test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Ratings, Difficulty, and Challenge

1246

Comments

  • haneva#3971 haneva Member Posts: 8 Arc User
    @noworries#8859 I would like to echo what fsf4live has suggested above. Increasing the Vengeance buff of Dreadnought from 20% to 30% is a relatively simple change and would not disrupt class balance by causing Dreadnought to suddenly outperform the top DPS classes. You can also make it clear that this is meant to be a short-term fix and the buff may be brought back down to 20% come Mod 19 when the class balance changes are implemented for Dreadnought. For your consideration please. Thank you.
  • arkai#8115 arkai Member Posts: 188 Arc User
    I not understand your % ive hellbringer fully geared with think we call bis.. im not doing just 1,6% dps less then assassins with same bis equip lol but maybe i not understand what dev mean with this 1.6% some1can explaine pls tyvm
  • jules#6770 jules Member Posts: 688 Arc User
    edited December 2019

    I not understand your % ive hellbringer fully geared with think we call bis.. im not doing just 1,6% dps less then assassins with same bis equip lol but maybe i not understand what dev mean with this 1.6% some1can explaine pls tyvm

    Just means on average in tomm compared to TR. It's far more compared to CW, and its completely skewed by who runs tomm on average, as people mentioned above.
    @adinosii said it already, you try to get your Hellbringer into a tomm party and manage to pass dmg tests previously to it (which already dimnishes chances compared to how many similar gearded CW or TR are either taken immediately or pass immediately)
    So say you are in a guild or alliance that actually hosts Tomm runs, and they know you kick HAMSTER already, because you are a high-end-bis Hellbringer and ppl are fully supportive of you, they might just take you for it - there is plenty other CWHRTR that do not need anybody being supportive of them from the get-go.

    I actually do believe that the numbers are correct in the way noworries states, but that doesn't say anything about the state of dps in my opinion. It would shed more light on it with more numbers: Percentages of each dps paragon, total numbers of classes in dps spot, how many hellbringers vs how many assassins.
    But its a mute point, they finally got their own skewed dps meter in the forms of Tomm, how fortunate.
    Also fortunate that so many people compositioned of all classes obviously run Tomm that it is a clear show on dps balancing. But hey, no way to tell without any actual numbers!
    I know that there seems to be the believe that if you take a "perfect" CW player and a "perfect" SW player and compare them on "a clean sheet" like Tomm (the idea ... lmao) is somehow ideal for NW and that THEN you would only have a difference of what, +/- 7% dmg on paingiver, but this is just an explanation of how the devs view the game: Tank Heal Dps. No matter the class. A hellbringer is not supposed to work like a warden is not supposed to work like an arcanist but lets just throw all of it into the pot (ST boss kicking for a few minutes) because we really try hard to stamp out any originality to classes and the way they influence the battlefield. Lets just pull them all into one dps class and call it dps! Easier to manage too.

    It doesn't matter to me, because honestly, I run a HR. For years everybody told HR not to be whiny asses or just roll a GWF, and now, obviously we should just shut the HAMSTER up either way because we are finally so easy to play that I could roll my head over my keyboard instead.

    If you think we will all have an equal discussion on dps balance you didn't read noworries posts at all.
    - bye bye -
  • gabrieldourdengabrieldourden Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,212 Arc User



    It doesn't matter to me, because honestly, I run a HR. For years everybody told HR not to be whiny asses or just roll a GWF, and now, obviously we should just shut the HAMSTER up either way because we are finally so easy to play that I could roll my head over my keyboard instead.

    Fully agree with you. Warden is so straightforward to play that I often see myself close to another HR and our animations are in sync. I do a lot of solo just just to get out of the boredom of playing a Warden as dps. And now one year to an Hunter rework....
    Le-Shan: HR level 80 (main)
    Born of Black Wind: SW Level 80
  • keraunos#8365 keraunos Member Posts: 7 Arc User
    gweddry said:

    Agree with some of the recent posts about balance changes and timeframes. I understand you don't have enough manpower to patch these things in a reasonable time. However tiny, safe fixes like temporarily increasing magnitude of powers by 5% or changing a buff value by a small amount is something that requires close to no effort. You can keep repeating those until class power is where you want it to be. Changing a few values manually or running a script to do that across one class is trivial and I doubt the testing process for it is any more difficult.

