Tempests are Rediculous

[GramercyRiff]

Definitely 100% buff THF. Seriously.

And yes I agree we should nerf monks and warlocks again.

Also can we get more HP?


First part is serious though, seriously please buff THF.

[janave]

Nerf reaper trees while at it.
Nerf AoE helpless CC and AoE/multi-target instankills, they are far more OP than any melee aoe. AoE is useless on bosses, and if AoE instantkill works, melee aoe is useless everywhere.



//disclaimer: i dont want any nerfs to anything anymore because it takes far too much time to collect all the carrots as is.

[Tilomere]

If they didn't give a bajillion DC dire charge out to everyone for free, the tactical advantage of fighters would become important again.

[LiveFast]

Does EK imbues work on glancing blows? On the other hand, THF is not very well suited for high skulls because you agro 3-4-5 mobs a swing with your glancing blows which generally mean death. If EK work then some sorc/wiz levels for imbues and buffs like displacement might get good results though. Also I do not see Tempest as OP. Yes it's a top tier DPS but many builds compete with them in the top 10.

[Ganak]

Nothing to see here, move along...

People who cannot conceive of a weak dex scimitar tempest being top dps, and have never played one, are totally accurate. Let's not draw any further attention here (hiding from the nerf hammer)...

[Fedora1]

Tempest Dance of Death AOE makes cleaves look awful comparatively. DoD is the best aoe in the game and in R10 it is a major detriment to the THF playstyle by relative balance.

Compares T5 enhancement on a light-armored, low PRR character to several lower tier cleave enhancements, cleave feats, and epic destiny cleaves on heavily armored, high PRR, higher HP classes- in a R10 environment...

And then draws conclusions as if comparing only DoD to cleave.

[Deadlock]

Tempest Dance of Death AOE makes cleaves look awful comparatively. DoD is the best aoe in the game and in R10 it is a major detriment to the THF playstyle by relative balance.

As with all of these things, if you really think it's that good, then you should definitely use it.

If you think that it's overpowered and you're over-performing at the high end, then I humbly submit the following suggestion:



Real rangers dual wield these and still say they're too good to pug

[Proton]

Characters with 100+ PL feats, 80+ ReaperPTs, some Racial APs are Rediculous, and feedback sourced from them is mostly useless for the sake of class balance.

Yes, some classes scale better on the high end of the carrot stack and once geared out properly.

Had this discussion too many times before, if you have everything that stacks and you beaten content 100s of times, dont expect it to be any harder, it just punishes the player who are still on the grind mill to catch up there -- if they even dedicate to such grinds these days.

+++ signed

[Sam-u-r-eye]

Nothing to see here, move along...

People who cannot conceive of a weak dex scimitar tempest being top dps, and have never played one, are totally accurate. Let's not draw any further attention here (hiding from the nerf hammer)...

^^

[Sam-u-r-eye]

Compares T5 enhancement on a light-armored, low PRR character to several lower tier cleave enhancements, cleave feats, and epic destiny cleaves on heavily armored, high PRR, higher HP classes- in a R10 environment...

And then draws conclusions as if comparing only DoD to cleave.

Low PRR?
It's not just in R10

[Proton]

Sam nerfs are rediculous.

Just say no to the Sam nerf!

NO!

(nothing personal Sam, but another nerf...??? should I cross my eyes for you???)

[Kaboom2112]

How do you figure?

11 in Deepwood for sure for Exposing Strike.

Math smath, every actual test shows this to be true.

[Thrudh]

Math smath, every actual test shows this to be true.

What's true?

I have plenty of experience with Dance of Death. It's very very good.

DoD doesn't help you against a boss, which is where DPS matters, right? Even Killer can fade in a boss fight, if there's no trash around, or you're not getting kills on trash because you're engaging the boss.

I also have plenty of experience with VKF builds. They are very very good against bosses and red-names, do more single target DPS than Tempest.

But VKF have no AOE abilities.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

[MaeveTuohy]

Flow + Nightshard on trash,

VKF is lower dps since they already have a very good second dps tree (Deepwood Sniper)

What do tempests without these uber-rare drops use?

[Sam-u-r-eye]

What do tempests without these uber-rare drops use?

Dual vulkoors edge, which are only slightly behind due to a lack of vulnerability

[Shadow_Jumper]

Dance of Death: Melee Dual Wielding Attack: Deals +1/+3/+5[W] damage. Your basic attacks when dual wielding strike 2/3/4 targets per swing instead of one for 10 seconds. (Cooldown: 15 seconds)

So, 1 tier 5 ability that requires 2wf and locks you out of other tier 5's on a glass cannon class that wouldn't survive long on harder content when surounded, unless mobs are cc'ed has an ok abillity.

It might work if the tank got ths agro i guess ...

You are pointing out every essential requirement to a good/smooth reaper run as a question mark.

Competent end game reaper groups are for the most part running with:

1 CC player
1 Form of AoE heals
1 Player than can tank the endboss/trigger mobs in some fashion

To say that "well, for this to be effective you would have to have cc" and use that as a reason why said ability is not as good is basically ignoring the fact that all competent reaper groups are utilizing some form of CC. Be it a wizard/sorc/warlock, possibly CC spells from clr/fvs, or even in some cases having 4+ dire charge builds.

Also, there is no such this as glass cannons anymore. The Epic Defensive Fighting Stance basically eliminated any problems with the glass cannon builds in the game. What is the point of running a slightly more defensive build (fighter/pally), but doing less damage, when you could have almost the same defenses and 2-3x more DPS?

