111 réponses à ce sujet

[Robbiesan]

I see your points OP, but in truth I am playing this game for the fun of it.  I have seen mage groups clean up with ease, and wipe too.

 

One of the things I liked about ME3MP for instance was getting used to playing the various characters.  I recall seeing many players bringing to light that apparently "non-Gold-viable" characters/builds, were in fact viable, if played properly.  Weapons n such surely helped, but let's be honest, even a good weapon in the hands of a scrub will not save their ass.

 

It is the fun, the challenge, the variety that I like.

[Drasca]

Will it be fun? Absolutely.

There's more to life than meta.

 

Yep. I would rather have diverse and interesting over class balance in a non-competitive environment. Sure some things need tweaking, but the kits need to be 'fun' and 'interesting' above all else.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I WANT MY VOLUS

[Eldial3los]

If we are talking about effectiveness than yes, mages/ archers are the fastest way to clear perilous. They have the best balance between survivability and damage output.

 

On perilous, distance is an extremely important element of combat, specially keeping your distance which also means better LOS defence. Barrier is also a skill that gives a greater margin of error vs. no barrier.

 

It does not mean that you can't play melee class such as the Katari or the Reaver with enough support. It also requires better gears than say range class because of the probability of getting hit while engaging enemies. (Unless you wait behind everyone and wait for them to attack first than start engaging to not draw agro.)

 

If you had to go from NYC to California and arrive before said date, would you fly by plane or drive by car/ road trip?

 

It depends on what you want, a road trip can be fun however it takes longer and depends on who you are with. Flying is faster and probably safer in terms of meeting the expected arrival date.

[haxaw]

Running 1 Barrier caster with 3 Archers would be my dream team.

 

Recently Perilous PuGed as a lvl 10-ish Ele with 2 Archers and a Hunter and it was such a breeze. While 4 Archers is undoubtedly higher dps, it requires much better coordination, and your survival depends almost entirely on your ability to kill enemies before they can even hit you. In a less ideal situation (PuG cough), replacing just 1 of them with a decent Barrier user makes the entire team many times more robust. Everyone should try this out at least once. Maybe only once; they weren't the most exciting games I've ever had...

[Aegore]

I just started playing multiplayer, been about 3-4 days. I'm new, and i can already see the glaring issues with balance.

 

That's all I read before moving on from this thread. Obviously someone with 3-4 days of experience knows everything about every single class in MP and the balance of the game. LOL.

[MaxCrushmore]

I haven't read all the threads yet, but a well played archer with a top bow is an excellent team contributor. Can dish out some serious damage output, and with the right passives, increases all their teammates chances of crit hits and overall damage.

 

Also, well played Reavers and Assassins can seriously own the enemies in this game

[haxaw]

That's all I read before moving on from this thread. Obviously someone with 3-4 days of experience knows everything about every single class in MP and the balance of the game. LOL.

 

If reading someone's statement qualifying his position with honesty and disclosure is enough to make you "move on from this thread", that's your prerogative. Please don't then proceed to make a post in the thread insulting the poster's stance. Make arguments for why the claims are right or wrong, but sarcastically demeaning someone neither proves your superiority, nor makes anyone else more likely to agree with you.

 

If anything, the OPs relative freshness to the game offers us a perspective as to how new players experience the game. If we truly want this game mode to flourish, this is a very valuable thing to have.

[Aegore]

If reading someone's statement qualifying his position with honesty and disclosure is enough to make you "move on from this thread", that's your prerogative. Please don't then proceed to make a post in the thread insulting the poster's stance. Make arguments for why the claims are right or wrong, but sarcastically demeaning someone neither proves your superiority, nor makes anyone else more likely to agree with you.

 

If anything, the OPs relative freshness to the game offers us a perspective as to how new players experience the game. If we truly want this game mode to flourish, this is a very valuable thing to have.

 

3 days of play is not enough to master any single class so the OP's post is useless until he gets more experience with different classes. Sounds like he will be a mage player so don't expect him to be good with warriors or rogues.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

It's not a real party until the dwarves show up.

 

Rock those mushrooms, little Alchemist!!

[SpaceV3gan]

Mages are not fun enough. Also, Willpower is overrated. Mine is only at 39 but I can't see any difference between that and 10. Players with 50-60 Willpower tell me the same thing. Cunning on the other hand adds visible improvement with each promotion. I see that lately many friends of mine have been playing Mages less often, save for a few hipster Necromancer builds.

[Johnsen1972]

Stop crying for nerfs!

 

BUFF THE WEAK CLASSES INSTEAD and give us a nigthmare mode.

