Rage spell shut off OR Block option.

[Ganidel]

I realy think there should be a way to either dismiss casted rage, or a way to block it from being cast on you, as some ppl have worked hard for there ac dont want it, but bards and casters love to cast it because they dont have ac.

Also Caster/bards rarely ever say there about to cast it, and if you ask them to call it before casting they tend to get all mad and say its only 2 ac, well guess what 2 ac is a pretty big differnce when you start reaching like +62 AC.


I know this isnt a game breaker but casters either need to call there about to cast it or we need something like this.


And im not talking about places like shroud part one where ac doesnt matter.

[branmakmuffin]

I realy think there should be a way to either dismiss casted rage, or a way to block it from being cast on you, as some ppl have worked hard for there ac dont want it, but bards and casters love to cast it because they dont have ac.

Also Caster/bards rarely ever say there about to cast it, and if you ask them to call it before casting they tend to get all mad and say its only 2 ac, well guess what 2 ac is a pretty big differnce when you start reaching like +62 AC.
Actually, 2 AC is a much smaller difference, percentage-wise, the higher your AC gets. But I agree with both your points: people should ask and you should have to option of not accepting it and/or dismissing it if you don't want it.

[stockwizard5]

Actually, 2 AC is a much smaller difference, percentage-wise, the higher your AC gets. But I agree with both your points: people should ask and you should have to option of not accepting it and/or dismissing it if you don't want it.

Never mind ...

[Hobgoblin]

unfortunatly ac is getting more and more meaningless while dps is getting more and more important. so unless you are one of those people that can get said 62 ac, it is more feasible to cast the rage giving extra hp and damage.

[bobbryan2]

Actually, 2 AC is a much smaller difference, percentage-wise, the higher your AC gets. But I agree with both your points: people should ask and you should have to option of not accepting it and/or dismissing it if you don't want it.

Since it's a d20 system, the 2 ac only matters when you're in the 20 point window. Which is why it matters more the higher your ac gets.

Because high level to hits are out of control.

[Nikorr123]

I think if you hit select your toons on the character selection screen and hit delete and confirm you can hack your way around rage. Not sure let me know if you test it your results.

[wiglin]

I realy think there should be a way to either dismiss casted rage, or a way to block it from being cast on you, as some ppl have worked hard for there ac dont want it, but bards and casters love to cast it because they dont have ac.

Also Caster/bards rarely ever say there about to cast it, and if you ask them to call it before casting they tend to get all mad and say its only 2 ac, well guess what 2 ac is a pretty big differnce when you start reaching like +62 AC.


I know this isnt a game breaker but casters either need to call there about to cast it or we need something like this.


And im not talking about places like shroud part one where ac doesnt matter.

Agreed

If I am in a pug, I will ask nicely to inform me before it is cast and I will move outside the radius. If the caster and or bard refuses, or trys to get into a debate about why ac doesn't matter. I will then pike and do nothing. I don't spend money on pots just to have it taken away. When I am playing my bard or sorcerer, I pay attention to the builds in my party and if one is an ac build I will ask if they want rage.

[Retsam]

http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Rage_(spell)

Target: One willing living creature per three levels, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart

just based on that there should be an option that pops up for that spell that asks if you want to accept it.

[redoubt]

Actually, 2 AC is a much smaller difference, percentage-wise, the higher your AC gets. But I agree with both your points: people should ask and you should have to option of not accepting it and/or dismissing it if you don't want it.

Actually because the the d20 every point of AC is worth exactly 5%, assuming you are in the window where AC matters at all.

It is true that adding 2 to twenty is a 10% increase while adding 2 to 60 is approx 3%. So while your standard math theory is correct, the dice change the practical difference.

[redoubt]

http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Rage_(spell)

Target: One willing living creature per three levels, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart

just based on that there should be an option that pops up for that spell that asks if you want to accept it.

While I would be okay with some sort of optional checkbox to resist cast rage, this would be troublesome.

Imagine getting a popup in the middle of combat everytime someone cast rage...

[Sirea]

http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Rage_(spell)

Target: One willing living creature per three levels, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart

just based on that there should be an option that pops up for that spell that asks if you want to accept it.

OOH, why don't we do that for every spell? So whenever I'm getting buffed I get little boxes like "Are you sure you want this Blur?", "Are you sure you want this Stoneskin?", "Are you sure you want this Jump?"

Or wouldn't it be funny if the enemies got a confirm box for Finger of Death? "Are you sure you want to die?" XD

Maybe that'll stop all the meaningless buffs cast at the beginning of Shroud part 1 :rolleyes:

[Zenako]

any responsible caster will announce when they are casting Rage. It is one of the few buffs that is not entirely beneficial in nature. Making comparisons to spells like Haste or Good Hope for example is faulty, since no aspect of those spells will adversely affect any sane build. (For arguements purpose you could be making a meatshield guard build that counts on getting hit ALL the time to trigger guards so anything which makes it harder to be hit would work against you...but it is also true that at any level of significance, going from a 10 to 12 AC will still mean the mobs miss on 1's :)).