The reaper mechanics also nullify any reason to build more defensive builds. SSG really has a Pandora's Box situation here. In their attempt to make customers happy they have pushed the DPS output ever higher. But the only way to challenge those builds is to 1-2 shot them because otherwise they would be nigh invincible as they would just scythe through any mobs before they take damage. Reaper difficulty was introduced because Shiradi Casters were massacring entire dungeons with little to no effort. Now Melee are almost at the point that Shiradi was 2 years ago. The only differences are that its a little harder to build competent melees, and you need a few friends.



That video right there is the reason why heavy armor dps builds are dead. There is 0 point in building defense as a build feature (unless your build is specifically a tank) because you will most likely still be 1-2 shot while doing 2-3x less damage. Sure heavy armor cleave builds are great for heroics, but this thread wasn't about heroics. And that I think is the big disconnect. R1 TR Train =/= Endgame. Despite all the people on this forum that try to stifle meaningful talk about ways to improve the endgame of DDO because they feel like their ego is being challenged.

[zehnvhex]

I love these threads because it really showcases how your own personal experience level with the game affects your understanding of game balance.

Like this statement:

Vs fighter and barbs with6+ aoe attacks they can spam due to shorter cooldowns, whille able to last longer then a ranger?

You can tell this person probably has never done any content above R2. Maybe they joined an R5 GH pug once or something, who knows. They certainly aren't running a static doing R10's at cap or the word "Last longer" would not be in their vocabulary.

Though truth be told they've probably never played a ranger for that matter either. Calling a ranger fragile is hilarious and comparing any melee AE in the game to DoD is hilarious. DoD is on a whole nother level of broken good.

Anyways...

It does though raise a point about how balance works in reverse. That's one of the nuances of how balance breaks down as things go into the extremes. For example, at R1 there's functionally little difference between a ranger, monk, sorcerer, etc...they're all blowing up mob packs in 2~4 seconds of combat. So who cares?

It's only when you go to like, R8+ where a ranger is going to absolutely crush that monk or sorcerer on any given fight. Since I would wager less than 1% of DDO players are at that level, and I doubt any of the devs do either, why bother balancing around it?

Every time SSG tries to balance classes for that level of play, they don't bother playtesting it and see how it affects them at low levels of play. IE: The monk nerfs which were aimed at toning down end game DPS ended up being an even bigger nerf for monks at like, level 8. They just don't think about these things.

So I agree. Let's all just say that rangers are fine, don't touch please.

[Fedora1]

Low PRR?
It's not just in R10

Yes, generally speaking tempests have lower overall PRR when compared to fighters or other heavy armor types that are generally the type to use THF. I guess you could be thinking about acrobats and some monk builds?

And you used R-10 in your claim that it is a major detriment to the THF playstyle.

[Sam-u-r-eye]

I love these threads because it really showcases how your own personal experience level with the game affects your understanding of game balance.

Like this statement:



You can tell this person probably has never done any content above R2. Maybe they joined an R5 GH pug once or something, who knows. They certainly aren't running a static doing R10's at cap or the word "Last longer" would not be in their vocabulary.

Though truth be told they've probably never played a ranger for that matter either. Calling a ranger fragile is hilarious and comparing any melee AE in the game to DoD is hilarious. DoD is on a whole nother level of broken good.

Anyways...

It does though raise a point about how balance works in reverse. That's one of the nuances of how balance breaks down as things go into the extremes. For example, at R1 there's functionally little difference between a ranger, monk, sorcerer, etc...they're all blowing up mob packs in 2~4 seconds of combat. So who cares?

It's only when you go to like, R8+ where a ranger is going to absolutely crush that monk or sorcerer on any given fight. Since I would wager less than 1% of DDO players are at that level, and I doubt any of the devs do either, why bother balancing around it?

Every time SSG tries to balance classes for that level of play, they don't bother playtesting it and see how it affects them at low levels of play. IE: The monk nerfs which were aimed at toning down end game DPS ended up being an even bigger nerf for monks at like, level 8. They just don't think about these things.

So I agree. Let's all just say that rangers are fine, don't touch please.

Haha! Someone gets it.

[crackas]

I love these threads because it really showcases how your own personal experience level with the game affects your understanding of game balance.

Like this statement:



You can tell this person probably has never done any content above R2. Maybe they joined an R5 GH pug once or something, who knows. They certainly aren't running a static doing R10's at cap or the word "Last longer" would not be in their vocabulary.

Though truth be told they've probably never played a ranger for that matter either. Calling a ranger fragile is hilarious and comparing any melee AE in the game to DoD is hilarious. DoD is on a whole nother level of broken good.

Anyways...

It does though raise a point about how balance works in reverse. That's one of the nuances of how balance breaks down as things go into the extremes. For example, at R1 there's functionally little difference between a ranger, monk, sorcerer, etc...they're all blowing up mob packs in 2~4 seconds of combat. So who cares?

It's only when you go to like, R8+ where a ranger is going to absolutely crush that monk or sorcerer on any given fight. Since I would wager less than 1% of DDO players are at that level, and I doubt any of the devs do either, why bother balancing around it?

Every time SSG tries to balance classes for that level of play, they don't bother playtesting it and see how it affects them at low levels of play. IE: The monk nerfs which were aimed at toning down end game DPS ended up being an even bigger nerf for monks at like, level 8. They just don't think about these things.

So I agree. Let's all just say that rangers are fine, don't touch please.

I agree, I have seen the math showing rangers to have extreme high DPS at the far end of the scale, although I have yet to see a ranger come into a party and be the best. I don’t go over r4 ever really though so... if you nerfed rangers just like the monks they would be 10% less effective at the very end of the game but 30% or so less effective at level 12.

You have also forgotten that there is a third tier of players, these are the players that can’t even do R1. I think there are more players still struggling through hard and elites then there are hardcore players doing high r8’s all the time.