a disadvantage.

    I agree there is no perfect solution to the issue.

    Limited quantity for free though sounds as if you still have to pay for something eventually that just makes it so you can play your class the way it was intended to be played.

    The problem is the same for any of the dps classes when they under perform in content where they don't get added to end game. The idea I am suggesting is to get all of them as close as possible (this means under performing isn't listed as an issue). When all are very close then all dps are interchangeable. I do understand that those who see themselves as being interchangeable with a multi class toon wouldn't like it. The problem is that this issue doesn't stop players from adding those same dps classes into content. They might lose 1 spot to a multi class toon but wouldn't lose all 3 spots (depending on content). It would also be very little content where you would see this and never in the public queues since your locked into the role. The problem with a class that is multi class and can't dps or get into content with the other role is they are left out of being played in end game content. One less dps class in end game content because someone changed to healer making 2 dps/2 healers/ 1 tank in some content is a preferable issue to 6-7 classes that get end game and 1-2 classes that don't.

    I much prefer to hear that they filled the roles for content in a private group than a "your class xyz and can't do this content, go away". Which is what some in the thread are pushing towards.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence (GH20)
    Yule (Barb): 24k : Siren (TR): 24k : Torun (DC): 26k : Siren OP (OP): 26k : Siren SW (SW): 22k : Modern (F): 24k : Cherry1 (CW) : 24k
  • rafamarques#5700 rafamarques Posts: 155Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    asterdahl said:

    I do understand those who feel that class balance is directly related to the trial. However, for the purpose of gathering feedback on both topics, having to sift through the same thread for both does make it more time consuming. With that in mind,

    I would normally consider this level of digression to warrant some moderation. However, seeing as we are closing in on launch and most of the feedback on the trial itself has been collected, and most of the groups finishing/progging the trial now are no longer really sending feedback, I'm amenable to let the balance discussion continue in this thread.

    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.

    That being said, I will be the first to acknowledge that we are absolutely not in a position where the current meta reflects that stance. This is true for a few reasons, but the primary reason is that those classes with two roles were overhauled to a more extreme degree than those with only DPS roles. Although a lot of work was done to remove and reign in problematic powers and mechanics that contributed to the massive runaway damage issues present before Module 16, those classes that were altered less retained more of the launch era design philosophies: featuring powers which alter cooldowns or action point gain in significant ways.

    These powers are more difficult to map into the expected DPS for a class, and contribute to the current imbalance. That being said, we would absolutely prefer not to remove or alter these powers in a significant way. So those who fear that the current top tier classes will be nerfed, we'd like to avoid that. We'd also like to leave those mechanics alone, except in cases where there may be a bug or exploit. We have adjusted our expected DPS values, but those are hypothetical and we want to ensure that we are taking into account real world DPS numbers.

    We do believe that classes are closer together than they were before Module 16, and that more classes are viable than ever for most content. However, by introducing content as difficult as ToMM, we realize that the meta will be even more important than ever, as taking a DPS that is 10% weaker may not just result in a run taking a few more minutes, but may prevent the group from finishing.

    In an effort to ensure we don't buff those classes who are currently weaker in the meta to the point that they exceed the current top tier DPS by a notable margin (which would simply create a new problem) we have begun introducing significantly more data gathering hooks for DPS numbers in queued content. We introduced some during Module 16, and will be introducing more along with Module 17.

    While we certainly appreciate everyone's continued suggestions for how to balance each class, and those logs and examples of various classes' performance; it would ultimately be a mistake to balance around any of those suggestions specifically, without having reliable and substantial data.

    We'd like to make changes ASAP once we have some reasonable confidence in the data. I know that an answer without a date isn't the answer anyone wants to hear, lest of all those who would like to play DPS who are currently viewed as weaker in the meta. But we are planning to make changes. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity, please keep playing the class you like in as much content as possible, as that will help us to make changes with higher confidence.

    I do apologize that I don't have a date to give you right this moment on when to expect changes. I also would like to apologize personally for the difference in DPS between those classes considered viable for ToMM and those considered nonviable. We are working to be able to make the necessary corrections as soon as possible.


    Here is the problem about your possible data... i dont wanna be "that guy", but lets compare wizards to barbarians. despite the fact of the time that both classes take to kill some horde or a single boss, you have to take account how long i can survive against that horde/single boss until kill or be killed.

    cws are a range class with dodge, 4 encounters - most melee powers works like a "turret", so, the class dont need stay fixed in the same point for long time - and a lot of control.

    gwf are a melee class exposed to 100% of the attacks because, despites to be a melee w/o dodge, have your tab mechanic based in improve atwills (ie standing at one point). when come a full offensive slot for us, the thing will be worse. NOW COME THE PROBLEM; how you can equaly for a melee fighter type the same defensive resourse of a class that simply dont take the most of the attacks? you cant. OR you will over improve the damage to balance that or... equaly the damage and make barbarians sustainable as a tank w/o be a tank.

