I don't think you get the joke or think I'm talking about pvp when I clearly said dungeon. If you are a gwf getting outdamaged by a tr in a dungeon maybe have a look in the barracks.
He's an IV Sentinel. He'll get outdamaged by a little kid wielding a wet T-shirt.
It's clear people don't understand the difference between total damage done and damage per second.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Not a complicated subject. Whatever your total damagewas divided by time will yeild your DPS. The one is the outcome of the other. The real mistake people make is confusing total damage with effective damage. For example you cast an AOE that does 50k to 6 targets. But they are in various states of injury say you kill 5 that had an average of 20kHP. Your effective damage is 150kHP (20 average to the 5 killed and 50 total to the one that survived) but your total damage will read as 300k because you hit 6 for 50 a peice. This is one of the things makes PG a particuly bad metric for gauging damage. People go for Vorp over terror/ PF because 'my (total) damage is much higher' not recognizing that they were killing with crits things that would have died anyway meaning their effective damage is actually 2/5 or less of what the PG chart is showing (assuming a 150% severity).
Which honestly encourages bad play. More than once I have been with a DPSW in a party and they were making great scores on PG. Of course they were also using their highest targethighest damage spells and hence scattering mobs and gettinglots of overdamage. Sure they were hitting with a Vorp but the same hits were making folks with de-buff enchants miss targets reducing the total party and the DPSW's damage. This does result in a higher proportion of total damage going to the DPSW. It also results in a lower overall DPS for everyone because there is a fixed number of HP to be elliminated and having that sort of disproportionate damage means that the time it takes to run content is longer.
0
ironzerg79Member, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,942Arc User
that is why iam just do a "discourse analysis" ...
One of the primary questions we received was Regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems perspective design, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be the class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight.
first is explicit here that the "striker" in the context of the game not sumary to have single target. in fact, even if you admit that in this game control=aoe damage TOO, even in that situation main strikers using aoe should be, by definition, better.
by the gwf side, dont forget The Destroyer is a torrent of unfettered rage and anger that deals a crushing amount of damage no foe is likely to survive." (all that aoe too)
Nevertheless, we can see that there is an outstanding difference between being a aoe class and be a controller. As the gwf could at the same time excel in aoe ( and no foe is likely to survive. ) and have minimal control if "kill is control" or damage multiples targets itself? (to kill, you need a damage... definition to be a striker in every mmo is kill things more fast that you can+mobility here)
Back to cws, this class is even A primary striker (aoe or single). the best control is not to kill. It is freeze, daze ... your choice. the damage to cw come to the ability to hit multiples targets per time (big cap) and not explode using a shard (broken feats) and melt to dots (broken class feature)
that is all.
ps: even if you say "ah, but a class x take 1 second to kill a single target and cws 3/5secs to kill 10" (the pratice situation in the past...) well...
Exactly. If we ever meet in real life, I'll buy you a beer. Or two. Or 10...sometimes these things escalate quickly.
Do you GenCon? I have a guest bedroom. Of course being that GenCon rents are so high you will likely need to buy a couple cases of beer. Just saying....
proven and attested (above) that in any possible metric the damage of a primary striker should be behind (or even close) to a secondary (in any possible dinamic by the way), and put down any reasoning about the function "control" of cws implies damage or deaths if not by consequence to the cap (and that is not a privilege to the function, but the specialty to a striker) you guys have my blessing.
no, iam firming a point. NOW we can talk about dynamic of the game vs reasonableness or "the minimum necessary and max convenient". that is more subjective, but...
restoring strike receive a secret nerf but i dont will say to nerf your heal (for more strange that is) because of that. the actual damage (hierarchy) and the new temporary hp (that is, be a barbarian guy) is the minimum necessary and the max convenient for pve/destroyer considering your actual disadvantages. the others 2 trees need some work, but that is not only a gwf thing.
now, that amount of damage lost in ss, historically speaken, is the minimum necessary to you ask for others nerfs or is, historically, more than convenient? lets see first.
Why not? Paladin are dps beasts in other games. Paladin class has a dps tree, so why is it unfathomable that you cannot make:
1. paladin tank
2. paladin healer
3. paladin dps
if the game was designed better that's how it would be with each choice being VERY good at it's role.
instead we have 1 and 2 being good and 3 being a garbage that no one would choose, so why even offer it?
I have no problem with the nerfing I have a problem that the CW is BALANCED (an excuse being used for the nerf). I used to be able to easily handle the new mod's well of dragons I now after the nerf/update get one hit killed allot. If you are going to take away the offensive ability of a character make sure they are able to handle the increased hits they will now take. I have been working years on getting my character strong now after one update I have to start from scratch. And still the TR is not being nerfed if you nerf one do it to all the classes don't DISCRIMINATE against one or 2 classes
There are more than BIS players in this game RIP Real Tiamat, RIP Real Demogorgon RIP real Temple of the spider. Why remove non bis content to give to bis players ???? FORCING the majority of your player base to play 4 mod old dungeons and trial will have a bad result on player base Changes are getting so bad i would rather prefer no new changes (RIP ICE FISHING in winter fest)
that is why iam just do a "discourse analysis" ...
One of the primary questions we received was Regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems perspective design, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be the class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight.
first is explicit here that the "striker" in the context of the game not sumary to have single target. in fact, even if you admit that in this game control=aoe damage TOO, even in that situation main strikers using aoe should be, by definition, better.
by the gwf side, dont forget The Destroyer is a torrent of unfettered rage and anger that deals a crushing amount of damage no foe is likely to survive." (all that aoe too)
Nevertheless, we can see that there is an outstanding difference between being a aoe class and be a controller. As the gwf could at the same time excel in aoe ( and no foe is likely to survive. ) and have minimal control if "kill is control" or damage multiples targets itself? (to kill, you need a damage... definition to be a striker in every mmo is kill things more fast that you can+mobility here)
Back to cws, this class is even A primary striker (aoe or single). the best control is not to kill. It is freeze, daze ... your choice. the damage to cw come to the ability to hit multiples targets per time (big cap) and not explode using a shard (broken feats) and melt to dots (broken class feature)
that is all.
ps: even if you say "ah, but a class x take 1 second to kill a single target and cws 3/5secs to kill 10" (the pratice situation in the past...) well...