It is really at the high ends of AC where those 2 points make a huge difference in some fights. In a very specific case it could result in the recipient taking triple the damage (or more) than they would otherwise. Lets say we are at 60 AC. Mobs have a +40 to hit. Need exactly a 20 to hit and another 20 to confirm for a crit (likely 3x damage). Drop the AC to 58 and now the mob needs only an 18,19 or 20 to hit, and again a likely 18,19 or 20 to confirm. So besides moving from 1 hit in 20 to 3 hits in 20, you have also increased the critical confirm chances from 5% to 15%. So instead of being an almost invulnerable tank, you have sprung leaks. While this is an extreme example, many builds are tailored to achive just this sort of optimization.

[hannika]

So besides moving from 1 hit in 20 to 3 hits in 20, you have also increased the critical confirm chances from 5% to 15%

i get in this fight all the time because i play melee bards that throw rage around every 3-5 minutes, but i don't want to get into the fight here. i'd just like to say if you're not wearing heavy fortification (even with a 62 ac) you deserve to get crited. and i'm going to cast rage on you.

[Tresha_D'Artet]

ummm...i did have something in mind to say and had it all thought out, but the more i think about it...ill get back to you *walks off laughing my arse off*

[Premier]

Rage clickies act like the spell, not like a potion.

I was under the impression it acted like a potion and I would constantly click it on my Ranger thinking it was only affecting me. Until my friend told me to stop casting rage on him. Lesson learned, just passing it on.

I do agree with a dismiss rage option on the spell and Casters asking before casting rage. But, if you're in Shroud part 1 and beating on a portal you'll be hit by a Rage if you're in my vicinity. Peace!

-Premier

[Zenako]

i get in this fight all the time because i play melee bards that throw rage around every 3-5 minutes, but i don't want to get into the fight here. i'd just like to say if you're not wearing heavy fortification (even with a 62 ac) you deserve to get crited. and i'm going to cast rage on you.

True,:o but does heavy fort stop other things that proc on crit besides damage? Not sure this is all that relevant on mobs vs pvp consideration thou. Just slipped my mind on that part of the arguement, was just focused on the misconception about the impact of losing 2 AC being the same for everyone. It is not.

[Dragonhyde]

I mainly play bards and believe it or not I get asked to cast rage about as much as the ac song. To me it depends the only place i tend to just cast rage is shroud part 1. If I am asked not to after that then I don't....when I want the extra hps and attack for myself i usually just go off by myself and cast. I try to be mindful of the party makeup but if you are the only "AC" build in a group of barbs then well most likely you will lose the vote on whether or not it will be cast. .

[Nevthial]

Some way to block the spell would be best so a person wouldn't have to click yes/no in battle over and over again.

[Damionic]

As a rule (my main is a Wizard) I never cast rage because if you want to rage..roll a barbarian!

[bobbryan2]

True,:o but does heavy fort stop other things that proc on crit besides damage? Not sure this is all that relevant on mobs vs pvp consideration thou. Just slipped my mind on that part of the arguement, was just focused on the misconception about the impact of losing 2 AC being the same for everyone. It is not.

Yeah uh huh... gonna give me a list of creatures in the game that use icy burst?

[Ganidel]

Seems the only ppl that dont agree with this are those that think AC is a waste.

Also those same ppl arent saying my idea is bad, but just getting mad because some ppl dont want rage and they dont want to listen to what others have to say.

[SneakThief]

It would be much simpler to just let you right click on effect boxes (the ones in the upper right) and dismiss them than it would to have a confimation box. I would be all for that kind of implementation.

[hannika]

oooo me too then i could take off the mass camo that always gets thrown around.

[DragoonPenguin]

casters either need to call there about to cast it or we need something like this.




not gonna happen. casters dont care if an ac build or two (which isnt doing **** for dps compared to str builds) loose a marginal amount of ac, and theres no way in hell turbine has the time to implement a Rage-Off button.

[Spectralist]

http://ddo.enterwiki.net/page/Rage_(spell)

Target: One willing living creature per three levels, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart

just based on that there should be an option that pops up for that spell that asks if you want to accept it.

How about a checkbox in the gameplay options panel that makes you immune to voluntary rage spells. Less fiddly in battle.

Or the pop up window and an always deny checkbox and an always allow checkbox.

It sucks to be raged when you don't want it. And it really sucks trying not to rage the one fellow who doesn't want it. Since i play an AC monk and a melee sorc i run into both problems constantly. A solution of some sort would be fantastic. Hell i'd settle for an alchemical ritual that grants immunity to rage or something like that.

[branmakmuffin]

Since it's a d20 system, the 2 ac only matters when you're in the 20 point window. Which is why it matters more the higher your ac gets.

Because high level to hits are out of control.
A 10 percentile difference is a 10 percentile difference to a certain degree. But if your AC is 20 and you increase it to 22, that's a 10% AC jump. If it's 60 and you increase it to 62, that's a 3.33% AC jump.

The assertions that AC is broken at high levels of game play make even more appropriate the assertion that +2 AC doesn't matter at 62 AC.

But the OP has a point that characters should not be "forced" to be raged if the player doesn't want it.


Seems the only ppl that dont agree with this are those that think AC is a waste.

Also those same ppl arent saying my idea is bad, but just getting mad because some ppl dont want rage and they dont want to listen to what others have to say.
That's about the size of it. They are in the "the way I play is the best way to play. If you don't recognize this, you are an ignorant n00b" crowd.