    So... here my idea: why not leave the damage as with as and just give to that offensive patch the same "onus and bonus" of a tank patch, that means, creating a offensive tank? iam prety sure that logic will work for every other "dual class".

    that will be more easy for the main playerbase, for your team and for the most of haters.

  • theraxin#5169 theraxin Posts: 297Member Arc User
    edited August 2019



    The problem is the same for any of the dps classes when they under perform in content where they don't get added to end game. The idea I am suggesting is to get all of them as close as possible (this means under performing isn't listed as an issue). When all are very close then all dps are interchangeable. I do understand that those who see themselves as being interchangeable with a multi class toon wouldn't like it. The problem is that this issue doesn't stop players from adding those same dps classes into content. They might lose 1 spot to a multi class toon but wouldn't lose all 3 spots (depending on content). It would also be very little content where you would see this and never in the public queues since your locked into the role. The problem with a class that is multi class and can't dps or get into content with the other role is they are left out of being played in end game content. One less dps class in end game content because someone changed to healer making 2 dps/2 healers/ 1 tank in some content is a preferable issue to 6-7 classes that get end game and 1-2 classes that don't.

    I much prefer to hear that they filled the roles for content in a private group than a "your class xyz and can't do this content, go away". Which is what some in the thread are pushing towards.

    First, a multi-role class being bad in both roles is an obscure problem and completely ignoring the larger issue. If something falls even with a safety net (which basically multi-role) that means the class is actually broken and needs fixing, not balancing.

    Second, if all DPS is equal (as aimed) and meta is a thing (so, basically when a tomm difficulty dungeon hits), only DPS classes will be trashed and off-meta. If there's no metagaming, then the problem is still there, just less visible.

    Because if power is equal, flexibility is a huge edge. And the setup of Warlock-Barbarian-Fighter-Cleric-Paladin has such an inherent advantage in switching roles and even style of how you DPS, that it's just how you run.

    Now, it implies perfect balance and the playerbase of these classes to be substantial enough (so, never will happen), but this shouldn't even be aimed for.

    You never should have classes that do everything an other class can do and more. Why have 8 class if 5 fills the whole spectrum, even if you look it as burst/DoT melee/ranged.

    Having 3 role to push 16 paragon into is just a horrible idea and already caused problem even when DPS DC was not an official role to take.

    My suggestion is to curb multiclassing by segmenting the roles more. Basically, make debuffing into the DPS role, by requiring your own DPS to be sacrificed for the team.

    Maybe restrict to 1 class per party for random expert queue or top content, so dps difference issues will be forcibly throttled (however, this is as unappealing as it sounds and only a half solution). Maybe expand the 5 person to 6.

    Try to bring back control or damage reduction as it's separate thing. This is kind of clunky, but the base idea is to have more ”unofficial roles” to be distributed among the classes.

    Or just, don't make multi-role classes that significant and that many. That's a pretty unpopular idea, but as I said, 3 role to 16 paragon is not viable, there will be leftovers. And if DPS is just a standard for 7 of the 8 class, the ones without a backup plan are handicapped.
  • vorphiedvorphied Posts: 1,780Member Arc User
    I would be more supportive of the notion that so-called hybrid classes should trade some effectiveness for their versatility if the majority of the classes in the game didn't already have access to two different roles and/or if it were possible to leverage the strengths of both paragon paths at once in true hybrid fashion.

    The least of the evils is to design as asterdahl described, with an individual paragon path being treated as a class unto itself for balancing purposes, because deliberately granting DPS superiority to classes without tanking or healing options would be a great way to limit dedicated DPS gameplay to Wizard, Rogue, and Ranger. Most players are far from thrilled with the notion of investing time and resources into a DPS paragon path that is doomed to be sub-par by design.
    Sacrilege - Warlock
    Contagion - Cleric
    Testament - Wizard
    Pestilence - Ranger
    Dominion - Paladin

    NIGHTSWATCH
    The Forgotten Company Alliance
  • cherryman1cherryman1 Posts: 306Member Arc User
    edited August 2019

    First, a multi-role class being bad in both roles is an obscure problem and completely ignoring the larger issue. If something falls even with a safety net (which basically multi-role) that means the class is actually broken and needs fixing, not balancing.

