The Enchanter Identity Crisis

kridak

Velthorian should be better than best pet in game... 25% sounds good to me...everyone's pet is free and easy dps..you have 0 hassles with normal pets...and normal pets are stupidly mana efficient compared to a charm that has to be constantly re-casted and managed.

kridak

Rossell wonder why they gave us charm to use as a weapon. weird.

Fell

Rossell The Enchanters class identity is as a SUPPORT caster. Not a solo-capable damage dealer

All classes are supposed to be solo capable.

... But having a charm that does a significant amount of damage should mean you are literally unable to do any damage yourself.

That's exactly the case, you realize right? A charm pet precludes our use of a summon pet, and charm eats up most or all the mana we'd use to nuke ... not that our nukes do much anyway: the ratio is so horrible that we can burn an entire bar without scratching a dark blue.

Rossell Why would anyone want a Rogue/Archer/Beast or pure damage dealer who can't buff or CC

The problem is simple. There's little to no need for CC in most camps, and even when there is, so many DPS classes -- along with priests and even tanks -- have CC abilities that are more than equal to the task. In any full group of six, you generally have 3 or 4 of these classes. That relegates a damage-less enchanter to the role of buff-bot.

I've been polling enchanters in game since Beta began: a good 2/3 of us are perfectly fine with a low-to-no damage role ... provided that CC matters, and at least some camps require a dedicated CC class. The problem is, with the exception of the recently added FW (which rumor has it is going to be heavily nerfed anyway) that's not true today.

Nameless

Charm is how enchanters bring meaningful DPS to the table.

1) Enchanter is not a DPS
2) Enchanter already provides EXCELLENT DPS through their Haste buff (which is exactly what a support should do)
3) Charm is still a DPS increase over the regular pet (or pet classes for that matter!)

Imagine monks losing feign death. Or removing backstab from rogues.

Enchanter did not lose charm

Make charming a choice. Either fulfill the buff/CC role, or supply high-risk DPS. Make it difficult to simultaneously fulfill both roles.

That I could get behind if it was impossible to fulfill both simultaneously. Then it would be a choice. I think the buff could be kept out of that equation and just have the enchanter choose between charm and mez. That way if there is no reason to mez you really have no reason to hold back on charming. If there was a system in MnM like the concentration in D&D, mez & charm would be on it competing for your resource.

Charm needs to be high risk/high reward.

You want it to be, it does not need to be. Charm could work only on light blue and lower for RP or quest if that would be the Devs vision.

But remember, twinking is fun and encouraged for replayability.

It's definitely fun and some form or reward for veterans of the game. I dont know that it is encouraged... or that it should be to be fair, it comes with some undesired drawbacks for a game that is promoting grouping...

I want to be the all-powerful genie.

This does not work very well in a MMO. Of course there is always a meta and a way to maximize your character(s) but the Devs stated repeatedly they want to promote community. It's not about achieving things alone, it's about making friends and conquering a challenging game together.

While I understand the frustration, something had to be done. In a game where the monsters power level is way beyond the player's you cannot let some classes break the balance like that. And for those that are suggesting to bring the other classes to that same level instead of nerfing the outlier, well that gets you to the WoW-likes era where the power level of the players is the same as the monsters and now everyone solo's in their corner of the world instead of interacting and joining forces...

Fell

Nameless Enchanter did not lose charm

Yes they did. In a group setting. Charm reduces total damage in a group. Using charm adds risk on a large pull, uses some amount of healer mana, negates your ability to use a summon pet, takes most or all of your discretionary mana which could be otherwise used to nuke, AND -- to crown it all -- requires you to stack CHA, thus costing you enormous amounts of INT, reducing your mana pool, mana regen, and dmg and efficiency ratio on your nukes.

Enchanter already provides EXCELLENT DPS through their Haste buff (which is exactly what a support should do)

How much damage does an enchanter add by hasting an all-caster group? Oops!

And even ignoring that, when your only role in a group is to dispense buffs, it's not a high-engagement class most people want to play. And in fact, no one will under those terms -- you'll see nothing but buff-bots to give haste and clarity, even on the "no box" servers. ("hey guys, my 'wink wink' friend is camped here, and will log on to buff us when we need it....")

Nameless

Fell

Yes they did. In a group setting.

Some tools are for group play, others for solo/duo. The tool is still in your toolbox.

How much damage does an enchanter add by hasting an all-caster group? Oops!

Most casters have pets. Then the increased mana recovery is then transformed into damage. But you are right, the damage increase is felt a lot more in physical heavy groups.

when your only role in a group is to dispense buffs, it's not a high-engagement class most people want to play

We will see, I suspect that the enchanter population is going to be very healthy, but you could be right, playing support is accepting to be the one in the back providing for the others and that's not something everyone wants to do... luckily there are 17 other classes to choose from.

Fell

Nameless playing support is accepting to be the one in the back providing for the others

Sorry, no. That's not how the enchanter class played in any other MMO, nor how it was sold to us here. Enchanters are a dedicated crowd control class and one of the highest -- if not the very highest -- in front-line engagement. Right on the MnM site, it lists the archetype of enchanter as "Masterful Conductors" -- the experts at controlling the pace of battle.

Pixie1001

Maybe a better solution would be some kind of 'Gorgon stance' or something you need to toggle into, which ends all of your buffs and makes you unable to cast them - or maybe alters them, and some of their other spells to have reduced effectiveness - in return for buffing your charm spells to turn you into a kinda 'charm DPS'. It could be unusable in combat, and have like a 10min cooldown as well to stop Enchanters trying to fill both roles simultaneously.