[Griphon]

Lets see..

My first thought was.. Uh.. It's two points, really... C'mon.

And pretty much every thought after that.

Yes AC matters... I know this.

But here's the thing... It's the caster spell.. if you whine because he casts 'Rage'.. don't beg or get bent out of shape over 'Haste'.

Me? I've a Wiz and a Bard... Both of which are unable to cast 'Haste' or 'Rage'.. They can only cast 'Hage' or 'Raste'.. It's a two fer!

[sirgog]

Lets see..

My first thought was.. Uh.. It's two points, really... C'mon.

And pretty much every thought after that.

Yes AC matters... I know this.

But here's the thing... It's the caster spell.. if you whine because he casts 'Rage'.. don't beg or get bent out of shape over 'Haste'.

Me? I've a Wiz and a Bard... Both of which are unable to cast 'Haste' or 'Rage'.. They can only cast 'Hage' or 'Raste'.. It's a two fer!

That 'little 2 points' will mean triple incoming melee damage for someone in Shroud part 4-5 on normal with *exactly* 67 AC. (67 is the most extreme case, but someone with 66 or 68 AC will take double damage raged, and someone with 64-65 will take 50-67% more melee damage from Harry on normal)

Casting Rage on (some) AC builds is as dangerous to them as casting Greater Dispelling on a Barbarian, or casting Grease on the party cleric.

Rage is such a miniscule DPS increase (2-3% at most) that it's a really bad idea on these characters.

[cm2_supernova]

OOH, why don't we do that for every spell? So whenever I'm getting buffed I get little boxes like "Are you sure you want this Blur?", "Are you sure you want this Stoneskin?", "Are you sure you want this Jump?"



Because those buffs have no negative side effect that could undermine someones build...

[branmakmuffin]

But here's the thing... It's the caster spell.. if you whine because he casts 'Rage'.. don't beg or get bent out of shape over 'Haste'.
That makes absolutely no sense.

"I'm going to make dinner for you. You told me you like broccoli and hate eggplant. However, if you want to eat my broccoli, you have to eat my eggplant."

Possibly a common attitude, but a very immature one.

[dopey69]

not gonna happen. casters dont care if an ac build or two (which isnt doing **** for dps compared to str builds) loose a marginal amount of ac, and theres no way in hell turbine has the time to implement a Rage-Off button.

i am thinking an any buff off not just rage. click on it on your buff bar and poof gone...I like it ...go turbine, chop chop mod 10 no later or we will start to whine like you have never heard :)

[branmakmuffin]

i am thinking an any buff off not just rage. click on it on your buff bar and poof gone.
It'd be a nice way to get rid of those pesky Curses. ;)

[boldarblood]

I give them 3-5 seconds warning, then I cast rage. If you don't move in that time frame, not my concern. If they whine about it, I target them. If there is any quest where the loss of 2AC is so dramitic to the character, then that is a bad designed character. Aside from being the main tank on VOD or the short manning of quests, those 2AC are not a huge deal.

[Riggs]

As posted by some already, once you get a good ac, somewhere over 50, generally over 60 - 2 points is huge.

Had that exact thing happen in VOD, my ranger with a 68 ac was tanking the big guy. Get hit maybe once in a while, easy to fix.

Suddenly Im getting hammered - why? I notice rage on my buff bar. Then a min later by ac songs runs out and even after asking I dont get another for several minutes - several minutes of the cleric suddenly having to blow a lot more mana for absolutely no good reason other than an ignorant caster.

People who are throwing around a 3%, or even 5% number dont understand math, so please just step out now. It is the differential - as in, if a monster can only hit you 5% of the time on a d20 system, and suddenly they can hit you 15% of the time - thats an increase in damage being taken of 200%, or triple what you were taking before. getting hit 1 in 20 vs getting hit 1 in 6 or 7 swings is a massive difference.

The % goes down as your ac goes down, but every +1 ac matters over 50. Getting a -2 can easily mean taking double damage against devils.

Any caster, or critic, that thinks a +1 to damage on someone doing 30-60 points of damage on a hit is worth taking double damage in a fight needs to go back to grade 1 math class. And step out of any math debates until they understand the difference between 3% and 200% - guess what? its a big difference (spoiler alert!)

Or to reverse it - anyone who is dumping on the 'only -2 ac' thing, can turn it around. If your dps sucks so bad that +1 is really going to make a difference - maybe you should be rerolling rather than running raids. Because adding +1 to a 40 or 50 point hit really is only a 1-2% difference. So you take double damage just to kill something in 98 hits rather than 100 hits - woo uber.

Rage is great for casters and clerics, and barbs, and some other melee types that didnt bother with ac. The +16 hit points is nice, and +2 str can help with other things sometimes too. My wiz and bard cast rage all the time, and I always step to the side and say "rage on me whoever WANTS it".

Critics need to try playing a cleric, and then they will notice the big difference in their spell points when a group that is daking little damage suddenly starts taking twice as much damage. Since math is apparently too hard to figure out - try experience instead. And unless your handing the cleric mana pots to make up for your ignorance, you dont really get to argue cause your not the one dealing with the consequences.