    Second, if all DPS is equal (as aimed) and meta is a thing (so, basically when a tomm difficulty dungeon hits), only DPS classes will be trashed and off-meta. If there's no metagaming, then the problem is still there, just less visible.

    Because if power is equal, flexibility is a huge edge. And the setup of Warlock-Barbarian-Fighter-Cleric-Paladin has such an inherent advantage in switching roles and even style of how you DPS, that it's just how you run.

    Now, it implies perfect balance and the playerbase of these classes to be substantial enough (so, never will happen), but this shouldn't even be aimed for.

    You never should have classes that do everything an other class can do and more. Why have 8 class if 5 fills the whole spectrum, even if you look it as burst/DoT melee/ranged.

    Having 3 role to push 16 paragon into is just a horrible idea and already caused problem even when DPS DC was not an official role to take.

    My suggestion is to curb multiclassing by segmenting the roles more. Basically, make debuffing into the DPS role, by requiring your own DPS to be sacrificed for the team.

    Maybe restrict to 1 class per party for random expert queue or top content, so dps difference issues will be forcibly throttled (however, this is as unappealing as it sounds and only a half solution). Maybe expand the 5 person to 6.

    Try to bring back control or damage reduction as it's separate thing. This is kind of clunky, but the base idea is to have more ”unofficial roles” to be distributed among the classes.

    Or just, don't make multi-role classes that significant and that many. That's a pretty unpopular idea, but as I said, 3 role to 16 paragon is not viable, there will be leftovers. And if DPS is just a standard for 7 of the 8 class, the ones without a backup plan are handicapped.

    So what I read your first statement is that it is wrong to have anyone other than the 3 pure dps roles filling the dps slots but it is perfectly fine to have multi classes not be able to get into content because that will never happen?

    Second statement is wrong in that if your first part of it is true the second part is false and vise versa. Those two events are bound which is why I find this interesting. IE: If dps are all equal then as long as the content needs dps you will get into the content. There isn't any difference in me taking any of the dps classes as all will allow me to finish the content. If the classes are unbalanced or not equals then that is where the not taking a dps class can happen but that isn't because of the other things the multi classes can do it is because they aren't as good of a dps class. The meta is the meta because something is the best to do. If all classes are equal then the meta is all dps are viable in that role. The worst case scenario is that a multi class will change into a healer in content or the tank will be left out. Paladin will always be viable with the shields as is. SW or Cleric are the two classes that might get left out on the heals side. Either the fighter or barb will be left out on the tank side since the paladin is already in as a healer having them in as tank as well is just unfair.

    The next mod at least doesn't allow for classes to change in it in end game. This means that if a multi class joins they are only able to do that role for that hard content. The thing about these is the healer and tank roles have the same issue as the dps roles. If a tank isn't as good at helping a group finish content as another then the lesser tank class won't get into the content. Same with healer. This is where a multi class if left out of content. Pure dps classes won't be seen in end game in most runs only if they are the lesser of the other classes in their role.

    The hybrid roles are what? Off tank which doesn't get into end game in any other MMO unless the content requires multi tanks and just getting another tank is a better option. Buffers used to be the thing but they just removed them from the game because things died too fast. I don't see those being added any time soon. Off healers well that is what the OP tank can do so we have that already. Maybe we just need to remove the SW healer side and Barb tank sides and have more dps classes and balance them as full dps.

    In part of this are you suggesting to remove classes and paragons? That would be very unpopular if that was done. I do agree that 3 roles and 16 paragons is a lot of filling into spaces.

    Why is balance not to be aimed for? There are studies done in the gaming industry where in LoL they published where if players noticed that there was a difference in their abilities they were less likely to continue playing the character or the game. Why we continue to have players in game stand up for imbalance in game when the result is pushing players away from the game makes no sense. More players in game means a better overall environment.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence (GH20)
    Yule (Barb): 24k : Siren (TR): 24k : Torun (DC): 26k : Siren OP (OP): 26k : Siren SW (SW): 22k : Modern (F): 24k : Cherry1 (CW) : 24k
  • cherryman1cherryman1 Posts: 306Member Arc User

    asterdahl said:

    I do understand those who feel that class balance is directly related to the trial. However, for the purpose of gathering feedback on both topics, having to sift through the same thread for both does make it more time consuming. With that in mind,

    I would normally consider this level of digression to warrant some moderation. However, seeing as we are closing in on launch and most of the feedback on the trial itself has been collected, and most of the groups finishing/progging the trial now are no longer really sending feedback, I'm amenable to let the balance discussion continue in this thread.

    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.