Kinda like modern WoW's freely swappable specialisations. Ideally I guess this would work better as it's own class? But also the game already struggles with balancing support and healer populations so there's exactly one available for each group, so I don't see why allowing certain classes to fulfil multiple roles is a problem. And at later levels, you might need different gear to further specialise, forcing you to pick one to lock on of you don't wanna carry around an entire seperate gear set with charm related passives.

That being said apparently old Enchanter was far and away better than even the best DPS in the game, so it should probably never return to that. But having it be competitive, or a kinda 'high risk high reward' class that's better than a Beastmaster by like 5% damage or something would be fine.

Raybane

Pixie1001 Why does it have to be better then a dedicated dps class? That is like saying a Wizard that isn't needed for doing damage should be able to CC and of course do so better then an Enchanter to be valuable. If the enchanter charm does meaningful damage, then that is enough, it doesn't have to be better then everyone else.

Clueless

Fell "Masterful Conductors" -- the experts at controlling the pace of battle.

In any other form of the phrase "Masterful Conductor" (as in front and center for a music performance), I might agree... but this is specifically talking about controlling the pace of the battle, as you said - and historical accuracy does not ever put those persons in the heat of the battle. They sit back and tell people where to go, how to go there, what to do there, etc... Just my 2cp, but Enchanters are a back line member (I feel like this is obvious), not a "front-line engagement" type of person. They can (and should) sit at range - their spells are 30m range, and if they have a pet, it can operate beyond that. Anyone not setting their pet to sit/stay a good distance away from them while Charming is asking to die/wipe.

Fell

Clueless historical accuracy does not ever put those persons in the heat of the battle.

Eh? No. The Roman historian Livy tells us General Hannibal led from the front: the "first to enter the battlefield and the last to leave". King Leonidas himself fought directly in phalanx formation side-by-side with his Hoplite warriors, and Charlemagne spent the first two decades of his reign fighting at the very forefront of his scara squadrons.

In any case, I think claiming "historical accuracy" for a fantasy-based game is quite the stretch.

Clueless Enchanters are a back line member (I feel like this is obvious)

I hate to trot out this cliche, but the situation qualifies: you clearly have never played a classic MMO. Enchanters have always been on the front line. When they're not pulling themselves, they're standing in the forefront, for immediate lines-of-sight on any potential adds.

navyrob

Fell If this is the case we really need some content adjustments. They have based their design philosphophy on CC being a fundamental part of the game. If it is indeed trivialized in 90% of the content then we really do have a problem that needs addressing, more than the charm nerf.

Raybane

navyrob The problem right now is that CC is still very useful, but just for a very short time. CC is good for breaking a camp, but due to current game mechanics so is holding a camp trivial as it just requires killing each single enemy at the same steady pace they respawn. It's the later that needs fixing for CC to be more needed, not the over all zone design.

Tadorm

foxroar1 Really like in general the idea, the only thing I will disagree is with the CHA giving a minimum of spell duration, because it will give a minimum timed duration security and I prefer to have some random probability that you will never know when is going to break.

Clueless

Fell you clearly have never played a classic MMO

Not on a bluebie server like you, no lol. Seems like you have a superiority complex and again, lean into the bias you've built with your playstyle. You playing that way is both not a) always the most optimal way to play, and b) the same way everyone else plays the game, for many reasons. Any caster going into melee range/"the front line" on a PvP server is not going to last long, in classic MMOs or in faster paced modern MMOs. Hell, not even in WoW does that work ever.

navyrob

Raybane THis has been my albeit limited experience as well. CC remains useful throughout the remaining grind if pulls get a little too wild. CC will save a wipe and is worth a slot. That said I would personally prefer the danger level to require tight and careful CC throughout the grind. This was supposedly the type of game they weere trying to design, seems like they have made the mobs a little too easy in order to keep the low level noobs engaged? Just a thought.

tummystix

Clueless Not on a bluebie server like you, no lol. Seems like you have a superiority complex and again,

A bit hypocritical calling out someone's superiority complex as you insinuate being on the PvP server somehow makes you better at the game.

A good enchanter can stand/sit where ever they please as long as they've got the adds under control, but the better ones tend to get CC done before all 2 to 3+ get into the camp and beat on everyone. Which tends to require being upfront. Also I don't think our 6s pbaoe stun works very well from 30m away.

Spellweaver

Let's not forget the Inquisitor rework also gave them a mana return ability that feeds the entire group. And their secondary haste aura stacks with Shaman. As a group leader, why would I choose an Enchanter over Inquisitor when the Inq can provide sustained melee DPS after the camp is broken, with no mana draining risk to the group? And even if things do get out of control, or you want to que up mobs in the camp, the Inq can easily accommodate that.

Enc brought CC and DPS, Inq brought CC and Tanking. And now with the right set of gear, Inq can do all 3.

Nameless

Spellweaver As a group leader, why would I choose an Enchanter over Inquisitor

I suspect you wont have to make that choice very often. Inquisitor was the least played tank.

That being said:

after the camp is broken

I see this argument come up more and more, and it impacts both CC and pullers. I think the Devs should consider putting some variance in for mob respawn to make those roles more valuable for the whole duration of a group.

navyrob

Nameless imo we need more pats in general, tough ones that make the fight both challenging and rewarding.
Have them timed in clever ways to make it tough to keep track of

« Previous Page Next Page »