Being able to self-dismiss buffs would be a great change, or simply as a workaround have a check box in your options "Do you accept rage y/n". You can turn it on for Part 1 of the Shroud, then turn it off for the rest.

People spend months grinding raids for a +3 ring, insight bonus, and tomes to max out stats etc. Having a yahoo dump a -2 ac on you every 5 min that goes and negates the benefit of the item you spend 2 months to get is extremely annoying, rude, and as the spell states - it is only suuposed to work on willing targets.

[Lew_Ahmaquissar]

It would be nice if we had the ability to right-click on the buff icon in the top right and remove said buff if it was in fact a buff that was recieved only by willing allies (as can be found in many other mmos). Maybe even allowing will saves etc. if that applies to the spell's original pnp format. This method would prevent the annoyance of having a box pop up in the middle of your screen in the midst of combat... which would surely be followed up by Greater Teleport to The Twilight Forge by many that I know and play with if said box did arrive... This method would also allow the players that shed so many tears over the horrific effects of the Rage spell onto their uber AC a way to stabilize their frustrations without it annoying the majority of players that actually see the benefit outweighing the -2 penalty.
I do believe we should have the ability to resist any buff that we should be allowed a save against or a simple denial of it's effects as is the intent of many of the original pnp versions of these spells. But in all honesty I hope turbine worries more about the important things that need to be added to the game first before such tiny tweaks such as this.
And before I get flamed for my opinions... I am one of those people who ran Titan an embaressing amount of times to get my Chattering Ring just to have it not really make a difference everytime someone casts Rage... and I still say the dps and extra hp far outweighs the two points of AC in almost every scenario. The fact is that the mobs have rediculous amounts of hp and if you are playing an AC build while Raged and are taking a mere -2 hit to your awesome AC shouldn't you yet still be amongst the best AC's in the party and therefore amongst the least burden on cleric resources, while even having an extra chunk of hp to help make up for it?

[deathtouch]

Yes please I work hard on my AC and it will save me going around to my guild mates house and inserting my foot into his arse :)

[boldarblood]

There are certain times when I will rage w/out warning. Part 4/5 of shroud, when fighting main guy I will rage/haste melee. The party is getting mass healed at this point and AC is not as important. There are certain quests, like mentioend above, VOD. I will make sure the AC build tanking main boss is not raged. But normal quests, you get a 3-5 second warning. If you don't move, you get rage.

[branmakmuffin]

People who are throwing around a 3%, or even 5% number dont understand math, so please just step out now. It is the differential - as in, if a monster can only hit you 5% of the time on a d20 system, and suddenly they can hit you 15% of the time - thats an increase in damage being taken of 200%, or triple what you were taking before. getting hit 1 in 20 vs getting hit 1 in 6 or 7 swings is a massive difference.
The problem with your reasoning here that what you spin is very situation specific. Without analyzing lots of possible combat situations, it's hard to say whether that +2 makes you go from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time (where it obviously makes no difference), or 95% of the time to 85% of the time, or 50% of the time to 40% of the time, or 15% of the time to 5% of the time, or even 5% of the time to 5% of the time (where the monster needs a natural 20 to hit you).

You cherry-picking "15% of the time versus 5% of the time" is very misleading and disingenuous, as if that's the only situation that ever applies.

The people saying it makes no difference are assuming that it takes you from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time.

[boldarblood]

The problem with your reasoning here that what you spin is very situation specific. Without analyzing lots of possible combat situations, it's hard to say whether that +2 makes you go from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time (where it obviously makes no difference), or 95% of the time to 85% of the time, or 50% of the time to 40% of the time, or 15% of the time to 5% of the time, or even 5% of the time to 5% of the time (where the monster needs a natural 20 to hit you).

You cherry-picking "15% of the time versus 5% of the time" is very misleading and disingenuous, as if that's the only situation that ever applies.

The people saying it makes no difference are assuming that it takes you from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time.

100% agree with Bran here.

[FluffyCalico]

Can we get a yes no box for cammo too?

[Ganidel]

Can we get a yes no box for cammo too?


This has already been brought up in this thread, and thats just an annoying spell, not a harmful one, like it is to some builds, so you cant realy compare it to Rage.

Yea its annoying, and it wouldnt be that hard to change camo to, but it shouldnt be compared to rage.

[FluffyCalico]

This has already been brought up in this thread, and thats just an annoying spell, not a harmful one, like it is to some builds, so you cant realy compare it to Rage.

Yea its annoying, and it wouldnt be that hard to change camo to, but it shouldnt be compared to rage.

Except rage is useful for 95% of characters 99% of the time and cammo is useful to 0% of them 99% of the time

[branmakmuffin]

Except rage is useful for 95% of characters 99% of the time and cammo is useful to 0% of them 99% of the time
And camo is harmful to 0% of characters 100% of the time, hence the reason you can't reasonably compare to to rage.

[FluffyCalico]

And camo is harmful to 0% of characters 100% of the time, hence the reason you can't reasonably compare to to rage.

Not true. Not being able to properly tell which character is mine or player x at a glance is harmful. Also not being able to see my character details is harmful to my enjoyment of the game. I pay just as much as you and what is harmful to my enjoyment means just as much as what harms yours.

