New dice notation, continued...

[Rumbaar]

We are working on improvements to weapon and spell tooltips for a future update and it's unfortunate that a portion of this work found its way into Update 5.

*snip*

- The tooltip situation cannot be changed for Update 5, but this doesn't mean that it won't get changed for a future update.

*snip*

So any news or timeline on the fact that it 'slipped' into Update 5 and it's fix from a forced inclusion to the option a user has to display this new dice notations [can't seem to find that Turbine quote about optional]?



Does this mean that the stats of an item will automatically update on the fly when affects are being applied to it?

So a Heal tooltip with Empowered Heal active will alter to reflect the 50% bonus? If so this is a plus. Which should be the fix not the change.That's the sort of thing I'm praying for, whether we ca do it or not is another story.


For what it's worth, it's not our intention to drain the D&D out of the game. We're proud that we're D&D, that our game is unique amongst the competition, etc.

*snip*

I myself look at a spell tooltip that says something to the effect of "2d6+1 per caster level (max n)" and think "This is a computer - why do I need to do the math in the middle of an action game? You know my caster level, just tell me the range. And if I'm running maximize, take that into account!" Sure, I want to have access to the formula too, but mostly I want to know the bottom line.As the change didn't make it a 'bottom' line tooltip like desired and thus not really making it user friendly to new or veteran players is there still works in place to make it a 'bottom' link change on the fly tooltip system?

[Rumbaar]

Oh and feel free to give any information/confirmation of when incorrect tooltips will be corrected as well. 50% = 75% on amp clickies, etc

[Rumbaar]

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/7656/btndownloadnowoff.png

Real D&D, that is one of your claims on the image used on the main site even ...

[JohnWarlock]

I still truly don't understand why the dice notation had to be changed, I still say that the korthos quests could explain the notation a bit better and people will eventually get used to it. Add Help files, but honestly it's been a while since it changed, I still can't get used to it, I still dislike it, and it still confuses me and disappoints me. I would say that the new notation is 5 to 15 more drops into the glass that is making me peruse other games since DDO is finally becoming too small.

I will say that the update 5 quests except for small problems, where fresh and interesting. (Except for Small problems, that had too much of a feel of WoW)

[zztophat]

I often find myself translating the dice notation back to DnD dice just to make sense of them.

[Rumbaar]

I still truly don't understand why the dice notation had to be changed, I still say that the korthos quests could explain the notation a bit better and people will eventually get used to it. Add Help files, but honestly it's been a while since it changed, I still can't get used to it, I still dislike it, and it still confuses me and disappoints me.Yes, they added the 'binding soul' tutorial that annoys you for all those Korthos quest givers. They've added those quest giver sign posts thingys, there is also the #tips for the dice notation. There were and are better ways to make the game more accessible to new players.


I often find myself translating the dice notation back to DnD dice just to make sense of them.I know tell me about it, I have to look for that section to understand what they are saying most times.

It's a shame that some don't have the true D&D Dice notations.

[AbsynthMinded]

How any of it 'surprises' anyone anymore is what surprises me. The rut of mediocrity is wide and deep by now.. They will have to strive to break out if anyone is going to be impressed with the work being produced.

[Bloodstealer]

I still truly don't understand why the dice notation had to be changed, I still say that the korthos quests could explain the notation a bit better and people will eventually get used to it. Add Help files, but honestly it's been a while since it changed, I still can't get used to it, I still dislike it, and it still confuses me and disappoints me. I would say that the new notation is 5 to 15 more drops into the glass that is making me peruse other games since DDO is finally becoming too small.

I will say that the update 5 quests except for small problems, where fresh and interesting. (Except for Small problems, that had too much of a feel of WoW)

8 yr olds may struggle with the formula you see... we never had that issue in the EU - 12yr olds had already taken the 11+ exams so they cud do it :D

If only I cud actually tryout the house p stuff - as soon as I enter any of the Partycrashers line etc I simple get a DDo client error.. every single time:(

[Bloodstealer]

Yes, they added the 'binding soul' tutorial that annoys you for all those Korthos quest givers. They've added those quest giver sign posts thingys, there is also the #tips for the dice notation. There were and are better ways to make the game more accessible to new players.

I know tell me about it, I have to look for that section to understand what they are saying most times.

It's a shame that some don't have the true D&D Dice notations.

Ahh the countless signposts - such a winner that one.. i mean I only get 50, maybe 60 "SHARE QUEST" requests now a little lower than before, so its a winner :)

[Hollowgolem]

Here's something to keep in mind for those of you so incensed at the use of a range instead of standard dice notation. Especially those of you who are making the claim that "it's not D&D."

It is. From back in the TSR days, things like "3-18" were the standard notation for any randomly-generated range.

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20070302a) is a nifty little article about the history of dice notation.

[Visty]

Here's something to keep in mind for those of you so incensed at the use of a range instead of standard dice notation. Especially those of you who are making the claim that "it's not D&D."

It is. From back in the TSR days, things like "3-18" were the standard notation for any randomly-generated range.

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20070302a) is a nifty little article about the history of dice notation.
it doesnt matter what was befor 3.5 as thats what the game is based on

[Cernunan]

Here's something to keep in mind for those of you so incensed at the use of a range instead of standard dice notation. Especially those of you who are making the claim that "it's not D&D."

It is. From back in the TSR days, things like "3-18" were the standard notation for any randomly-generated range.

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20070302a) is a nifty little article about the history of dice notation.

That article is a perfect example of why the Dx notation was adopted, as I remember the types of confusion and mistakes that can come from an undefined number range.

Yes it takes some time to explain dice ranges to new players. Just as the rules of ANY game must be explained to a brand new player. You do not just tell a new palyer to chess, "yea we play by moving the pieces around a board", then start playing, hoping they get it as you go along. Well you do if you always want to win ;)

I still feel it would be better to explain in tutorial about the dice, then to leave ambiguos descriptions about number ranges in every in game item/display which I feel are misleading.

[Memnir]

The new dice notation bothers me each and every time I see it.
For it to have been changed was foolhardy, and the faster it gets set right the better.

[AbsynthMinded]

Here's something to keep in mind for those of you so incensed at the use of a range instead of standard dice notation. Especially those of you who are making the claim that "it's not D&D."

It is. From back in the TSR days, things like "3-18" were the standard notation for any randomly-generated range.

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20070302a) is a nifty little article about the history of dice notation.


So the Basic Box set was 2nd Edition? In any event I had no issue learning the dice at 5yrs old, nor did anyone I played with. The grammatical issues of bad notation in the books was a different complaint. Further the 2nd ed dice notations persisted through many game worlds, books computer games for ages, became iconic for those geeks what played D&D, and spawned an entire business for making ever cooler dice in full matching sets or random selections for a kaleidoscope of different dice for different purposes. Plus those special, when you just gotta get a critical, dice that we treated with reverence, said kind words to as we set to roll them for glory..

Now its all a mass wad of d20's, and damage dice of various types, how boring, and now even more bland with flat number spreads.. One day I'll hand down my bag of odd dice to my children to play with in ways not intended. When they ask me what they were for I will tell them only of the golden ages in D&D, not the chaos and bad publishing in the early days, nor the plain oatmeal taste of the d20 systems today.

[Rumbaar]

Ahh the countless signposts - such a winner that one.. i mean I only get 50, maybe 60 "SHARE QUEST" requests now a little lower than before, so its a winner :)I know right, and more annoyingly is the gold cups that trick you into thinking that are a true quest giver, not a find a person quest giver ...


Here's something to keep in mind for those of you so incensed at the use of a range instead of standard dice notation. Especially those of you who are making the claim that "it's not D&D."

It is. From back in the TSR days, things like "3-18" were the standard notation for any randomly-generated range.

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20070302a) is a nifty little article about the history of dice notation.As others have pointed out, it was 'corrected' in 3.5 which is the basis for DDO [Real D&D]

I guess I'm not that popular with Turbine so don't expect an answer, but was hoping some follow up to the thoughts and idea MadFloyd was talking about in. Hopefully Update 7 will address this 'mistake'.

[wooshell]

Is the new range notation more accurate than the older dice notation? Can anyone point me to an empirical experiment how Turbine's server really roll?
e.g. 3-18, which will probably be implemented as 0-15 +3, suggests an even distribution of all values,
while 2d6 will give a probability peak at 7 and a minimum at 2 and 12..
Could it be that, even though it's one step further from DnD, the new notation is actually closer to reality?

[voidholder]

The new dice notation bothers me each and every time I see it.
For it to have been changed was foolhardy, and the faster it gets set right the better.

Exactly. It angers me that they have made something completely unnecessary, implemented it this badly and also moved away from the D&D roots by doing this.

[Antheal]

What about false, misleading or downright lying number ranges where "loaded dice" are concerned (such as Cure spells)?

Turbine, if you can't even get your own in-game descriptions to be accurate, how can we trust you to know what you're doing in other areas of the game?