    That being said, I will be the first to acknowledge that we are absolutely not in a position where the current meta reflects that stance. This is true for a few reasons, but the primary reason is that those classes with two roles were overhauled to a more extreme degree than those with only DPS roles. Although a lot of work was done to remove and reign in problematic powers and mechanics that contributed to the massive runaway damage issues present before Module 16, those classes that were altered less retained more of the launch era design philosophies: featuring powers which alter cooldowns or action point gain in significant ways.

    These powers are more difficult to map into the expected DPS for a class, and contribute to the current imbalance. That being said, we would absolutely prefer not to remove or alter these powers in a significant way. So those who fear that the current top tier classes will be nerfed, we'd like to avoid that. We'd also like to leave those mechanics alone, except in cases where there may be a bug or exploit. We have adjusted our expected DPS values, but those are hypothetical and we want to ensure that we are taking into account real world DPS numbers.

    We do believe that classes are closer together than they were before Module 16, and that more classes are viable than ever for most content. However, by introducing content as difficult as ToMM, we realize that the meta will be even more important than ever, as taking a DPS that is 10% weaker may not just result in a run taking a few more minutes, but may prevent the group from finishing.

    In an effort to ensure we don't buff those classes who are currently weaker in the meta to the point that they exceed the current top tier DPS by a notable margin (which would simply create a new problem) we have begun introducing significantly more data gathering hooks for DPS numbers in queued content. We introduced some during Module 16, and will be introducing more along with Module 17.

    While we certainly appreciate everyone's continued suggestions for how to balance each class, and those logs and examples of various classes' performance; it would ultimately be a mistake to balance around any of those suggestions specifically, without having reliable and substantial data.

    We'd like to make changes ASAP once we have some reasonable confidence in the data. I know that an answer without a date isn't the answer anyone wants to hear, lest of all those who would like to play DPS who are currently viewed as weaker in the meta. But we are planning to make changes. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity, please keep playing the class you like in as much content as possible, as that will help us to make changes with higher confidence.

    I do apologize that I don't have a date to give you right this moment on when to expect changes. I also would like to apologize personally for the difference in DPS between those classes considered viable for ToMM and those considered nonviable. We are working to be able to make the necessary corrections as soon as possible.




    Here is the problem about your possible data... i dont wanna be "that guy", but lets compare wizards to barbarians. despite the fact of the time that both classes take to kill some horde or a single boss, you have to take account how long i can survive against that horde/single boss until kill or be killed.

    cws are a range class with dodge, 4 encounters - most melee powers works like a "turret", so, the class dont need stay fixed in the same point for long time - and a lot of control.

    gwf are a melee class exposed to 100% of the attacks because, despites to be a melee w/o dodge, have your tab mechanic based in improve atwills (ie standing at one point). when come a full offensive slot for us, the thing will be worse. NOW COME THE PROBLEM; how you can equaly for a melee fighter type the same defensive resourse of a class that simply dont take the most of the attacks? you cant. OR you will over improve the damage to balance that or... equaly the damage and make barbarians sustainable as a tank w/o be a tank.

    So... here my idea: why not leave the damage as with as and just give to that offensive patch the same "onus and bonus" of a tank patch, that means, creating a offensive tank? iam prety sure that logic will work for every other "dual class".

    that will be more easy for the main playerbase, for your team and for the most of haters.

    I don't want off tanks in this game. They don't work out well and aren't wanted in content.
    Guild Leader: Under the Influence (GH20)
    Yule (Barb): 24k : Siren (TR): 24k : Torun (DC): 26k : Siren OP (OP): 26k : Siren SW (SW): 22k : Modern (F): 24k : Cherry1 (CW) : 24k
  • raziel2004#7353 raziel2004 Posts: 58Member Arc User
    I don't want to see 6 CWs monopolize TOMM drops. Just saying. Even HR treated as support dps.. just Wow..
  • rafamarques#5700 rafamarques Posts: 155Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    the extinct Destroyer are off tank …

    But I don’t ask for a off tank, Iam asking for a main tank and "off dps". If they underperform in damage, they are already a "off dps".

    So, iam asking, on the top to what we have now, instead to hiper improve damage or improve damage and resistance (both can be a snow ball), give the same onus and bonus that sentinels have (maybe instead of block using shift+battle rage, block during sprint and battle rage).

    that means, sentinels and bladmasters are tanks now.