When 5 names are piled up and everyone cammoed its hard to tell who is who as the names all run together.

And if they put it in for one spell all they have to do is copy the code for the other spell. Not like asking for 2 requries more work on the dev team. For that matter code both spells like greater teleport.

PS> Thinking about it you are right. Cammo is not the same it should just be removed from the game completely

[Junts]

i used to have strong feelings here but don't now that my ac-based prc's defensive stance will both strip rage from me and make me immune to it while I'm in it

so cool

[Ganidel]

i used to have strong feelings here but don't now that my ac-based prc's defensive stance will both strip rage from me and make me immune to it while I'm in it

so cool


You talking casted rage or other?

Because defensive stance doesnt remove or stop casted rage.


P.S. or you talking prestige?
If so only Pally, Dwarf and Fighter can do that, and thats not untell mod 9.

P.S. II Nvm you cant be talking prestige as casted Rage is a Moral bonus.

[Riggs]

The problem with your reasoning here that what you spin is very situation specific. Without analyzing lots of possible combat situations, it's hard to say whether that +2 makes you go from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time (where it obviously makes no difference), or 95% of the time to 85% of the time, or 50% of the time to 40% of the time, or 15% of the time to 5% of the time, or even 5% of the time to 5% of the time (where the monster needs a natural 20 to hit you).

You cherry-picking "15% of the time versus 5% of the time" is very misleading and disingenuous, as if that's the only situation that ever applies.

The people saying it makes no difference are assuming that it takes you from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time.


Anyone who has every made a high ac character knows what I am talking about, and the vast difference between 64 and 66, or 66 and 68.

Everyone else who hasnt, and are busy commenting on how people worried about ac are stupid - are only displaying their own for all to see.(I am referring to past people who have made disparaging comments about others worried about ac).

Saying rage will take you from 110% to 100% hits is absurd unless every single high level monster in the game has a +65 to hit, or every single melee you have has a sub 40 ac.

I have 3 characters with varying levels of decent ac, ranging up to 74(77 vs evil outsiders) buffed to a couple in the mid-50s range, and once my halfling ever gets icy raiments and a chattering ring he will be able to hit 80+ buffed. So yes I know how often I get hit when ppl toss out a rage without asking vs not being raged.

Yes my numbers are 'situation specific'...and that situation is most high level content.

Many high level quests and raids have devils.

Devils hit hard.

Many other monsters also have a very high to hit, which means dropping your high ac by 2 means you take a lot more damage.

I make most characters to be fairly self-sufficient - since you cant count on always having a cleric strapped to your back and spamming heals on you every second of a quest. If someone isnt johnny on the spot - 5-10 seconds of getting beat on by devils say = dead melee .

Or to put it simply - I dont care how other people play - but I absolutely care when someone else decides to drop my ac without my permission.

So make rage dismissable, or blockable please.

[branmakmuffin]

Not true. Not being able to properly tell which character is mine or player x at a glance is harmful.
OK, if you've got bad eyesight, my mistake.


Also not being able to see my character details is harmful to my enjoyment of the game.
And with this statement you merely enforce the assertion that camo and rage are different in this regard, because whatever harm rage causes (assuming it does) is not merely aesthetic.


When 5 names are piled up and everyone cammoed its hard to tell who is who as the names all run together.
Again, if you have bad eyesight, then it's understandable.


Anyone who has every made a high ac character knows what I am talking about, and the vast difference between 64 and 66, or 66 and 68.

Everyone else who hasnt, and are busy commenting on how people worried about ac are stupid - are only displaying their own for all to see.(I am referring to past people who have made disparaging comments about others worried about ac).

Saying rage will take you from 110% to 100% hits is absurd unless every single high level monster in the game has a +65 to hit, or every single melee you have has a sub 40 ac.
First, your evidence it anecdotal, which makes your previous "people don't understand math" comment kind of silly. Second, your "getting hit 15% of the time vs. getting hit 5% of the time" makes the damage comparison numbers stack up one way. Start raising each number and the damage comparison numbers don't stack the same way. Your "getting hit 1/20 vs. getting hit 1/7" will eventually become "getting hit 1/5 vs. getting hit 1/3." Of course getting hit 1/5 is better than getting hit 1/3, but the difference is not as dramatic as "1/20 vs. 1/7" (the character is only getting hit roughly 1.5 times as often rather than 3 times as often).

Without in-depth analysis, there is no way to tell exactly how valuable +2 AC is at any given level of the game. Which is of course why there are endless arguments about whether or not AC is worthwhile in high-level content.


Or to put it simply - I dont care how other people play - but I absolutely care when someone else decides to drop my ac without my permission.

So make rage dismissable, or blockable please.
We agree on that. And no more justification is needed than "I don't want my character raged."

[FluffyCalico]

OK, if you've got bad eyesight, my mistake.


And with this statement you merely enforce the assertion that camo and rage are different in this regard, because whatever harm rage causes (assuming it does) is not merely aesthetic.


Again, if you have bad eyesight, then it's understandable.

Nothing in this game is harmful except possibly stress and addiction.

Posting things that make no sence does not help you your case. 5+ names in 1 pile has noting to do with eyesight. It has to do with them all over lapping. Also when cammoed and everyone having min 2 weapon out yes the name is the only thing that makes people if the same race different, again this has nothing to do with eyesight.