[kudolink]

Is the new range notation more accurate than the older dice notation? Can anyone point me to an empirical experiment how Turbine's server really roll?
e.g. 3-18, which will probably be implemented as 0-15 +3, suggests an even distribution of all values,
while 2d6 will give a probability peak at 7 and a minimum at 2 and 12..
Could it be that, even though it's one step further from DnD, the new notation is actually closer to reality?
This is the right thing to say, no need to say "i don't like it" cause that's subjective while there are objective things to tell.

We can't have "simple" notation, cause "simple" notation is, in fact, wrong.

That's what descriptions are now: wrong descriptions, that lets ppl, new to the game, make wrong decisions.

Since that's a mistake, obviously done by someone who doesn't know anything of role playing games (I know how dices probabilities work since i was 10, as many many others do), please, correct it.

Thank you very much.

[ShotByBothSides]

I translate the new notation back to dice notation, then I understand it :)
Still dislike the new notation and wish it were either optional or just removed.

[Rumbaar]

It's a shame their excuse of making it more accessible to new players is counteracted by all the current incorrect information that makes the game not accessible to new players.

The only saving grace for this was the idea that the tooltips would update in real time to reflect any current enhancements that affect the item/spell. But without that, it's just a major failure on all sides.

I would like to see just one example of a new player saying I wish these dice notations [D&D] were easier to read, than they were. Has anyone seen one of those examples?

[Hollowgolem]

I translate the new notation back to dice notation, then I understand it :)
Still dislike the new notation and wish it were either optional or just removed.

Easier said than done, though.

3-18 could be 3d6 or 5d4-2, for instance. And the probability of any given number of those is different under both combinations.

[chester99]

you know, I really thought I would get over it.

just give it time.

I can't. it infuriates me every time. the dumb have won. again.

[AbsynthMinded]

It's only separation anxiety. Dice rolling geeks, and Vegas gamblers understand average probability. The new generation got no respect.. :rolleyes:

[AyumiAmakusa]

I feel so stupid seeing 1 to 6 instead of 1d6. I literally don't have to think anymore.

[danzig138]

Especially those of you who are making the claim that "it's not D&D."


it doesnt matter what was befor 3.5 as thats what the game is based on
Note who he says his statement is especially aimed at. I'd almost think you haven't read the number of post saying, oh, wait, here's an example:


also moved away from the D&D roots by doing this.
As I said before, I don't care about the notation. I read it easily either way (but that's me - I know from experience many people aren't good with 3 to 18 as they are with 3d6, so in that regard, I don't think it was a smart change), but everytime someone says "it's not D&D this way?!? Our roots?!?", it annoys me, much like the new notation annoys many of you. Because 3-18 may not be as clear to some, but it is part of D&D history.

[Rumbaar]

Because 3-18 may not be as clear to some, but it is part of D&D history.So is 2nd edition rules, which also have no relevance in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS ONLINE®: Eberron Unlimited™

[Hollowgolem]

That's poster #2 who made a meaningless non-sequitur argument on the subject.

This thread must have magical powers.

I mean, seriously, did you read his post?

[Rumbaar]

That's poster #2 who made a meaningless non-sequitur argument on the subject.

This thread must have magical powers.

I mean, seriously, did you read his post?Who are you talking too?

[Rumbaar]

With U7 fast approaching, is there any more [or any] word on when this will be fixed?

I find it funny with the 700+ post thread on this when it first came out, but no real player base care afterwards. No wonder Turbine doesn't feel they need to fix anything, the player base just forgets or looses interested after a short period of time anyways.

[Mockduck]

I still want this changed, it makes me sad every time I look at an item in DDO. The current setup is more confusing and less helpful to new players.

[Gennerik]

Could we just get both on the item? That way we get the 3.5 rules plus a quick range based on what is currently affecting us?

Example: Fireball with +50% damage bonus on a 10th level caster
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (15 - 90 damage)

Example: Cure Critical Wounds with no bonus damage cast by a level 9 caster
This spell functions like cure light wounds, except that it cures 4d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (13 - 41 damage).

I think this would be readable by both parties, and I especially like being able to see my modified damage range based on my current condition and equipment without giving up my D&D dice.

[Cam_Neely]

I often find myself translating the dice notation back to DnD dice just to make sense of them.

or, as has been stated numerous times, to actually understand what the damage is.

ie 2-12 dmg, do i have the same probability of getting a 2 as getting a 7?

[Flasharte]

i also prefer the dice notation as opposed to the range method.

regardless of whether the range method was used in the history of DnD, i know i never tossed a dart into a line of numbers to see what my damage was, i rolled dice. DDO has always been a substitue for DnD more than anything else for me, and i alweays like watching the dice roll just like in PnP.

I'd rather have the dice notation on top and the range as a footnote.

As far as making it easier for new players, i think that always assuming that new players are less intelligent than the old players (who did fine with the system for 3 years) is a bit insulting and worse perhaps self fulfilling.

if you cant figure out how to add dice, then perhaps its not the best game choice for you.

[kitsune_ko]

I despise the new "dumbed down" ranges. Like so many other have said and unfortunately apperently needs to be repeated ad nasum until Turbine cares to listen to their customers over this, there is a mirad of problems with this unneeded "update".

First of all, it is flat-out misleading and you cannot get much more basic in failure then this, "improving" something by making it more inaccurate. Simply saying that spell/weapon "x" has a range between 2-10 is being technically correct, is statistically wrong. I am not going to go into examples, because this horse has been flogged enough to prove this point already.

Which brings me the second point, it takes more space. A notation saying "X does 4D6+3 damage" takes up less space then "X does from 7 to 27 damage". The Seven Heavens help somone with multiple damage types on a weapon, the discription takes a paragraph to describe now. Hardly an improvement either. My greensteel weapon, and my shield discriptions both now scroll off the top off the screen when viewing the stats due to this exessive expanded breakdown tacked on.

Finally, as is mentioned by D&D fans, how the hell can you still call your game D&D-based when you just removed the D&D die notations used in D&D for decades? Without the die, its no longer D&D, its just WoW with robots.

I really hope this will be changed, but as there is no mention of anything of the sort from the Devs, I imagine they are satisified with the new inaccurate dumbed down discriptions.


Kit

[donfilibuster]

That kids won't understand it is not true and no excuse, when i have had kids play tabletop it's easy to pick up that the more dice and the bigger the dice the better, and such.
They even like to roll as often as possible, and beat the DM's rolls against or just roll high which is the win.
That's the game of d&d and the thrill of rolling a d20, min-maxing and number crunching is so not it.

Naturally in ddo it's a real time combat so the focus is on your control, and thus you want to know your dps.
Dice are visual, intuitive and fast, but won't let you keep track of dps like the floating hits and misses and hp bars.
Perhaps if rolls were highlighted in other ways there would be more interest or compatibility, like colored or flashing dice.
You can see when a player or foe makes a save, the blue hexagon, but not when you crit (and possibly crit too often).
So there's no sense of success from rolling the d20 (which leads to heroics and taking challenges), only from killing the monster fast (which leads to zerging and powerleveling).

[Rumbaar]

I guess Turbine didn't like my thread, got a negative for it. I'd get it reviewed ... but who could I go too :D

I've only seen posts in agreement of reversal. Has anyone said they like the new way better??

I just wish there was a follow up acknowledgment of it that was the case when it was first 'mistakenly' introduced in U5.

[Antheal]

Could we just get both on the item? That way we get the 3.5 rules plus a quick range based on what is currently affecting us?

Example: Fireball with +50% damage bonus on a 10th level caster
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (15 - 90 damage)

Example: Cure Critical Wounds with no bonus damage cast by a level 9 caster
This spell functions like cure light wounds, except that it cures 4d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (13 - 41 damage).

I think this would be readable by both parties, and I especially like being able to see my modified damage range based on my current condition and equipment without giving up my D&D dice.

Does that take into account the "loaded" nature of some damage dice?

Until the information is actually TRUTHFUL, the semantics are just secondary.

[IronClan]

So the Basic Box set was 2nd Edition? In any event I had no issue learning the dice at 5yrs old, nor did anyone I played with. The grammatical issues of bad notation in the books was a different complaint. Further the 2nd ed dice notations persisted through many game worlds, books computer games for ages, became iconic for those geeks what played D&D, and spawned an entire business for making ever cooler dice in full matching sets or random selections for a kaleidoscope of different dice for different purposes. Plus those special, when you just gotta get a critical, dice that we treated with reverence, said kind words to as we set to roll them for glory..

Now its all a mass wad of d20's, and damage dice of various types, how boring, and now even more bland with flat number spreads.. One day I'll hand down my bag of odd dice to my children to play with in ways not intended. When they ask me what they were for I will tell them only of the golden ages in D&D, not the chaos and bad publishing in the early days, nor the plain oatmeal taste of the d20 systems today.

wow I can't believe I pos rep'ed something you wrote :) er well I would have but I have handed out my allotment for the day... it seems. Well said sir.

[Lissyl]

Does that take into account the "loaded" nature of some damage dice?

Until the information is actually TRUTHFUL, the semantics are just secondary.

Check out the spells listed in the new Lammaland Release Notes. They DO show the loaded nature of the dice. I believe the example was on Lightning Bolt? It's under the 'fixed tooltips' portion of spells.