[haxaw]

Mages are not fun enough. Also, Willpower is overrated. Mine is only at 39 but I can't see any difference between that and 10. Players with 50-60 Willpower tell me the same thing. Cunning on the other hand adds visible improvement with each promotion. I see that lately many friends of mine have been playing Mages less often, save for a few hipster Necromancer builds.

 

If the stat system works anything like in the SP, then it makes sense that Willpower has much less of an impact compared to Cunning.

 

At least in the SP, Attack % bonuses were calculated as a sum of all the modifiers you had from gear and stats. For example, 15% off your staff, 15% off your Willpower, 10% off your ring, for a total of 40%. This means that you deal a total of 40% more damage versus having 0% attack. If I were to add another 10%, my total attack would go up to 50% bonus. The important detail here is that these bonuses are not multiplicative with each other, but additive. So now my 150% damage vs 140% damage is only a 150/140 = 107%. Meaning that my additional 10% "bonus" translates only to a 7% increase compared to before. Put simply, anything affecting attack sees a very quick diminishing return.

 

On the other hand, Cunning is a straight crit chance boost, which is often more noticeable due to big numbers and certain abilities proccing off crits. Very far down the road, your crit chance can potentially cap off (not sure if there's a built-in hard cap; regardless, anything over 100% would appear to be meaningless). At that point, Willpower gains would be the only stat that would translate to an increase in damage. But until then, Cunning trumps Willpower 1 to 1.

[CelticRanger275]

hipster Necromancer builds.  

HAHAHA real life lol.  I only play warriors in an attempt to hopefully get one prestiged here and there for the constitution.  But, to be honest, I'd way rather play any rogue or mage class and I'm beginning to see far more value in a half percent of crit and ranged mitigation per prestige vs......5 more health...woopdeedoo!

[Drasca]

If the stat system works anything like in the SP

 

I've linked the damage formula before, but time to bring it up again.

 

No. Just no. So much ignorance on how the attributes really work. Everyone needs to RTFM. Come back later after you do.

[haxaw]

I've linked the damage formula before, but time to bring it up again.

 

No. Just no. So much ignorance on how the attributes really work. Everyone needs to RTFM. Come back later after you do.

 

Please explain how what I described is contradicted by your happily linked damage formula.

[Drasca]

Please explain how what I described is contradicted by your happily linked damage formula.

 

Both critical chance and attack power are affected by diminishing returns when there is overkill involved, however the critical chance ultimately leads to a flat critical damage bonus. The added benefit for increases of critical chance is greatly reduced because the damage bonus is set. The benefit of going from 1% to 2% is 2x, but the increase from 2 to 3 is 1.5x, 3 to 4 is 1.33, etc. Eventually you'll have enough critical chance that the increased chance of critical adds very negligible benefit, while +attack power is a flat increase in damage (but as with crit damage less useful if you overkill).

 

Additionally Bonus damage is a specific term, listed in skill passives, is Ability Multiplier here. Don't use the term bonus damage when it is used in the ability description, as it is in a different part of the formula, misleading the player. It is multiplicative with the total damage result, not additive like attack power is.

Your final damage is not limited to attack power alone.

 

You're misinterpreting relative increases in damage from attack power addition only. Attack multiplies with Critical, Flank, Guard, and Barrier Damage bonuses, and that result is subtracted by armor before being multipled by "bonus damage" / AbilityMultiplier. This multiplication affects final relative power increase results.

 

Not all of these numbers are straight additive, and everyone here is basing interpretations on flawed assumptions, no testing methodology, and no posted tested results.

[HTTP 404]

 There's more to life than meta.
 

 

that is so meta

[haxaw]

Both critical chance and attack power are affected by diminishing returns when there is overkill involved, however the critical chance ultimately leads to a flat critical damage bonus. The added benefit for increases of critical chance is greatly reduced because the damage bonus is set. The benefit of going from 1% to 2% is 2x, but the increase from 2 to 3 is 1.5x, 3 to 4 is 1.33, etc. Eventually you'll have enough critical chance that the increased chance of critical adds very negligible benefit, while +attack power is a flat increase in damage (but as with crit damage less useful if you overkill).

 

Additionally Bonus damage is a specific term, listed in skill passives, is Ability Multiplier here. Don't use the term bonus damage when it is used in the ability description, as it is in a different part of the formula, misleading the player. It is multiplicative with the total damage result, not additive like attack power is.

Your final damage is not limited to attack power alone.