Carry a dispell clickie and dispell yourself when you get rage and just go with your own self buffs. That way you don't have to worry about it. See all fixed. And yes sometimes I do that when I get cammoed. I also hate being cammoed until I log out and back in which happens alot. You can be on for 5 hrs and 1 cammo will sometimes last the whole time on parts of you til you log.

[cforce]

Ugh, this argument again? At least this is a new spin on the argument. Here are some practical truisms that I'll toss in this thread and then get back out -- no desire to sit through this inane argument one more time ;).

1. The Rage AC penalty affects every build differently, varying from no change to incoming damage to tripling incoming damage.
2. The most likely person to know the probable affect on any given character in a situation is that character's player.
3. Announcing Rage takes no effort, and puts the information necessary for 6 or 12 independent "best" decisions directly where it needs to go: to each player

Not announcing Rage is a tactical error: it costs nothing, and may increase your party's effectiveness by doing so. In situations where it doesn't, you've lost nothing by announcing. For the life of me, I can't understand why there's still an argument about this.

[CSFurious]

on my ranger, i like two spells casted constantly, haste & rage

if the caster does not cast rage, i have 7 rage clickies that i am constantly clicking with or without permission

sorry, but i like my rage & anyone who gets bent out of shape over -2 ac is a little mary

later

[eonfreon]

That makes absolutely no sense.

"I'm going to make dinner for you. You told me you like broccoli and hate eggplant. However, if you want to eat my broccoli, you have to eat my eggplant."

Possibly a common attitude, but a very immature one.

Oh, so you know my parents.

[eonfreon]

The problem with your reasoning here that what you spin is very situation specific. Without analyzing lots of possible combat situations, it's hard to say whether that +2 makes you go from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time (where it obviously makes no difference), or 95% of the time to 85% of the time, or 50% of the time to 40% of the time, or 15% of the time to 5% of the time, or even 5% of the time to 5% of the time (where the monster needs a natural 20 to hit you).

You cherry-picking "15% of the time versus 5% of the time" is very misleading and disingenuous, as if that's the only situation that ever applies.

The people saying it makes no difference are assuming that it takes you from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time.

Well yes, if you read just the line you quoted.
Read the whole post and you'll see that he explains the AC range he is talking about and it is backed by facts.
Here let me help you. He posted:

As posted by some already, once you get a good ac, somewhere over 50, generally over 60 - 2 points is huge.

Had that exact thing happen in VOD, my ranger with a 68 ac was tanking the big guy. Get hit maybe once in a while, easy to fix.

Suddenly Im getting hammered - why? I notice rage on my buff bar. Then a min later by ac songs runs out and even after asking I dont get another for several minutes - several minutes of the cleric suddenly having to blow a lot more mana for absolutely no good reason other than an ignorant caster.

People who are throwing around a 3%, or even 5% number dont understand math, so please just step out now. It is the differential - as in, if a monster can only hit you 5% of the time on a d20 system, and suddenly they can hit you 15% of the time - thats an increase in damage being taken of 200%, or triple what you were taking before. getting hit 1 in 20 vs getting hit 1 in 6 or 7 swings is a massive difference.

The % goes down as your ac goes down, but every +1 ac matters over 50. Getting a -2 can easily mean taking double damage against devils.



He's trying to fix the understanding of the people "assuming that it takes you from being hit 110% of the time to being hit 100% of the time" by explaining the difference from the perspective of someone with that actual high AC.
And you're saying it backwards anyway Bran. In your example it would take you from being hit 100% to 110%.
And this is also inaccurate as there is ALWAYS a chance to be missed by a melee attack no matter the To Hit- a "1" rolled by the enemy is an automatic miss.
If your AC "doesn't matter" (falls outside the 20 point spread) you get hit 95% of the time.
So, someone who's at that 95%, does not suffer an AC penalty in effect.
Someone, who was getting hit 90% of the time and lower, does suffer the AC penalty.
The lower the original chance of you getting hit the greater the noticeable effect of the AC Penalty.
The person who goes from 5% of being hit to 15% increased by 200%.
The person who goes from 50% of being hit to 60% increased by 20%.
The person who goes from 90% of being hit to 95% increased by 2.5%.
The person who goes from 95% of being hit to 95% increased by 0%.
I don't think he was "cherry-picking" anything.

[branmakmuffin]

Nothing in this game is harmful except possibly stress and addiction.
You're mixing apples and oranges: harm to the player and harm to the character.


I don't think he was "cherry-picking" anything.
Instead of replying to a post further back, reply to the one in which I already addressed your issues:



First, your evidence it anecdotal, which makes your previous "people don't understand math" comment kind of silly. Second, your "getting hit 15% of the time vs. getting hit 5% of the time" makes the damage comparison numbers stack up one way. Start raising each number and the damage comparison numbers don't stack the same way. Your "getting hit 1/20 vs. getting hit 1/7" will eventually become "getting hit 1/5 vs. getting hit 1/3." Of course getting hit 1/5 is better than getting hit 1/3, but the difference is not as dramatic as "1/20 vs. 1/7" (the character is only getting hit roughly 1.5 times as often rather than 3 times as often).