    I agree with this "temporary" solution until it works better for the next patch or mod.
    Has anyone said no commercial interest in this? disagree .. many dps players of the "disadvantaged" classes are fed up with this situation that has remained unchanged for months and are waiting for the new mod to see if they will finally be rewarded for their patience. if this is not the case who knows who will remain for mod 19? maybe I will be able to finish toom with a group of barb, Hellbringer, fighter without wizards for mod 20-21 ... I wonder if I'll still be here .....
  • gonzakotwigonzakotwi Member Posts: 267 Arc User
    > @agilesto said:
    > All that just show that TOMM parties will remain the same for another 3-4 months at least if not more, so I guess thanks for us Blademasters/Arbiters/DreadNaughts/Hellbringers for forgetting us for an entiere year. We've been bringing the fact that we're underperforming since the class rework, and we will continue to do so it seems.
    >
    > "While I realize that hasn't happened on a time frame that either you or us would have liked it to (...)"
    > Yes kinda. This is not just disappointing, but straight forward an insult to see half the dps classes to be underperforming for more than 6 months, and probably more...

    Yup, we were waiting for almost a year for a fix to the bad changes and now we get to wait for another 2 modules to see if they kind of fix oír class (not sure either since we are "2% below in dps") plus all these months of the devs ignoring our feedback. I'm sorry but muy patience Is coming to an end you better do things right this time
  • mcfobmcfob Member Posts: 76 Arc User
    Indeed, asking Dreadnaught to wait another 6 months for a fix is simply too long, it already has been too long. Quick, easy boosts to current damage buffs need to be done NOW. Everyone and their brother knows Dreadnaught dps is terrible, and have known that since mod 16 was released. The issue here is long, drawn out waits before something is done. You don't have to do a full revamp of encounters/feats/at wills/etc right now, that can be down the road, but a quick increase in current buffs is the way to go, even if temporary until the full monty.
  • reeper#9973 reeper Member Posts: 123 Arc User
    Its sad to see the numbers showing Barbarians doing better than Rangers. While everybody knows there aren't many good Barbarians not even talking about how many are running TOMM as DPS. If you say Rogues are in a good place, that means you won't be giving Barbarians a buff to single target?
  • ltsmithnekoltsmithneko Member Posts: 1,578 Arc User
    Be weary on scaling players to content, that'll tend to kill players interest in running older content~ Intern killing interest in the game~ It's happened to other games that had it from the start and they waited to long to lessen it~ Don't do the same unless you want the same result. :3
  • sobi#1980 sobi Member Posts: 401 Arc User




    • Arcanist is over-performing by a decent amount
    • Warden is over-performing by a small amount
    • Assassin is currently at target
    • Blademaster is under-performing by a small amount
    • Hellbringer and Arbiter are under-performing by a decent amount
    • Dreadnought, Thaumaturge, Whisperknife, and Hunter are all under-performing by a significant amount

    As was said before, Arcanist has some adjustments coming with M18 that will be available for testing out on preview when that happens.

    Dreadnought and Hellbringer are slated for work in M19. We do have Arbiter, followed by the remaining paths as a stretch goal for the module and while hopefully we can get to them, we also want to set realistic expectations instead of calling out all of the things we'd like to get to and then following up by saying all of the things we weren't able to do.
    Sorry for going off- topic and we look forward to your future adjustments to classes. While i understand that class adjustments obviously requires a lot of testing, but at this point the playerbase is at its lifeline and as one can see from this thread. It is astonishing that no one at this point is interested in mod 18 dungeons or campaign. It might be wise to introduce some class friendly gear in mod 18 such as gear that gives divinity, rage or curse bite. Its obvious that with introductions of gear that give tremendous amount of AP, Arcanists will obviously keep getting stronger. With all due respect, 6-7months before class adjustments for non-dps classes would be delaying this matter too late. Please give us a little push to keep going forward before then.
  • bigdragon#4214 bigdragon Member Posts: 33 Arc User
    If you have to make a new module without reason not to do it... Players would prefer that you set up the bugs and the game's balances... It makes no sense to make new modules if there are no players playing them because continuing so all players will go away and it will be the fault of your inadequacy and incompetence
  • ramesh84ramesh84 Member Posts: 133 Arc User
    gweddry said:

    Agree with some of the recent posts about balance changes and timeframes. I understand you don't have enough manpower to patch these things in a reasonable time. However tiny, safe fixes like temporarily increasing magnitude of powers by 5% or changing a buff value by a small amount is something that requires close to no effort. You can keep repeating those until class power is where you want it to be. Changing a few values manually or running a script to do that across one class is trivial and I doubt the testing process for it is any more difficult.