 

You're misinterpreting relative increases in damage from attack power addition only. Attack multiplies with Critical, Flank, Guard, and Barrier Damage bonuses, and that result is subtracted by armor before being multipled by "bonus damage" / AbilityMultiplier. This multiplication affects final relative power increase results.

 

Not all of these numbers are straight additive, and everyone here is basing interpretations on flawed assumptions, no testing methodology, and no posted tested results.

 

 

Please reread my post. I made no reference to any ability multipliers whatsoever. I referred only to straight Attack% modifiers and derived Attack% modifiers derived from stats. These are, as I claimed, strictly additive.

 

The comparison was being made between Willpower and Cunning, and I offered a simple explanation why one appears to have a much more significant impact than the other, point for point. This, as I also qualified, applied mainly to this "early" stage in promotions, where crit chances haven't gotten up to the point where you're better off with just more Attack%, however meager it is.

 

Saying "everyone here is basing interpretations on flawed assumptions" is extraordinarily ironic.

 

Your claim that "attack power is a flat increase in damage" is completely incorrect, as my illustration was attempting to point out (unless you don't use "flat" to mean linear). Furthermore, your comment that there are a number of damage modifiers that are multiplied with the Attack% precisely supports my claim. It doesn't matter what percentage the other modifiers are, if my Attack% is increased by a factor of 1.1, then my total damage increases by 10%. That is exactly what multiplicative means. You have proven my point in your attempt to debunk it.

 

You are right about the term "bonus damage". That's what many skill descriptions mention, and it could be misleading. Nevertheless, my illustration was meant to point out how quickly the damage gain from increasing Attack% diminishes, and I don't think that was muddled.

[Drasca]

Please reread my post. I made no reference to any ability multipliers whatsoever. I referred only to straight Attack% modifiers and derived Attack% modifiers derived from stats. These are, as I claimed, strictly additive.

 

Let me get the hammer out to remind you. Bonus Damage. You mentioned Bonus Damage incorrectly and misinterpreted results.

 

While you referred to attack % modifiers, you based your interpretation of resulting relative increases of damage off only +attack, when the final relative increases of damage require the entire formula including attack and bonus damage (ability multipliers).

 

 

I offered a simple explanation

 

And wrong one.

 

 

my illustration was meant to point out how quickly the damage gain from increasing Attack% diminishes

 

Your first statement was "Willpower has much less of an impact compared to Cunning". This simplified statement is extremely untrue on multiple levels (from different rates of return, to effectiveness of defense, to how it interacts with abilities).

 

The second big mistake is using only the attack % multiplier as a point of comparison in place of actual final damage. It is also very misleading and incorrect interpretation because there's many other factors in the final damage calculation. The final damage should be compared, not the relative attack %, which is only one factor.

 

You didn't frame the problem correctly, and used insufficient calculations for your results. You need to frame the problem correctly with final derived damage comparisons, not simplified one factor attack % comparisons. All things being equal does not apply, because it is not equal.

[haxaw]

I had already admitted my mistake in calling it "bonus damage". Your bringing this up again does nothing to advance the discussion.

 

 

While you referred to attack % modifiers, you based your interpretation of resulting relative increases of damage off only +attack, when the final relative increases of damage require the entire formula including attack and bonus damage (ability multipliers).

 

You seem to be missing my point. Yes, your final damage has many other multiplicative factors in there. The final relative increase of damage, as YOU called it, is affected exactly as I described by the Attack % modifier. Namely, the components of the Attack % modifier are additive, but the modifier in total is applied multiplicatively.

 

Once again, this means that whatever percentage increase you observe in your Attack % modifier will be the EXACT SAME percentage increase in your final damage dealt. I ask that you read my illustrations carefully.

 

The final damage should be compared, not the relative attack %, which is only one factor.

 

This is what multiplication is. That is what a factor does.

 

All things being equal does not apply, because it is not equal.

 

That is, scientifically, how comparisons are made. If I'm interested in seeing how factor A affects my results, I should hold all the other factors constant as much as I can account for. That way, my results are not confounded by other factors. What you are doing is literally confounding the comparison.

[HTTP 404]

Saying that a comment about is meta is so meta is actually meta....

 

Spoiler

 

Check. Mate. *drops mic*

 

It was never an argument, *picks up mic

 

you forgot this

[poloboyz93]

Disagree. People who actually know how to play assasains prove a huge asset with all the armor sundering they provide, plus a huge single target dps, way bigger than any mage could achieve.

Second, archers possess the best dps period. I've seen archers nuke the **** out of spawns before lol.

Also, I think a well played Templar is quite good for demons.