Without in-depth analysis, there is no way to tell exactly how valuable +2 AC is at any given level of the game. Which is of course why there are endless arguments about whether or not AC is worthwhile in high-level content.

[rimble]

DDO is such a great game, but it's missing so many minor features--like being able to dismiss buffs. I know D&D doesn't really support a user wanting to end a buff cast on him, but it seems pretty appropriate in this medium.

[Zenix_Leviticus]

I actually think the ops idea is a good one.


However, I am one of the idiots that don't put any stock into AC after level 12. Well....
That is not entirely true. I wll say that any AC under 60 doesn't matter after level 12.
If you have 60+ AC, then You are probably spending twice as long in a each fight so
your number of rolls vs your AC are greater.

If you are getting hit 3 times out of 20, then you are getting hit 17 times less than
any of the characters I play. I don't have one character that has an AC over 34.
As a matter of fact, I think most of my characters are in the 20's except for my
wizards that are about 16.


People talk about the monsters' 'to-hit' being out of control. My Ranger has a +36 to
+41 'to-hit' with both hands. The monsters have to have 50+ 'to-hit'. We had guy
in our guild that had a fighter with a standing 54 AC. If the monsters were missing him,
we couldn't tell it. He deleted the character because of his disappointment with
how much focus you have to put into AC to make it valuable.


You also have diminished returns on your investment into AC. I may be wrong, but
a roll of 20 always hits. That means with an AC of 20 or 120 you will always have a 5%
chance to be hit at the least.


Before you get out your algebra and calculus formulas on AC vs dps, I should let you
know that I have NEVER had to heal anyone so much as the guy that had 67 AC in
our Madstone run about 2 months ago. Everyone in the party had less than a 30 AC,
but he was the one I could NOT keep alive.. The barbarian with the 26 AC had 70% of
the kills and the least amount of healing from me. So here is the math behind that.

26 AC that does more DPS and is easy to heal > 67 AC pain in the butt to keep alive and very few kills.

You take that and multiply it by the square root of the DPS of a scimitar vs a
longsword and divide it by coefficient of friction of a cliff with the greese spell cast
on it. Then add the number of pinches of bat guano that you have in your backpack.

You still can't buy a cup of coffee with it..........

[branmakmuffin]

I actually think the ops idea is a good one.
As I wrote way back there, so do I, despite that I, like you it seems, consider all the flap about AC to be a tempest in a teapot. But even if AC is worthless, that doesn't mean the OP shouldn't be allowed to indulge.

[Zenako]

[B]
Before you get out your algebra and calculus formulas on AC vs dps, I should let you
know that I have NEVER had to heal anyone so much as the guy that had 67 AC in
our Madstone run about 2 months ago. Everyone in the party had less than a 30 AC,
but he was the one I could NOT keep alive.. The barbarian with the 26 AC had 70% of
the kills and the least amount of healing from me. So here is the math behind that.

26 AC that does more DPS and is easy to heal > 67 AC pain in the butt to keep alive and very few kills.

You take that and multiply it by the square root of the DPS of a scimitar vs a
longsword and divide it by coefficient of friction of a cliff with the greese spell cast
on it. Then add the number of pinches of bat guano that you have in your backpack.

You still can't buy a cup of coffee with it..........

Umm something doesnt add up there...in Madstone?? seriously? So someone claimed tohave 67 AC in Madstone and was still getting hammered? Find that pretty unlikely.

[Zenix_Leviticus]

As I wrote way back there, so do I, despite that I, like you it seems, consider all the flap about AC to be a tempest in a teapot. But even if AC is worthless, that doesn't mean the OP shouldn't be allowed to indulge.

Very true.

As a bard or a caster, I try to buff on the fly and not say 'everyone on me' and make
the whole group stop to get a buff. If you don't buff enough, people complain about
not getting their buffs. If you rage without broadcasting it, the one 750 AC build in
the party reads you the riot act.

If people were able to set an immunity to rage on the UI menu, that would be a win
win.

[Zenix_Leviticus]

Umm something doesnt add up there...in Madstone?? seriously? So someone claimed tohave 67 AC in Madstone and was still getting hammered? Find that pretty unlikely.


Alot of things I may be, but a lier iis not one of them. It was an elite run. The guy
told me he had a 64-67 AC and could break 70 with the right buffs and situations.
I didn't actually get to see his screen or log into his account. But he was definitely
getting the **** knocked out of him every few seconds.

Don't take my word for it, get your 64 -70 AC character and go in there and see if
you can be hit.

I personally can't do this experiment as I have no characters with over a 34 AC.

[Zenako]

Alot of things I may be, but a lier iis not one of them. It was an elite run. The guy
told me he had a 64-67 AC and could break 70 with the right buffs and situations.
I didn't actually get to see his screen or log into his account. But he was definitely
getting the **** knocked out of him every few seconds.

Don't take my word for it, get your 64 -70 AC character and go in there and see if
you can be hit.

I personally can't do this experiment as I have no characters with over a 34 AC.

Not questioning you per se, just the guy claming to have that high an AC and still getting hammered in that quest. I have run with guys with good AC that was lower than that and they semi breeze thru the quest, which is why I was wondering.