    This, please. Working 1-2 classes at mod is such a slow pace at the point the risk is new content/gear will make them obsolete and require further adjustment.
    Also, refrain using such statistic to base balancing, they are so easy to skew, for example for ToMM:
    - you are clearly not counting win runs only, training are not providing significant data
    - some players are plain bad, should take the first 4 in chart
    - those datas are not taking in account artifact used (debuff or personal dps buff) or bug using
    - they also don't take into account different kind of dps; in ToMM only there are 3 different scenarios (10-15sec for artifact burst, <30sec for dps checks, and long sustained single target damage) where classes are performing differently.
    is such a great thing having closed beta testers willing to help; take the best in their role (in game statistic are a significant data now) and compare their performance while playing in same team in the different scenarios. And please do the same next time you plan to release a relevant endgame content.
    Have a nice day :)
  • nisckisnisckis Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 655 Arc User
    @nitocris83 @mimicking#6533 @noworries#8859 could we get the raw ToMM data so we can extract our own conclusions?
  • theraxin#5169 theraxin Member Posts: 356 Arc User
    edited December 2019
    wilbur626 said:

    I don't understand the negative feedback on the timeframe for fixes for the "underperforming" DPS classes. Clearly the community is in dire need of wizards getting nerfed, thus this is given priority

    It's pretty simple actually. If you are in a DPS race, the difference of being behind by a mile or 20 meters does not actually matter for you, because you are going to lose anyway. More specifically, even if wizard's get on par with the damage, they will be the top3 option for tomm, because their burst potential, which is more necessary (in Phase2 and 4) than their reflection in the Paingiver chart.

    So the truth of the matter is, unless CW's are getting neutered (which might happen, we've seen it happen), nothing changes, and even if they do nerf it to the ground, that still would not matter as the other burst classes will still overperform everyone else in tomm by design.

    It's only matters if you just want to see CW's getting nerfed, but not actually interested in balancing the classes out.
  • theraxin#5169 theraxin Member Posts: 356 Arc User
    gweddry said:

    Agree with some of the recent posts about balance changes and timeframes. I understand you don't have enough manpower to patch these things in a reasonable time. However tiny, safe fixes like temporarily increasing magnitude of powers by 5% or changing a buff value by a small amount is something that requires close to no effort. You can keep repeating those until class power is where you want it to be. Changing a few values manually or running a script to do that across one class is trivial and I doubt the testing process for it is any more difficult.

    +1 for this and everyone before saying this, but with 1 more reason: Perfect balance is a ton of effort, but no one genuinely cares. People care about having fun playing with the content how they want to play it. Most classes have 1 BiS build anyway that just gets copied. So start buffing that with a rough, simple buff and maybe if you have time, sophisticate on alternative DPS build viability.
  • agilestoagilesto Member Posts: 516 Arc User

    snip


    Thank you, you expressed perfectly what I wanted to say on my previous post, without having the needed vocabulary to talk about that. This issue is my main problem with their data
  • nisckisnisckis Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 655 Arc User
    edited December 2019

    nisckis said:

    @nitocris83 @mimicking#6533 @noworries#8859 could we get the raw ToMM data so we can extract our own conclusions?

    The problem is not raw data versus normalized data.
    The problem is that all TOMM data is severely skewed because of selection bias (a well known problem in statistics, not so well known here obviously).

    I explained this bias in a previous post, here is a real world example:

    Consider an entirely imagined fantasy country, where people of one color (class A) are at a severe disadvantage versus a different color (class B ), say 50%.
    Consider an entirely imagined government, that does not wish to acknowledge this fact.

    The government lawyer tells the president not to worry and comes up with a brilliant idea:
    Don't ask all the people, what their income is. Thats just too tedious.
    Rather go to a super fancy club called Top of Money Makers (ToMM), where only the richest people are allowed to enter and ask them.
    The treshold disposable salary (dps), that allows access to the ToMM club, is 90% of dps of class B

    What will happen?

    class A, with 50% of the disposable salary (dps) of class B (rated at 100%), has a couple of rich people, that have a factor of 1.8 of the dps as the average of their group (1.8*50% = 90%), and therefore also are allowed to enter the ToMM club.