You also could just look at the "area" part of that AoE. And at what is affected by the encounters. And you'll see that the AoE of the GWF is rather meh, melee range = max 10' distance forward, apart from a daily or two, and that the encounters are often single target.
For the CW this is just the other way around: Yes, there are single target at-wills, but the majority of the encounters has quite a big AoE. like 4-6 times the melee 2/3-circle segment of the basic GWF's AoE..
The AoE of the GWF is IMHO in comparison to the TRs' AoE-lack. Though those AoEs they have plenty of the TRs use galore...
Lastly, much of the blurb contained within the game popup boxes etc. is slightly outdated, the classes have taken different aspects in all the growth and rework and patching that has happened in the meantime.
1 - gwf have LESS single target powers than cws. for exemple, you need chose a paragon to have a full single target daily. even the last hit of sure strike is aoe. some cw powers is just aoe using on tab. but the main reason to use that text is not to say what gwf is suposed to be, but what the words means.
2 - if you divide the aoe in area and damage, and suposod to THAT gwf excels - that is, a strikers aoe - so that "excels" can not be about size, but about damage.
ps: important: that are said during m1, still dont exist rangers and sws. when i say "the discussion between main strikers is more complicated", believe, is not some political <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>.
0
drkbodhiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,378Arc User
Why not? Paladin are dps beasts in other games. Paladin class has a dps tree, so why is it unfathomable that you cannot make:
1. paladin tank
2. paladin healer
3. paladin dps
if the game was designed better that's how it would be with each choice being VERY good at it's role.
instead we have 1 and 2 being good and 3 being a garbage that no one would choose, so why even offer it?
A Paladin in D&D is a protector and healer... he is not known for his incredible damage UNLESS the target is ANY Chaotic Evil monster. NW is not like other games.
Ummm. there are 3 offered tress for TRs, but ONLY ONE is truly viable for use right now. Tell me again how much you can't DPS with your tank/healer... then I will point out the whining induced nerfs that TRs have gotten over time. To the point where we are almost unnecessary... like a pinky toe.
Atwil "At" - Tiefling TR / Saardush - Black Dragonborn GWF / White - Tiefling OP
Leadership Council of Civil Anarchy
SYNERGY Alliance
0
drkbodhiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,378Arc User
edited June 2015
I just have to point this out... after a lengthy in-game conversation with Morkle. Most players are bored with the cookie-cutter, perma, PvP build that is available to TRs. Just like during the 40's and 50's in the Southern US... you are stereotyping and lumping us all into one box. Right now there are 4 or 5 possible builds being used by any and all TRs.
MI/Sab - "perma" build - the most hated player in PvP. MI/Sab - encounter refill stealth build - often accused of being "perma", but not even close. Wk/Sab - a fully enjoyable way to play... my choice at this time. Wk/Exec - My old build and the feared SoD one-hit... much less usable since the ninja SoD nerf. MI/Exec - Probably the scariest of the builds for a TR. More damage in PvE than all but a GWF... if played right. I have seen it.
TRs do not go around *****ing that we got nerfed to death... instead we adapt and overcome.
Get off of your comfy chair and work on your crafts. At this point we should ALL feel like a character in Game of Thrones... never knowing when that ax will fall... if indeed it does.
addendum...
We are so outside of the box with our thinking that we often experiment with builds and share our information with other TRs for criticism, other ideas and help.
Atwil "At" - Tiefling TR / Saardush - Black Dragonborn GWF / White - Tiefling OP
I just have to point this out... after a lengthy in-game conversation with Morkle. Most players are bored with the cookie-cutter, perma, PvP build that is available to TRs. Just like during the 40's and 50's in the Southern US... you are stereotyping and lumping us all into one box. Right now there are 4 or 5 possible builds being used by any and all TRs.
MI/Sab - "perma" build - the most hated player in PvP. MI/Sab - encounter refill stealth build - often accused of being "perma", but not even close. Wk/Sab - a fully enjoyable way to play... my choice at this time. Wk/Exec - My old build and the feared SoD one-hit... much less usable since the ninja SoD nerf. MI/Exec - Probably the scariest of the builds for a TR. More damage in PvE than all but a GWF... if played right. I have seen it.
TRs do not go around *****ing that we got nerfed to death... instead we adapt and overcome.
Get off of your comfy chair and work on your crafts. At this point we should ALL feel like a character in Game of Thrones... never knowing when that ax will fall... if indeed it does.
addendum...
We are so outside of the box with our thinking that we often experiment with builds and share our information with other TRs for criticism, other ideas and help.
your lieing. they complained so much its not even funny they just got over it when nothing happened same as every other class. most of them left and went to the next fotm class pally. please stop spreading false info.
Many of you have posted in this forum, all over the place, about nerfing this and nerfing them and nerfing that. Now that something has been nerfed that many did not think deserved to be nerfed all hell breaks loose.
The reason that I used the famous line as a title is for one reason...
When we choose to complain about what others have because we are envious... do not complain when that bell tolls for you. Pallies will adapt, CWs will adapt.
Were they both playing their roles? NO.
A CW is a controller first and striker second.
A pally is a Leader/Defender and controller.
CW, I am sure, was not supposed to be a tank or DPS first. A pally was not supposed to be DPS.
Things may, actually, be returning to WAI.
Well, they had to make the CW a ranged striker class because this is the only D&D game in existence that does not have fireball in it.....Anywhere.
Oh! Unless your playing a different class from the wizard, then you get what is essentially a fireball, but it's not called that see....
Wait! NPC's can throw a fireball, my bad. PC's cant.
0
drkbodhiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,378Arc User
your lieing. they complained so much its not even funny they just got over it when nothing happened same as every other class. most of them left and went to the next fotm class pally. please stop spreading false info.
Please... illuminate me. How I lied about ANYTHING?
I play a TR because I play TR/ Rogue/ Thieves/ Burglars in every game I have ever played. I have a CW, a GF a GWF that I barely touch and a HR that I want to level slowly... and my main.
This is the first game I have played anything other than my main toon.