    By your offensive nature, manage threat don’t will be a problem, but w/o all that defensive encounters/dailys of sentinels (despites to a superior rage gain). doing that, bladmasters just need some encounter to refil or improve stamina regeneration (battle fury?) and "done" (i have no idea how good or bad that can be w/o other changes, but iam pretty sure about the philosofical concept).
  • tom#6998 tom Posts: 859Member Arc User
    since u cant swap your roll "on the fly" beeing a hybrid class offers 0 advantage when u are alrdy in the new Trial. The only advantage u get is that u can apply for more spots when someone is making a group. I doubt this advantage would impact non-hybrid classes in any way. Certainly not to the extend that the imbalance is impacting Hybrid classes now.
  • giz#2086 giz Posts: 165Member Arc User

    asterdahl said:



    I'll reiterate our stance on two-role classes vs. single-role classes, that I've posted before: we do not intend for those classes with two DPS paragon paths to outperform those classes with a single DPS paragon path. We essentially treat each paragon path as its own class.



    I still believe this is a fundamental design flaw, because they are not 2 different classes and by treating 1 class as 2 different classes it creates a situation where the classes which are not treated as 2 different classes have less meaningful choices and are objectively worse.

    Let us assume that a class has 2 dps paths and that both do the same dps, the only difference is the gameplay style. There is no meaningful difference between choosing to play 1 or the other path, so the choice isn't real. You are still competing for the same 3 (or 6) spots in the party and thus there is no advantage to being able to switch. On the other hand, let us assume you are a tank+dps. Both roles are fundamentally different, they do different things and they compete for different party slots. If both of your roles are equally viable to the "pure" versions of those roles (a hypothetical tank+tank) as well as the dps+dps, you now contest for 4 (or 8) party slots.

    This is not balance and it is not equal. The second choice is meaningful, the first choice is not. Classes with more meaningful choices between roles, should have a consequence or malus as a result of this.
    I play a class with two roles, but i only play DPS ( i have three loadouts and those are only for DPS) and lots of Barbarian, Warlock, etc players wants to play only DPS, not tank or healer. Why should i pay a tax for having two roles? not everyone enjoy healer role on a Warlock (remember that Warlock and Barbarian were DPS classes pre mod 16) But you say that we should be less DPS than DPS/DPS classes just for having another role that again NOT everyone wants to play. The mess is to have "pure" DPS classes, because now we have a dilemma about what is a DPS class in this game. I see some "pure" DPS classes with more support utilities than "hybrid" classes in their DPS path e.g: Wizard and Rangers (Hunter) have lots of party buffs and some debuffs compared with Hellbringer. @asterdahl Mod 16 class balance is a total fail, because lot of us built a DPS class to play DPS (Warlock) i don't enjoy to play healer i refuse to play it, why should i need to pay a penalty fo having two roles? We have now people claiming for being PURE and the other classes should be worst for being two roles, that's toxic for the game.
  • ramesh84ramesh84 Posts: 117Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    Hello @asterdahl
    Fist of all thank you for answering, would've been easier to hide behind silence here :)
    As you already stated, I'm anything but satisfied with the purpose to fix balance "soon", what I am also interested about is how will you gather data about DPS classes performances. Quite a bunch of reasons the information you will get will be meaningless, here's my concern:
    - Datas should regard TotMM and endgame level only, other contents are kinda trivial and there are plenty of ways in short fights to make the gap wider. Assuming that, you will never get significant result for some classes, dreadnought on top, as I'm pretty sure that the few good ones will work as a significant sample will play support. Most of skilled players are smart enough to avoid being a burden and the reason for party failure. The few ones still going as dps will be trolling Q or just getting in for training sessions.
    - I imagine datas will regard gear score and damage output, skipping any insight on how long was run, player skills, how many deaths (res sickness is quite a huge debuff) and ofc if the player has the right piece of gear rather than getting the one with more ilvl to reach requirement
    asterdahl said:

    We do believe that classes are closer together than they were before Module 16, and that more classes are viable than ever for most content. However, by introducing content as difficult as ToMM, we realize that the meta will be even more important than ever, as taking a DPS that is 10% weaker may not just result in a run taking a few more minutes, but may prevent the group from finishing.

    Some classes have a huge gap towards the top tier ones, I'm quite sure that there's a 1:2 ratio from top to bottom (aka wizards vs fighter)!
    asterdahl said:


    We have adjusted our expected DPS values, but those are hypothetical and we want to ensure that we are taking into account real world DPS numbers.

    As you stated there are already changes you're thinking about but need confirmation for them, would you consider to implement a half of them, in order to provide an incentive to "neglected" classes to at least test them or try to run trial? Again, the gap on long single target fights is not even close to 10%, tho powercreep was helping hide the real values on M15 and previous, agree on that.
    If it could help my rank is:
    Wiz 100
    Rogue 100
    Ranger 90
    Warlock 75
    Barbarian 70
    Cleric 60
    Fighter 50

    About versatility: though token idea could sound interesting, it could be felt like a slap in the face to players that already made they main character BiS on both spec, at heavy financial costs. The 10% less performing idea, assuming it's 10%, no more, could work considering that every class has a "primary" role (warlock: dps, cleric: healer, fighter: tank, barbarian: dps).
    I am still on the opinion the best option is providing an additional role to dps/dps classes, any other options is potentially hurting existing balance, and still believe that it could even take less effort than expected. I like to pug in channels sometimes and still having issues to get some specific roles and wasting time in lfm while the same role could be potentially covered making those classes dual roles too. Renegade was already able to heal (a bit) back in the past, not that 5E addicted but pretty sure could have access to some necromany spells too (could even copy some from warlock), mana as "limited resource", making shield shared could be the cherry on top. Rogue and rangers could perfectly fit the tank role. A "buffer" role could even take less effort and preparing the come of a new class.
    Post edited by ramesh84 on
  • mongol69mongol69 Posts: 271Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    I can tell you that many warlocks who have invested dps for a while having split role assigned didnt ask for it and would have been happy with dps as both. If warlock dps is completely unviable for endgame content as some here believe should be maintained and possibly compete for 1 spot...that sounds fantastic. Why even have 5 classes compete for 2 support spots while 3 classes have 3 dps spots in typical dungeon runs? And that skirmishes should be 5 classes competing for 4 support spots and 3 classes for 6
    dps spots?

    May as well just remove the warlock class all together and refund players thier money spent. Most that havent already, would just outright leave the game if they are assigned inferior dual role classes that will never be able to compete. Incentive to even rebuild a new class from scratch is meaningless if it could just be reassigned a new dual role and deemed unworthy of running endgame content in the future.

    Does that mean the same people that believe everything is fine in the current meta would be happy with the multiplicative buff bugged classes changed to additive and no rebalance? Then none of the dps would be viable.... the skirmish would be retooled for the next capable dps and barbarians/fighters the only viable?

    With that in effect warlocks at endgame would be further reduced and wouldn't even be fit to run t9g as a dps, let alone even viable healing etos...

    Let's be realistic, balance is necessary for all roles on all classes.
    Post edited by mongol69 on
  • thefiresidecatthefiresidecat Posts: 3,962Member Arc User
    mongol69 said:

    I can tell you that many warlocks who have invested dps for a while having split role assigned didnt ask for it and would have been happy with dps as both. If warlock dps is completely unviable for endgame content as some here believe should be maintained and possibly compete for 1 spot...that sounds fantastic. Why even have 5 classes compete for 2 support spots while 3 classes have 3 dps spots in typical dungeon runs? And that skirmishes should be 5 classes competing for 4 support spots and 3 classes for 6

    dps spots?



    May as well just remove the warlock class all together and refund players thier money spent. Most that havent already, would just outright leave the game if they are assigned inferior dual role classes that will never be able to compete. Incentive to even rebuild a new class from scratch is meaningless if it could just be reassigned a new dual role and deemed unworthy of running endgame content in the future.



    Does that mean the same people that believe everything is fine in the current meta would be happy with the multiplicative buff bugged classes changed to additive and no rebalance? Then none of the dps would be viable.... the skirmish would be retooled for the next capable dps and barbarians/fighters the only viable?



    With that in effect warlocks at endgame would be further reduced and wouldn't even be fit to run t9g as a dps, let alone even viable healing etos...



    Let's be realistic, balance is necessary for all roles on all classes.

    lol you make it sound like it's super easy to fill tank and heals in dungeons. they are STILL the gridlock for getting runs put together. dps is easy. support is not.
    xbox guild

    Main toons
    Tiberius Rex SW Combat hr 17.4k
    Rincewind CW 18k


    PC imaginary friends special events only

  • schietindebuxschietindebux Posts: 4,292Member Arc User
    I am pretty curious how many healer are in game at 60% outgoing healing? Oathkeeper can only reach 50%... but will be able to compensate.
    Yesterday someone spammed in chat repeatedly: "lfg 2m lomm, heal 40% outgoing, blabla"
    He called for 15/20min and stopped in the end not sure if he found that 40% healer :)
  • darkheart#6758 darkheart Posts: 274Member Arc User
    Ok for those that are stating a sole dps toon should inherently do more damage than a multi-role toon, I have some extreme suggestions to see how you feel ( and show.that the attitude you are showing is toxic to the game).

    Extreme suggestion 1: for the 3 roles that are only DPS, remove one dps paragon and add a support paragon of some sort.
    Since the class woould now be multi-class than the DPS damage should be Nerfed to rest of the multi-class toons.

    I don't think those 3 dps classes would be happy with that change, but that is exactly what you are telling multiclass toons to deal with.

    2. On certain day of the week, give a multi-class toon a 25% dps increase. So on Sunday a Arbiter DC does 25% more damage, monday a barbie does more.
    This way those toons can get into TOMM and not be a disadvantage to the group and capable of beating the trial.

    Again not something that is viable because other classes wouls complain

    3. Offer a class change token in the Zen store so people can just switch classes to whatever is the top flavor of the mod in damage.

    I run a muti-class toon but only use 1 loadout as a DPS. My dps toon is not a good as the top 3 dps classes and with this new mod, I will not be put in a group because of that. It has nothing to do with personal skill but the fact that the toon is underperforming against the top 3 dps.
    That is what is wrong and needs to.be fixed.

    If you disagree with that last 2 sentences than you are the toxicity of the game.

    Just as in MSVA before changed to AA people only wanted a AC DC and they nerfed AA to make it fair. Right now with the way TOMM is, only certain dps clasees will get chosen. Not because of.personal skill but because of class inbalance.

    Wanting it to remain that way is toxic and will cause people to leave. Not really the players fault, but more the devs as they created comtent that requires top dps checks but not all dps have chance to perform the same.
  • werdandi#8366 werdandi Posts: 279Member Arc User
    asterdahl said:


    So those who fear that the current top tier classes will be nerfed, we'd like to avoid that. We'd also like to leave those mechanics alone, except in cases where there may be a bug or exploit. We have adjusted our expected DPS values, but those are hypothetical and we want to ensure that we are taking into account real world DPS numbers.
    We do believe that classes are closer together than they were before Module 16, and that more classes are viable than ever for most content.

    I think you didn't check enough you hypothetical values multiplied by the different possible self-buffs, in different duration scenarios, and in aoe/boss among classes. Transposed to real-world, it was able to carry a group last mod and now I am the one being carried. How can you explain that ? I know we have to re-learn everything but it is a disheartening feeling to be a burden.
    That's why I attempted in June to figure the basic maths behind the different dps classes' output: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ox7LyefdrhbCHpSIPODpR3x4Zp42EVJ_KK9I7HVyIuM/edit?usp=sharing
    Even if this table was not complete (I specify what procs were not included) and had some mistakes (e.g at that time, I thought that damage buffs were multiplicative whatever the class), I was somehow relieved to know that my main class (warlock) was nerfed by design... My meh damage was not entirely my fault :)
    In fact, balancing could by fairly easy if you just map potential dps outputs and compare. If you are unsure, go progressively.
    asterdahl said:


    In an effort to ensure we don't buff those classes who are currently weaker in the meta to the point that they exceed the current top tier DPS by a notable margin (which would simply create a new problem) we have begun introducing significantly more data gathering hooks for DPS numbers in queued content. We introduced some during Module 16, and will be introducing more along with Module 17.

    The close monitoring of balance was already clearly promised for this mod. Pushing back is not a good move.
    asterdahl said:


    We'd like to make changes ASAP once we have some reasonable confidence in the data. I know that an answer without a date isn't the answer anyone wants to hear, lest of all those who would like to play DPS who are currently viewed as weaker in the meta. But we are planning to make changes. In the meantime, if you have the opportunity, please keep playing the class you like

    I am afraid I don't play my dps class anymore, I have swapped to another classes and I think I am not the only one ... I don't know what kind of data you are collecting but many "weaker" classes players have left or changed classes, thus I don't know if you will find ALL the relevant information in Gamelogs (that contain multiple so many variables ).
    You should focus on theoritical outputs first, and adapt depending on how difficult it is to apply them in real dungeons (e.g boss phases, melee classes arriving too late, self-buffs coming too late etc...).
  • schietindebuxschietindebux Posts: 4,292Member Arc User
    Class change Token +++
    At least the neverending depression some classes have to suffer from finds an end
  • nigantarnigantar Posts: 19Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    due to the fact that u have 1 spot for op-heal and 1 spot for dc/sw and 6 spots for dps it should be harder to find good dps as to find good healers ;) and why the f*** is that thread on its way to become a sw-whining-thread?^^
  • werdandi#8366 werdandi Posts: 279Member Arc User
    edited August 2019
    nigantar said:

    due to the fact that u have 1 spot for op-heal and 1 spot for dc/sw and 6 spots for dps it should be harder to find good dps as to find good healers ;) and why the f*** is that thread on its way to become a sw-whining-thread?^^

    Because it seems we belong to the "multiplicative buffs" overpowered classes^^, and we want to clarify the situation :D
    But you are correct, finding good players of the good classes for Tomm is going to be tough.

  • theraxin#5169 theraxin Posts: 297Member Arc User
    edited August 2019


    So what I read your first statement is that it is wrong to have anyone other than the 3 pure dps roles filling the dps slots but it is perfectly fine to have multi classes not be able to get into content because that will never happen?

    Uhm, this is absolutely not what I said. If a multi-role class is bad at both, that means that the class is literally useless and broken and needs fixing. I don't even see how you read it as "perfectly fine". Have you actually read the thing?


    Second statement is wrong in that if your first part of it is true the second part is false and vise versa. Those two events are bound which is why I find this interesting. IE: If dps are all equal then as long as the content needs dps you will get into the content. There isn't any difference in me taking any of the dps classes as all will allow me to finish the content. If the classes are unbalanced or not equals then that is where the not taking a dps class can happen but that isn't because of the other things the multi classes can do it is because they aren't as good of a dps class. The meta is the meta because something is the best to do. If all classes are equal then the meta is all dps are viable in that role. The worst case scenario is that a multi class will change into a healer in content or the tank will be left out. Paladin will always be viable with the shields as is. SW or Cleric are the two classes that might get left out on the heals side. Either the fighter or barb will be left out on the tank side since the paladin is already in as a healer having them in as tank as well is just unfair.

    So, the paradoxon only exists, because you misread the first and probably did not understand the rest, but you have the whole problem backwards:

    -Classes with extra DPS role can literally take the DPS spots away from those who only cannot join the queue in any other way, so there WILL be people left out. You make such a problem about "Cleric are might be left out on healer role" while ignoring that a class can be left out at all, from the only role they have. CW's does not have a backup plan to rely on when the DPS sport are full. TR doesn't really have other utilities, like AoE CC to at least show off something.

    -Meta is the whole game, not just dps. But if the DPS doesn't matter, there are whole classes that just have nothing to show. There will be classes that can do more, because that is the point of multi-role classes.



    The next mod at least doesn't allow for classes to change in it in end game. This means that if a multi class joins they are only able to do that role for that hard content. The thing about these is the healer and tank roles have the same issue as the dps roles. If a tank isn't as good at helping a group finish content as another then the lesser tank class won't get into the content. Same with healer. This is where a multi class if left out of content. Pure dps classes won't be seen in end game in most runs only if they are the lesser of the other classes in their role.

    Same ignorance again, you make it like DPS has it easier because they get absolutely thrown away if they are not the best at the only thing they can, while multi-role classes are in inherent danger of falling out because somehow getting both of it's path wrong is not considered a design failure? You have a safety net, you are in advantage. If you are on a loss with an advantage, your problem is not balance, it's an inherent issue within the class. But you are STILL in advantage.


    The hybrid roles are what? Off tank which doesn't get into end game in any other MMO unless the content requires multi tanks and just getting another tank is a better option. Buffers used to be the thing but they just removed them from the game because things died too fast. I don't see those being added any time soon. Off healers well that is what the OP tank can do so we have that already. Maybe we just need to remove the SW healer side and Barb tank sides and have more dps classes and balance them as full dps.

    Segmenting the roles does not meant to have an off-tank tank or off-heal heal. It's meant that instead of 3 roles, we should have more, to be distributed more easily upon the 16 paragon.


    In part of this are you suggesting to remove classes and paragons? That would be very unpopular if that was done. I do agree that 3 roles and 16 paragons is a lot of filling into spaces.

    So, on the first part, no, you read it wrong again. I don't want to literally remove paragons, but to make less class multi-role. Like, maybe 1 out of 20 of the Warlocks I spoke to actually like being a healer and everyone else hate being forced into it, because "that's their good role". And Clerics don't like to be competed by healer warlocks as well, because they wanted the safe support spot and not competing with thousands of DPS on gear accumulation. It's just a mess.


    Why is balance not to be aimed for? There are studies done in the gaming industry where in LoL they published where if players noticed that there was a difference in their abilities they were less likely to continue playing the character or the game. Why we continue to have players in game stand up for imbalance in game when the result is pushing players away from the game makes no sense. More players in game means a better overall environment.

    Balance should be aimed for. No one said it good for SW to have a bad DPS paragon. And I haven't wrote almost anything you think I wrote. We shouldn't have something bad just to have something.

    But, when the DPS roles of multiclasses gets fixed, we have a new problem, the problem you are just ignoring. And I guess will keep ignoring, because you don't want to acknowledge that being to do one thing only is worse than being to do two. But it is, it's just worse to be a single DPS role class than to have 2 option.
Sign In or Register to comment.