    The statistics, based on the ToMM club, then reveals:
    class A: 90-100% dps
    class B: 100% dps

    The difference is ~5%
    In truth, it is 50%

    The government is happy, because it can report that for the top dps the differences are very small.
    Nothing really needs to be done, to increase the dps of class B.
    The government announces a very moderate programm, designed to close the 5% gap between the two groups.

    The average person of group A is now at 55% percent of group B.
    Everything is well. The country is nearly perfectly balanced.
    Yesterday I was posting a similar explanation with some different examples, like a successful Wiz party would do the same damage as a successful SW party or any other class party, so you could go and say that all classes are well balanced. The reason is that for this kind of data grouping you should be comparing time not damage.

    This is just another form of presenting unreal conclusions from the same raw data.

    PS: I didn't post it because at the end of the day it would be of no use, so... what for?
  • motu999#9953 motu999 Member Posts: 254 Arc User
    nisckis said:



    Yesterday I was posting a similar explanation with some different examples, like a successful Wiz party would do the same damage as a successful SW party or any other class party, so you could go and say that all classes are well balanced. The reason is that for this kind of data grouping you should be comparing time not damage.

    That is a good point. If you have to kill exactly the same number of bosses / mobs in every run, total damage is fixed. If the bosses spawn mobs in regular intervals you get this: A slow party (low in dps), that needs to kill many waves of summoned mobs, will end up with more total damage than the faster (high dps) parties ...
  • sobi#1980 sobi Member Posts: 401 Arc User
    nisckis said:

    nisckis said:

    @nitocris83 @mimicking#6533 @noworries#8859 could we get the raw ToMM data so we can extract our own conclusions?

    The problem is not raw data versus normalized data.
    The problem is that all TOMM data is severely skewed because of selection bias (a well known problem in statistics, not so well known here obviously).

    I explained this bias in a previous post, here is a real world example:

    Consider an entirely imagined fantasy country, where people of one color (class A) are at a severe disadvantage versus a different color (class B ), say 50%.
    Consider an entirely imagined government, that does not wish to acknowledge this fact.

    The government lawyer tells the president not to worry and comes up with a brilliant idea:
    Don't ask all the people, what their income is. Thats just too tedious.
    Rather go to a super fancy club called Top of Money Makers (ToMM), where only the richest people are allowed to enter and ask them.
    The treshold disposable salary (dps), that allows access to the ToMM club, is 90% of dps of class B

    What will happen?

    class A, with 50% of the disposable salary (dps) of class B (rated at 100%), has a couple of rich people, that have a factor of 1.8 of the dps as the average of their group (1.8*50% = 90%), and therefore also are allowed to enter the ToMM club.

    The statistics, based on the ToMM club, then reveals:
    class A: 90-100% dps
    class B: 100% dps

    The difference is ~5%
    In truth, it is 50%

    The government is happy, because it can report that for the top dps the differences are very small.
    Nothing really needs to be done, to increase the dps of class B.
    The government announces a very moderate programm, designed to close the 5% gap between the two groups.

    The average person of group A is now at 55% percent of group B.
    Everything is well. The country is nearly perfectly balanced.
    Yesterday I was posting a similar explanation with some different examples, like a successful Wiz party would do the same damage as a successful SW party or any other class party, so you could go and say that all classes are well balanced. The reason is that for this kind of data grouping you should be comparing time not damage.

    This is just another form of presenting unreal conclusions from the same raw data.

    PS: I didn't post it because at the end of the day it would be of no use, so... what for?
    Not exactly. If you have lets say 5 arcanists and 1 warlock in TOMM as dps, then the warlock will have less time to steal the hitpoints than if you had lets say 6 barbs and 1 warlock. So damage needs to be looked at with the time. With your example, they would need to extrapolate data of all 6 hellbringer, arbiter, barbs running TOMM and then compare them with all 6 wizards. The latter is common but the former is just not possible right now. lol

    My example above means that you just look at encpds i.e. damage per second, no matter the combination of dps classes running TOMM. I am pretty sure the dev's understand this much, what they are doing wrong is that they are comparing best non-meta dps classes with a skewed averaged result for 1000's of wiz's running TOMM. They just need to compare the highest encpds of wizards recorded in TOMM vs other top encpds of other classes. It really is as simple as that.

    But i know the dev's are reluctant to do this because wizard is perfectly suited for TOMM and they want to balance classes for all kinds of dungeons. But their stats refer to TOMM only and those must have absurd amount of anomalies.
This discussion has been closed.