I have been accused of being an exploiter, p2w and much worse... I die a lot, if you are skilled and geared.
I have NEVER seen a post from a TR complaining about the ninja nerf of SoD. Committed TRs stay with the TR through thick and thin, I cannot say much about the ones who play because they may be OP. Definitely not as much whining that is going on related to the CW nerf.
My CW still hits hard as hell... and he is a SS/Renegade
So please tell me where I lied in the post you graciously highlighted to point out my failures.
Atwil "At" - Tiefling TR / Saardush - Black Dragonborn GWF / White - Tiefling OP
Leadership Council of Civil Anarchy
SYNERGY Alliance
0
aulduronMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,351Arc User
edited June 2015
CWs are tankier than TRs? When did that happen?
0
drkbodhiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,378Arc User
I have no problem with the nerfing I have a problem that the CW is BALANCED (an excuse being used for the nerf). I used to be able to easily handle the new mod's well of dragons I now after the nerf/update get one hit killed allot. If you are going to take away the offensive ability of a character make sure they are able to handle the increased hits they will now take. I have been working years on getting my character strong now after one update I have to start from scratch. And still the TR is not being nerfed if you nerf one do it to all the classes don't DISCRIMINATE against one or 2 classes
Ballance is not an excuse. It is a core function of game design. Withoutit yuour game does not work. All this talk about roles and cannon is really secondary to having a well designed game. CW has pretty much always been unballanced in PvE. TR has ben the same in PvE. This is nothing new.
1 - gwf have LESS single target powers than cws. for exemple, you need chose a paragon to have a full single target daily. even the last hit of sure strike is aoe. some cw powers is just aoe using on tab. but the main reason to use that text is not to say what gwf is suposed to be, but what the words means.
2 - if you divide the aoe in area and damage, and suposod to THAT gwf excels - that is, a strikers aoe - so that "excels" can not be about size, but about damage.
ps: important: that are said during m1, still dont exist rangers and sws. when i say "the discussion between main strikers is more complicated", believe, is not some political <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>.
CW single target Ecnounters: Entangling Force , Ray of enfeeblement, Icy Rays, Disintegrate, Imprisonment
GWF Single Target Encounters: Reaping Strike [Edit: meant to type "Restoring"], Takedown, (Flourish, but who's IV?), Indomitable BS.
OK, you're right, CW got two Single targets in Mod 6, GWF got 2 AoEs... ...my bad to not have that in mind.
Re. Damage / Area:
This largely depends on how scattered tha targets are. Or whether you can bundle them in your AoE... ...a large area can mean more targets, but doesn't have to. etc. etc.
Basic point I wanted to make is: The AoE in the GWF's description still means more the immediate surroundings - just not only the one target like what the TR excels in, but the the targets left and right of the focus opponent. Not the cluster of loosely grouped archers which the CW can attack in one spell... ...and currently dungeons are more a case of melee rushers, and, especially, HP-strong brutes and bosses, which carry tons of HP. 50-70% of total HP in a dungeon, I'd guesstimate. So, the melee GWF shines currently, and not the wide AoE of the CW, which had been better pre-Mod-6 with massive numbers of critter adds. Also the critters nowadays, while they pack a significant punch, are quite squishy in relation to brutes and bosses.
Another factor is: GWF can go unstoppable very fast in Mod 6. pre-Mod-6 you had your lame swinging at the reds for 3-5 seconds before you finally could get all red and blown up... ...now you take one hit, violâ => way better RoA, more DPS. Plus it's way more meaningful in the current threat environment, as it also means you have to bother less with dodging and can focus on givin' ouch...
All factors together play into the GWF's hand and currently make them better in terms of Paingiver chart points.
Does this mean CWs (and HRs) are obsolete now?
Not at all, because when nobody's there to quickly take down all those low-HP-high-damage ranged attackers en masse, the run also is doomed - or at least way more strenous than if there is a controller on the team.
I'd go on and postulate that the classes all have dual roles, which they can lean to demanding on the situation at hand:
CW: Controller / Striker
DC: Healer / Striker
GF: Tank / Striker
GWF: Striker / Controller
HR: Controller / Striker
OP: Tank / Healer
SW: Controller / Striker or Healer (but sncking at all unless well geared and played)
TR: Striker / Controller
This is to be taken with a grain of salt - I'd e.g. rather sort the GWF into Striker / off-tank, but yeah, this opinion of mine might be influenced by how I played mine (Plain didn't bother in Mod 4-5 - had no fun playing him...) and others might be disputed, too.
...which again has probably lead to the community's pragmatical approach to just have Healer, Tank, and DPS - Controller/Striker differentiation having become more or less a merely theoretical issue, and depending heavily on spec, ParaPath, and Skill choice.
Why not? Paladin are dps beasts in other games. Paladin class has a dps tree, so why is it unfathomable that you cannot make:
1. paladin tank
2. paladin healer
3. paladin dps
[...]
Honestly - no. While justica also gives some moderate boost to DPS it's not what I'd call a DPS tree - it's a fast-cast/multiplier/buffer tree. The Justice feats can increase DPS (slightly) or heals (massively) or tankiness (a bit less), at the expense of the other trees' capstones...
...or a bit more straightforward: Without specific additional abilities, 2 feats are directly damaging or damage buffing (Flash and PuriFire). 4 are CD-reduction, 3 are healing (some massively), and 2 are utility self-buffs. Yeah, DPS tree... ...well, methinks not.
CW single target Ecnounters: Entangling Force , Ray of enfeeblement, Icy Rays, Disintegrate, Imprisonment
GWF Single Target Encounters: Reaping Strike, Takedown, (Flourish, but who's IV?), Indomitable BS.
OK, you're right, CW got two Single targets in Mod 6, GWF got 2 AoEs... ...my bad to not have that in mind.
Re. Damage / Area:
This largely depends on how scattered tha targets are. Or whether you can bundle them in your AoE... ...a large area can mean more targets, but doesn't have to. etc. etc.
Basic point I wanted to make is: The AoE in the GWF's description still means more the immediate surroundings - just not only the one target like what the TR excels in, but the the targets left and right of the focus opponent. Not the cluster of loosely grouped archers which the CW can attack in one spell... ...and currently dungeons are more a case of melee rushers, and, especially, HP-strong brutes and bosses, which carry tons of HP. 50-70% of total HP in a dungeon, I'd guesstimate. So, the melee GWF shines currently, and not the wide AoE of the CW, which had been better pre-Mod-6 with massive numbers of critter adds. Also the critters nowadays, while they pack a significant punch, are quite squishy in relation to brutes and bosses.
Another factor is: GWF can got unstoppable very fast in Mod 6. pre-Mod-6 you had your lame swinging at the reds for 3-5 seconds before you finally could get all red and blown up... ...now you take one hit, violâ => way better RoA, more DPS. Plus it's way more meaningful in the current threat environment, as it also means you have to bother less with dodging and can focus on givin' ouch...
All factors together play into the GWF's hand and currently make them better in terms of Paingiver chart points.
Does this mean CWs (and HRs) are obsolete now?
Not at all, because when nobody's there to quickly take down all those low-HP-high-damage ranged attackers en masse, the run also is doomed - or at least way more strenous than if there is a controller on the team.
I'd go on and postulate that the classes all have dual roles, which they can lean to demanding on the situation at hand:
CW: Controller / Striker
DC: Healer / Striker
GF: Tank / Striker
GWF: Striker / Controller
HR: Controller / Striker
OP: Tank / Healer
SW: Controller / Striker or Healer (but sncking at all unless well geared and played)
TR: Striker / Controller
This is to be taken with a grain of salt - I'd e.g. rather sort the GWF into Striker / off-tank, but yeah, this opinion of mine might be influenced by how I played mine (Plain didn't bother in Mod 4-5 - had no fun playing him...) and others might be disputed, too.
...which again has probably lead to the community's pragmatical approach to just have Healer, Tank, and DPS - Controller/Striker differentiation having become more or less a merely theoretical issue, and depending heavily on spec, ParaPath, and Skill choice.
I think your analysis of the classes is accurate. The problem with people stuck in the Trinity mindset is that the moment a Healer or a tank class does any damage at all, they're ready to cry "foul". Frankly, the paingiver chart is one of the absolute WORST thing in community building in this game.
Well... that and the game design - if they created chess, it would be mostly the same, except if you play black, your king can teleport to any square on the board and can only be mated if any resulting move would place him in check by 2 or more pieces. LOL
SW: Controller / Striker or Healer (but sncking at all unless well geared and played)
In what world SW could be a controler?. It's PRIMARY role is Striker, the other one (mainly taking Temptation into account) would be Leader. Just as wiki says as well.
Rendering target dazed, proned, stunned, pushed back, flung in the air, sucked into a singularity, snared, disabled (Banishment for example), rooted (/snared) - these and many more are forms of control. SW do not have that many of them to be called a controler, ever.
In what world SW could be a controler?. It's PRIMARY role is Striker, the other one (mainly taking Temptation into account) would be Leader. Just as wiki says as well.
Rendering target dazed, proned, stunned, pushed back, flung in the air, sucked into a singularity, snared, disabled (Banishment for example), rooted (/snared) - these and many more are forms of control. SW do not have that many of them to be called a controler, ever.
With every class having a ton of available buffs/debuffs, I don't think Leader is really a role in this game. Some default to leader because they have little damage output depending on spec, but that's a build matter, not really a forced/defined role per se. Just my opinion.
With the threat that the soul puppet generates, maybe they should be classified tank? LOL
CW single target Ecnounters: Entangling Force , Ray of enfeeblement, Icy Rays, Disintegrate, Imprisonment
GWF Single Target Encounters: Reaping Strike, Takedown, (Flourish, but who's IV?), Indomitable BS.
OK, you're right, CW got two Single targets in Mod 6, GWF got 2 AoEs... ...my bad to not have that in mind..
in fact, you have 2 more fails. FIRST, ibs have a cap 3 reaping strike is a atwill and... just look.
about the rest, sorry, but is really, really boring repeat everthing over and over again. plus, that is not about what i think, about my fellings. i just will answer that:
"Does this mean CWs (and HRs) are obsolete now?"
if a main striker do more damage than a secundary striker implies in the death of that secundary striker, so that secundary striker will. that secundary striker do 8/10 times more damage than a defender. what is the drama to do 50%/100% less than a striker?
if is necessary do changes and improviments in other points and that points dont influence the primary functions of other classes, you have my blessing.
when you speak about rangers, you speak about trappers. no, trappers dont should compete in damage to the same way sentinels dont should too( at least is not the "ideal"). who should compete in this case is archery. i dont will give ideas how to do that because that is not my main. is not even my secundary (rangers change so much times that i can not create some afective relation despites than, in every game,my main is one).
that feedback is "your paper".
0
drkbodhiMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 2,378Arc User
CW single target Ecnounters: Entangling Force , Ray of enfeeblement, Icy Rays, Disintegrate, Imprisonment
GWF Single Target Encounters: Reaping Strike, Takedown, (Flourish, but who's IV?), Indomitable BS.
OK, you're right, CW got two Single targets in Mod 6, GWF got 2 AoEs... ...my bad to not have that in mind.
Re. Damage / Area:
This largely depends on how scattered tha targets are. Or whether you can bundle them in your AoE... ...a large area can mean more targets, but doesn't have to. etc. etc.
Basic point I wanted to make is: The AoE in the GWF's description still means more the immediate surroundings - just not only the one target like what the TR excels in, but the the targets left and right of the focus opponent. Not the cluster of loosely grouped archers which the CW can attack in one spell... ...and currently dungeons are more a case of melee rushers, and, especially, HP-strong brutes and bosses, which carry tons of HP. 50-70% of total HP in a dungeon, I'd guesstimate. So, the melee GWF shines currently, and not the wide AoE of the CW, which had been better pre-Mod-6 with massive numbers of critter adds. Also the critters nowadays, while they pack a significant punch, are quite squishy in relation to brutes and bosses.
Another factor is: GWF can go unstoppable very fast in Mod 6. pre-Mod-6 you had your lame swinging at the reds for 3-5 seconds before you finally could get all red and blown up... ...now you take one hit, violâ => way better RoA, more DPS. Plus it's way more meaningful in the current threat environment, as it also means you have to bother less with dodging and can focus on givin' ouch...
All factors together play into the GWF's hand and currently make them better in terms of Paingiver chart points.
Does this mean CWs (and HRs) are obsolete now?
Not at all, because when nobody's there to quickly take down all those low-HP-high-damage ranged attackers en masse, the run also is doomed - or at least way more strenous than if there is a controller on the team.
I'd go on and postulate that the classes all have dual roles, which they can lean to demanding on the situation at hand:
CW: Controller / Striker
DC: Healer / Striker
GF: Tank / Striker
GWF: Striker / Controller
HR: Controller / Striker
OP: Tank / Healer
SW: Controller / Striker or Healer (but sncking at all unless well geared and played)
TR: Striker / Controller
This is to be taken with a grain of salt - I'd e.g. rather sort the GWF into Striker / off-tank, but yeah, this opinion of mine might be influenced by how I played mine (Plain didn't bother in Mod 4-5 - had no fun playing him...) and others might be disputed, too.
...which again has probably lead to the community's pragmatical approach to just have Healer, Tank, and DPS - Controller/Striker differentiation having become more or less a merely theoretical issue, and depending heavily on spec, ParaPath, and Skill choice.
Honestly - no. While justica also gives some moderate boost to DPS it's not what I'd call a DPS tree - it's a fast-cast/multiplier/buffer tree. The Justice feats can increase DPS (slightly) or heals (massively) or tankiness (a bit less), at the expense of the other trees' capstones...
...or a bit more straightforward: Without specific additional abilities, 2 feats are directly damaging or damage buffing (Flash and PuriFire). 4 are CD-reduction, 3 are healing (some massively), and 2 are utility self-buffs. Yeah, DPS tree... ...well, methinks not.
Solid brother...
There are 2 classes that have Striker first. THOSE should potentially deal more damage...
Atwil "At" - Tiefling TR / Saardush - Black Dragonborn GWF / White - Tiefling OP
In what world SW could be a controler?. It's PRIMARY role is Striker, the other one (mainly taking Temptation into account) would be Leader. Just as wiki says as well.
Rendering target dazed, proned, stunned, pushed back, flung in the air, sucked into a singularity, snared, disabled (Banishment for example), rooted (/snared) - these and many more are forms of control. SW do not have that many of them to be called a controler, ever.
That SW-"Controller" refers to the controller definition a few pages up this thread, and that has little to do with CC...:
Just to clarify, since you seem to like definitions. Here's the official definitions of Controller and Striker from the D&D sourcebooks. Emphasis mine.
Control - Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at the same time. They favor offense over defense, using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes.
Striker - Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack.
So BY DEFINITION Controller does NOT equal crowd control. It's more complex than that, something very few people around here seem to understand.
[...]
And on that basis the SW is a classical Controller - moonlighting as Healer when TempLock. Or when a focus on the higher damage single-target is put as Striker. But many SW powers have or are AoE. Or, put another way: CC doesn't make you a Controller, and in a bit into another example, being able to tank some damage doesn't make you a Tank - that would demand the CC via aggro-grabbing that the Tanks have. And to run back half a mile: That definition absolutely supports the high damage output CW as completely filling a Controller role, whether the reds are immobilized or not...
And as you might or might not have read, in my quoted post I generally approve of the more pragmatic Heal/Tank/DPS approach which then makes the difference between Striker and Controller totally obsolete.
Basic problem here: Somehow the definitions are completely muddied. Might help to relaunch in another thread to sort that out first, Define a common nomenclature first, and only then carry on placing tags onto classes...
in fact, you have 2 more fails. FIRST, ibs have a cap 3 reaping strike is a atwill and... just look.
[...]
IBS has no AoE for it's damage, only for the Mark. And the damage can affect more than one target if these are bundled, I know well, was my way to go when there was a CW Sing-ing the reds... ...but so does every single-target-aimed attack apart from (might've been changed by now) Flourish.
And for Reaping Strike... ...yeah. I meant to type Restoring Strike. I stand corrected - and did so above.
Funny you couldn't read my mind there, because here you apparently think you can:
[...]
when you speak about rangers, you speak about trappers.
Just you're wrong. So, I'm referring to all HRs. Controller role and CC are not the same, and BTW Archers have their share of CC, too... Main difference is that Trapper has increased CC duration and an additional damaging effect tied ito that CC. Archer on the other hand has only the short CC duration but a higher ranged attack base damage.
As CC does have its value in this game, and increases survivability massively, Trapper is way more popular and a lot easier to play, but by no means does this make the Archer a classical Striker - unless you play him as such. Which, on the other hand makes gameplay even more difficult due to the powers' action design...
no, trappers dont should compete in damage to the same way sentinels dont should too( at least is not the "ideal"). who should compete in this case is archery. i dont will give ideas how to do that because that is not my main. is not even my secundary (rangers change so much times that i can not create some afective relation despites than, in every game,my main is one).
Basically the difference is less than it's generally percieved, and that the damage is relatively low is one of the things that has been designed in. The main advantage the Trapper has is the huge buff to survivability the CC gives, while in a coordinated party play the Archer can in principle compete in terms of damage - though factually less so.
That sentence is ofc absolutley necessary for emphasis. It might, however, characterize your intention. So, if you are incapable of keeping discussions rational, begone, troll!
Summed up: I think it's somewhat questionable to nail classes into one specific role, when all the game development did was to open windows into neighbouring fields for all classes. And given Each class at least two different ways to focus by means of the Feat tree they chose. Also things are in constant flow as the classes get overworked... ...none which doesn't really make things easier here.
sir, everthing you try do is invent your own definitions and say 2+2=5. to start about ibs. i can shot 3 enemies in the same time and that is not aoe? exist a LOT of types of aoe, what all that definitions have in commom is "damage multiples targets"
control in the context of the game IS CC; that is not a debate. the relevance of a 4e definition here (if not to reinforce some point) and the interpretation of iron dont prove nothing. that is just a pure contraction made to justify in general - not for him, seens a honest guy - hegemonys created by BUGS. the old cw have a lot of bugs linked to the aoe bonus (5x more damage) and now, ss. that is all.
4E is the INSPIRATION of the game, BUT the "primary source" is the description of the devs.
gc notes about your balance during m4:
Control Wizards filled too many roles in groups and were more often than not the “right” choice for a group over other class, and this was very frustrating for people who played other classes.
Overall the changes will leave Control Wizards with more direct competition in group content and will let them more strongly fill the position of controlling all the foes on the battle field or doing heavy damage, but not both at once.
dont work... hahaha. but the diference is there. i can share notes like that until tomorrow. or you believe to the consensus of 2 devs or the interpretation of iron about the INSPIRATION of this game+fixed bugs. your choice and a crazy discussion.
*******
pass to the second level of the discussion, trapper is the controller tree of a main striker/secundary controller. is a tree based in the secundary role of that class. say "trapper can not compete in top damage" is protect a destroyed internal hierarchy in your own class. a internal imbalance paralel to the sentinel+old intimidation VS destroyers. in this time, sentinel have FAR MORE resistance, utility and do more damage than destroyers. seens fair?
nobody complain about that in the past? really? i think not.
*******
about that be "your paper" iam speak about you give suggestions to improve archery IF you want compete in top damage to the dps tree to main dps classes. you know HOW MANY IDEAS, prints, curses, etc i aways give in the name of destroyers? you want that i do the same for a class that i dont have a domain? say how you should play based in a feel experiences?
Comments
Not a complicated subject. Whatever your total damagewas divided by time will yeild your DPS. The one is the outcome of the other. The real mistake people make is confusing total damage with effective damage. For example you cast an AOE that does 50k to 6 targets. But they are in various states of injury say you kill 5 that had an average of 20kHP. Your effective damage is 150kHP (20 average to the 5 killed and 50 total to the one that survived) but your total damage will read as 300k because you hit 6 for 50 a peice. This is one of the things makes PG a particuly bad metric for gauging damage. People go for Vorp over terror/ PF because 'my (total) damage is much higher' not recognizing that they were killing with crits things that would have died anyway meaning their effective damage is actually 2/5 or less of what the PG chart is showing (assuming a 150% severity).
Which honestly encourages bad play. More than once I have been with a DPSW in a party and they were making great scores on PG. Of course they were also using their highest targethighest damage spells and hence scattering mobs and gettinglots of overdamage. Sure they were hitting with a Vorp but the same hits were making folks with de-buff enchants miss targets reducing the total party and the DPSW's damage. This does result in a higher proportion of total damage going to the DPSW. It also results in a lower overall DPS for everyone because there is a fixed number of HP to be elliminated and having that sort of disproportionate damage means that the time it takes to run content is longer.
Exactly. If we ever meet in real life, I'll buy you a beer. Or two. Or 10...sometimes these things escalate quickly.
One of the primary questions we received was Regarding the design goal of the Great Weapon Fighter. From a systems perspective design, the Great Weapon Fighter is designed to be the class that excels at AoE DPS and taking hits while providing a bit of control to the fight.
first is explicit here that the "striker" in the context of the game not sumary to have single target. in fact, even if you admit that in this game control=aoe damage TOO, even in that situation main strikers using aoe should be, by definition, better.
by the gwf side, dont forget
The Destroyer is a torrent of unfettered rage and anger that deals a crushing amount of damage no foe is likely to survive." (all that aoe too)
Nevertheless, we can see that there is an outstanding difference between being a aoe class and be a controller. As the gwf could at the same time excel in aoe ( and no foe is likely to survive.
Back to cws, this class is even A primary striker (aoe or single). the best control is not to kill. It is freeze, daze ... your choice. the damage to cw come to the ability to hit multiples targets per time (big cap) and not explode using a shard (broken feats) and melt to dots (broken class feature)
that is all.
ps: even if you say "ah, but a class x take 1 second to kill a single target and cws 3/5secs to kill 10" (the pratice situation in the past...) well...
Do you GenCon? I have a guest bedroom. Of course being that GenCon rents are so high you will likely need to buy a couple cases of beer. Just saying....
ps:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJfhFZ684SU
restoring strike receive a secret nerf but i dont will say to nerf your heal (for more strange that is) because of that. the actual damage (hierarchy) and the new temporary hp (that is, be a barbarian guy) is the minimum necessary and the max convenient for pve/destroyer considering your actual disadvantages. the others 2 trees need some work, but that is not only a gwf thing.
now, that amount of damage lost in ss, historically speaken, is the minimum necessary to you ask for others nerfs or is, historically, more than convenient? lets see first.
Why not? Paladin are dps beasts in other games. Paladin class has a dps tree, so why is it unfathomable that you cannot make:
1. paladin tank
2. paladin healer
3. paladin dps
if the game was designed better that's how it would be with each choice being VERY good at it's role.
instead we have 1 and 2 being good and 3 being a garbage that no one would choose, so why even offer it?
RIP Real Tiamat, RIP Real Demogorgon RIP real Temple of the spider. Why remove non bis content to give to bis players ????
FORCING the majority of your player base to play 4 mod old dungeons and trial will have a bad result on player base
Changes are getting so bad i would rather prefer no new changes (RIP ICE FISHING in winter fest)
You also could just look at the "area" part of that AoE. And at what is affected by the encounters. And you'll see that the AoE of the GWF is rather meh, melee range = max 10' distance forward, apart from a daily or two, and that the encounters are often single target.
For the CW this is just the other way around: Yes, there are single target at-wills, but the majority of the encounters has quite a big AoE. like 4-6 times the melee 2/3-circle segment of the basic GWF's AoE..
The AoE of the GWF is IMHO in comparison to the TRs' AoE-lack. Though those AoEs they have plenty of the TRs use galore...
Lastly, much of the blurb contained within the game popup boxes etc. is slightly outdated, the classes have taken different aspects in all the growth and rework and patching that has happened in the meantime.
1 - gwf have LESS single target powers than cws. for exemple, you need chose a paragon to have a full single target daily. even the last hit of sure strike is aoe. some cw powers is just aoe using on tab. but the main reason to use that text is not to say what gwf is suposed to be, but what the words means.
2 - if you divide the aoe in area and damage, and suposod to THAT gwf excels - that is, a strikers aoe - so that "excels" can not be about size, but about damage.
ps: important: that are said during m1, still dont exist rangers and sws. when i say "the discussion between main strikers is more complicated", believe, is not some political <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>.
A Paladin in D&D is a protector and healer... he is not known for his incredible damage UNLESS the target is ANY Chaotic Evil monster. NW is not like other games.
Ummm. there are 3 offered tress for TRs, but ONLY ONE is truly viable for use right now. Tell me again how much you can't DPS with your tank/healer... then I will point out the whining induced nerfs that TRs have gotten over time. To the point where we are almost unnecessary... like a pinky toe.
MI/Sab - "perma" build - the most hated player in PvP.
MI/Sab - encounter refill stealth build - often accused of being "perma", but not even close.
Wk/Sab - a fully enjoyable way to play... my choice at this time.
Wk/Exec - My old build and the feared SoD one-hit... much less usable since the ninja SoD nerf.
MI/Exec - Probably the scariest of the builds for a TR. More damage in PvE than all but a GWF... if played right. I have seen it.
TRs do not go around *****ing that we got nerfed to death... instead we adapt and overcome.
Get off of your comfy chair and work on your crafts. At this point we should ALL feel like a character in Game of Thrones... never knowing when that ax will fall... if indeed it does.
addendum...
We are so outside of the box with our thinking that we often experiment with builds and share our information with other TRs for criticism, other ideas and help.
Well, they had to make the CW a ranged striker class because this is the only D&D game in existence that does not have fireball in it.....Anywhere.
Oh! Unless your playing a different class from the wizard, then you get what is essentially a fireball, but it's not called that see....
Wait! NPC's can throw a fireball, my bad. PC's cant.
Here is my issue with that... CWs are tankier than any TR out there.
Why is that the case?
Please... illuminate me. How I lied about ANYTHING?
I play a TR because I play TR/ Rogue/ Thieves/ Burglars in every game I have ever played. I have a CW, a GF a GWF that I barely touch and a HR that I want to level slowly... and my main.
This is the first game I have played anything other than my main toon.
I have been accused of being an exploiter, p2w and much worse... I die a lot, if you are skilled and geared.
I have NEVER seen a post from a TR complaining about the ninja nerf of SoD. Committed TRs stay with the TR through thick and thin, I cannot say much about the ones who play because they may be OP. Definitely not as much whining that is going on related to the CW nerf.
My CW still hits hard as hell... and he is a SS/Renegade
So please tell me where I lied in the post you graciously highlighted to point out my failures.
Called Shield and Negation adds a lot.
Ballance is not an excuse. It is a core function of game design. Withoutit yuour game does not work. All this talk about roles and cannon is really secondary to having a well designed game. CW has pretty much always been unballanced in PvE. TR has ben the same in PvE. This is nothing new.
CW single target Ecnounters: Entangling Force , Ray of enfeeblement, Icy Rays, Disintegrate, Imprisonment
GWF Single Target Encounters: Reaping Strike [Edit: meant to type "Restoring"], Takedown, (Flourish, but who's IV?), Indomitable BS.
OK, you're right, CW got two Single targets in Mod 6, GWF got 2 AoEs... ...my bad to not have that in mind.
Re. Damage / Area:
This largely depends on how scattered tha targets are. Or whether you can bundle them in your AoE... ...a large area can mean more targets, but doesn't have to. etc. etc.
Basic point I wanted to make is: The AoE in the GWF's description still means more the immediate surroundings - just not only the one target like what the TR excels in, but the the targets left and right of the focus opponent. Not the cluster of loosely grouped archers which the CW can attack in one spell... ...and currently dungeons are more a case of melee rushers, and, especially, HP-strong brutes and bosses, which carry tons of HP. 50-70% of total HP in a dungeon, I'd guesstimate. So, the melee GWF shines currently, and not the wide AoE of the CW, which had been better pre-Mod-6 with massive numbers of critter adds. Also the critters nowadays, while they pack a significant punch, are quite squishy in relation to brutes and bosses.
Another factor is: GWF can go unstoppable very fast in Mod 6. pre-Mod-6 you had your lame swinging at the reds for 3-5 seconds before you finally could get all red and blown up... ...now you take one hit, violâ => way better RoA, more DPS. Plus it's way more meaningful in the current threat environment, as it also means you have to bother less with dodging and can focus on givin' ouch...
All factors together play into the GWF's hand and currently make them better in terms of Paingiver chart points.
Does this mean CWs (and HRs) are obsolete now?
Not at all, because when nobody's there to quickly take down all those low-HP-high-damage ranged attackers en masse, the run also is doomed - or at least way more strenous than if there is a controller on the team.
I'd go on and postulate that the classes all have dual roles, which they can lean to demanding on the situation at hand:
CW: Controller / Striker
DC: Healer / Striker
GF: Tank / Striker
GWF: Striker / Controller
HR: Controller / Striker
OP: Tank / Healer
SW: Controller / Striker or Healer (but sncking at all unless well geared and played)
TR: Striker / Controller
This is to be taken with a grain of salt - I'd e.g. rather sort the GWF into Striker / off-tank, but yeah, this opinion of mine might be influenced by how I played mine (Plain didn't bother in Mod 4-5 - had no fun playing him...) and others might be disputed, too.
...which again has probably lead to the community's pragmatical approach to just have Healer, Tank, and DPS - Controller/Striker differentiation having become more or less a merely theoretical issue, and depending heavily on spec, ParaPath, and Skill choice.
Honestly - no. While justica also gives some moderate boost to DPS it's not what I'd call a DPS tree - it's a fast-cast/multiplier/buffer tree. The Justice feats can increase DPS (slightly) or heals (massively) or tankiness (a bit less), at the expense of the other trees' capstones...
...or a bit more straightforward: Without specific additional abilities, 2 feats are directly damaging or damage buffing (Flash and PuriFire). 4 are CD-reduction, 3 are healing (some massively), and 2 are utility self-buffs. Yeah, DPS tree... ...well, methinks not.
I think your analysis of the classes is accurate. The problem with people stuck in the Trinity mindset is that the moment a Healer or a tank class does any damage at all, they're ready to cry "foul". Frankly, the paingiver chart is one of the absolute WORST thing in community building in this game.
Well... that and the game design - if they created chess, it would be mostly the same, except if you play black, your king can teleport to any square on the board and can only be mated if any resulting move would place him in check by 2 or more pieces. LOL
In what world SW could be a controler?. It's PRIMARY role is Striker, the other one (mainly taking Temptation into account) would be Leader. Just as wiki says as well.
Rendering target dazed, proned, stunned, pushed back, flung in the air, sucked into a singularity, snared, disabled (Banishment for example), rooted (/snared) - these and many more are forms of control. SW do not have that many of them to be called a controler, ever.
With every class having a ton of available buffs/debuffs, I don't think Leader is really a role in this game. Some default to leader because they have little damage output depending on spec, but that's a build matter, not really a forced/defined role per se. Just my opinion.
With the threat that the soul puppet generates, maybe they should be classified tank? LOL
in fact, you have 2 more fails. FIRST, ibs have a cap 3 reaping strike is a atwill and... just look.
about the rest, sorry, but is really, really boring repeat everthing over and over again. plus, that is not about what i think, about my fellings. i just will answer that:
"Does this mean CWs (and HRs) are obsolete now?"
if a main striker do more damage than a secundary striker implies in the death of that secundary striker, so that secundary striker will. that secundary striker do 8/10 times more damage than a defender. what is the drama to do 50%/100% less than a striker?
if is necessary do changes and improviments in other points and that points dont influence the primary functions of other classes, you have my blessing.
when you speak about rangers, you speak about trappers. no, trappers dont should compete in damage to the same way sentinels dont should too( at least is not the "ideal"). who should compete in this case is archery. i dont will give ideas how to do that because that is not my main. is not even my secundary (rangers change so much times that i can not create some afective relation despites than, in every game,my main is one).
that feedback is "your paper".
Solid brother...
There are 2 classes that have Striker first. THOSE should potentially deal more damage...
That SW-"Controller" refers to the controller definition a few pages up this thread, and that has little to do with CC...:
And on that basis the SW is a classical Controller - moonlighting as Healer when TempLock. Or when a focus on the higher damage single-target is put as Striker. But many SW powers have or are AoE. Or, put another way: CC doesn't make you a Controller, and in a bit into another example, being able to tank some damage doesn't make you a Tank - that would demand the CC via aggro-grabbing that the Tanks have. And to run back half a mile: That definition absolutely supports the high damage output CW as completely filling a Controller role, whether the reds are immobilized or not...
And as you might or might not have read, in my quoted post I generally approve of the more pragmatic Heal/Tank/DPS approach which then makes the difference between Striker and Controller totally obsolete.
Basic problem here: Somehow the definitions are completely muddied. Might help to relaunch in another thread to sort that out first, Define a common nomenclature first, and only then carry on placing tags onto classes...
IBS has no AoE for it's damage, only for the Mark. And the damage can affect more than one target if these are bundled, I know well, was my way to go when there was a CW Sing-ing the reds... ...but so does every single-target-aimed attack apart from (might've been changed by now) Flourish.
And for Reaping Strike... ...yeah. I meant to type Restoring Strike. I stand corrected - and did so above.
Funny you couldn't read my mind there, because here you apparently think you can:
Just you're wrong. So, I'm referring to all HRs. Controller role and CC are not the same, and BTW Archers have their share of CC, too... Main difference is that Trapper has increased CC duration and an additional damaging effect tied ito that CC. Archer on the other hand has only the short CC duration but a higher ranged attack base damage.
As CC does have its value in this game, and increases survivability massively, Trapper is way more popular and a lot easier to play, but by no means does this make the Archer a classical Striker - unless you play him as such. Which, on the other hand makes gameplay even more difficult due to the powers' action design...
Basically the difference is less than it's generally percieved, and that the damage is relatively low is one of the things that has been designed in. The main advantage the Trapper has is the huge buff to survivability the CC gives, while in a coordinated party play the Archer can in principle compete in terms of damage - though factually less so.
That sentence is ofc absolutley necessary for emphasis. It might, however, characterize your intention. So, if you are incapable of keeping discussions rational, begone, troll!
Summed up: I think it's somewhat questionable to nail classes into one specific role, when all the game development did was to open windows into neighbouring fields for all classes. And given Each class at least two different ways to focus by means of the Feat tree they chose. Also things are in constant flow as the classes get overworked... ...none which doesn't really make things easier here.
control in the context of the game IS CC; that is not a debate. the relevance of a 4e definition here (if not to reinforce some point) and the interpretation of iron dont prove nothing. that is just a pure contraction made to justify in general - not for him, seens a honest guy - hegemonys created by BUGS. the old cw have a lot of bugs linked to the aoe bonus (5x more damage) and now, ss. that is all.
4E is the INSPIRATION of the game, BUT the "primary source" is the description of the devs.
gc notes about your balance during m4:
Control Wizards filled too many roles in groups and were more often than not the “right” choice for a group over other class, and this was very frustrating for people who played other classes.
Overall the changes will leave Control Wizards with more direct competition in group content and will let them more strongly fill the position of controlling all the foes on the battle field or doing heavy damage, but not both at once.
dont work... hahaha. but the diference is there. i can share notes like that until tomorrow. or you believe to the consensus of 2 devs or the interpretation of iron about the INSPIRATION of this game+fixed bugs. your choice and a crazy discussion.
*******
pass to the second level of the discussion, trapper is the controller tree of a main striker/secundary controller. is a tree based in the secundary role of that class. say "trapper can not compete in top damage" is protect a destroyed internal hierarchy in your own class. a internal imbalance paralel to the sentinel+old intimidation VS destroyers. in this time, sentinel have FAR MORE resistance, utility and do more damage than destroyers. seens fair?
nobody complain about that in the past? really? i think not.
*******
about that be "your paper" iam speak about you give suggestions to improve archery IF you want compete in top damage to the dps tree to main dps classes. you know HOW MANY IDEAS, prints, curses, etc i aways give in the name of destroyers? you want that i do the same for a class that i dont have a domain? say how you should play based in a feel experiences?
keep calm and think about what i say this time...