[branmakmuffin]

Alot of things I may be, but a lier iis not one of them. It was an elite run. The guy
told me he had a 64-67 AC and could break 70 with the right buffs and situations.
I didn't actually get to see his screen or log into his account.
Thus demonstrating your lack of dedication to the science of AC-ology. C'mon, man, those numbers aren't going to crunch themselves! ;)

[Oxvon]

When I cast rage on my caster I have people that don't want rage stand away from the group. Then I cast it on them :O. What I don't want is every time I get buffed to have to a pop up asking if I want the buff that would be awful.

In the end if you get rage and don't want it see if anyone can dispel you, and it will be gone....along with most of your other buffs :D

[Zenix_Leviticus]

Not questioning you per se, just the guy claming to have that high an AC and still getting hammered in that quest. I have run with guys with good AC that was lower than that and they semi breeze thru the quest, which is why I was wondering.

I was running with 4 others with lower than 34 AC and they weren't taking as much
damage either.


I don't know, but the list of equipment and all the math makes the whole AC build
just seem too high maintenance for me.



I just saw another post saying 'you need to have 60+ AC to be worthwhile.'


I guess I need to go home and delete all 18 of my characters.

[cforce]

Not questioning you per se, just the guy claming to have that high an AC and still getting hammered in that quest. I have run with guys with good AC that was lower than that and they semi breeze thru the quest, which is why I was wondering.

There's actually a pretty simple explanation: he was using Intimidate and/or using other aggro gathering tactics. (Getting first sight aggro, etc.) If someone has a 67 AC, there's a very good chance they've also got Intimidate.

If someone claims to have high AC, and is taking the most damage while lagging in the kill count, you can be nearly certain they're finding ways to keep aggro off of everyone else. (And, that if they weren't, you'd be healing the *rest* of the party a lot more.)

Or, they were simply lying about their 67 AC!

[Ganidel]

This has kinda turned in to a debate on how much AC you need to be effective.

Back on topic? Suggestion to stop casted rage being cast on you, or able to dismiss it.


also if you like your chars it doesnt matter what others say.

[Zenako]

There's actually a pretty simple explanation: he was using Intimidate and/or using other aggro gathering tactics. (Getting first sight aggro, etc.) If someone has a 67 AC, there's a very good chance they've also got Intimidate.

If someone claims to have high AC, and is taking the most damage while lagging in the kill count, you can be nearly certain they're finding ways to keep aggro off of everyone else. (And, that if they weren't, you'd be healing the *rest* of the party a lot more.)

Or, they were simply lying about their 67 AC!

Oh I agree, but if you don't have the AC to back up the Intim rolls, you are really just asking for a dirt nap real quick since you can outstrip the ability of almost any cleric to keep you in the upright and vertical position.

It could also be a simple case of someone overstating what they have or forgetting to actually put things into play (like CE...and forgetting to activate it). Have seen that, and those 5AC can be very important (given the concern over just 2 AC from Rage) (There back on topic:D)

Or the barkskin from pots was less than expected, or whatever. OR they forget to pop their minos helm back on after popping on an underwater action helm for example and thereby lose heavy fort which we all know is a death sentance in GH.

[cforce]

Back on topic? Suggestion to stop casted rage being cast on you, or able to dismiss it.


Topic? What was the topic again?

Oh, yeah. Two thumbs up to OP's suggestion: I'd take a confirm dialog with a "Don't Ever Ask Me This Again" checkbox, or the ability to dismiss the spell. Or a checkbox in the "Gameplay" section of the options screen.

I bet the first is the quickest to code: they've already got the hook for Raise Dead, and just need to add a "don't ever ask this again" piece of config.

[Zenix_Leviticus]

There's actually a pretty simple explanation: he was using Intimidate and/or using other aggro gathering tactics. (Getting first sight aggro, etc.) If someone has a 67 AC, there's a very good chance they've also got Intimidate.

If someone claims to have high AC, and is taking the most damage while lagging in the kill count, you can be nearly certain they're finding ways to keep aggro off of everyone else. (And, that if they weren't, you'd be healing the *rest* of the party a lot more.)

Or, they were simply lying about their 67 AC!


You know what, you are probably right on the intimdate thing. I think he was using
intimidate. However, I have run that many times before and many times since then
and have never had any problems healing the whole group of low AC characters.

I would have thought that with double the AC of anyone else that he couldn't be hit
except for a roll of 20. Maybe the ogres had loaded dice.


Even though I prefer DPS+HP vs AC, I still think the OP's suggestion is a good one. I
think it could be done via the gameplay UI.

[Junts]

You know what, you are probably right on the intimdate thing. I think he was using
intimidate. However, I have run that many times before and many times since then
and have never had any problems healing the whole group of low AC characters.

I would have thought that with double the AC of anyone else that he couldn't be hit
except for a roll of 20. Maybe the ogres had loaded dice.


Even though I prefer DPS+HP vs AC, I still think the OP's suggestion is a good one. I
think it could be done via the gameplay UI.

ogres have better than a 20/ critrange, as you have clearly noticed by now

also, ac doesn't help with spell damage

[branmakmuffin]

ac doesn't help with spell damage
That's why any melee without Evasion is gimped. :eek: