Let's Talk: Enhancements! [Archive] - Page 11 - Dungeons & Dragons Online Forums

Angelus_dead

01-18-2012, 10:34 PM

This is where your logic breaks down. Statement 2 is not true. A multiclass build can still afford just as many enhancement that are just different enhancements. Because number 1 is true number 2 cannot be because the different enhancements would still be useful.
That statement is obviously incorrect.

Here's an example of the logical failure:
Suppose you are playing a gambling game based on poker or blackjack. You're given 5 random cards and have to sort them into the best possible hand. But first you are given one chance to exchange one card for another card. You pick the card to trade, and then pick the letter A or B. If you say A, then the dealer shows you one new card and you can decide whether to keep it. If you say B, then the dealer shows you three new cards and you can decide to keep any one of them.
According to your logic, it is equally as good for the player to pick A or B. In either case he gets one new card for his hand, and one new card is as powerful as one card. Having more choices does not virtually triple the chance that one of the new cards will be a good one.

Aashrym

01-18-2012, 10:36 PM

I also dont buy the justification that if the new system with its arbitrary limitations allows you to build more powerful toons that this makes it better. Better is a matter of opinion, and I feel that allowing the players, and not the system, to decide which choices are "better" is the way to go. Arbitrary limitation is arbitrary.

Arbitrarily deciding all 10 trees could be allowed would still be arbitrary. Arbitrary does not make a decision poor. All arbitrary means is that a decision needed to be made and was based on what information the individual who made the choice had at hand. Information beyond what we have and therefore more likely to be a more informed decision than we could make and that would be reason enough for me to accept it over the concerns raised by those who do not share that same information.

Better is a matter of opinion and I don't think any of us has all of the information we would need to make an informed opinion on better yet. The only thing determinable is that some choices would not be available and some players highly value having those choices in the first place to the point debating it for thousands of posts without really even knowing what those choices are to which they might not have access. ;)

I'm not positive it is better yet. I am positive it won't make multiclasses obsolete.

I also realize dev's are not infallible can could have made a poor decision. Common sense leads me to believe they still have a better chance at the best course of action.

Aashrym

01-18-2012, 11:09 PM

That's not how it works. If several people have explained the same thing in several ways and others have come to understand the point, whether agreeing with it or not, and you still haven't understood it, despite the multitude of explanations, the fault does not lie with those trying to educate you.

And you keep on not comprehending. We aren't talking about power, we are talking about versatility. Everyone has to choose between getting higher level enhancements in one or two trees and getting higher level enhancements in one tree with some AP spread around lower level enhancements in a few trees. I've shown several examples of characters that would want 1-3 AP in 2-5 different trees on a character that has a lot, but not all of the enhancements in their primary tree, and why that would be attractive. It has nothing to do with whether or not the capstone is very attractive, or that they could get stronger enhancements if they focused more, because some people want that versatility!

A three tree limitation removes that versatility. Period. That would no longer be an option, even for people who do not share your view that obtaining capstone enhancements is the only way to play. The point of requesting the tree limitation be removed is so that the players that wish to do so may sacrifice some of their high-level powerful enhancements for more low-level ones that expand their options.

Going pure will be more attractive than it is now, because the options later in the build will be more attractive than they are now, irrespective of whether we have 3 trees or 100 trees. Multiclassing very rarely improves upon the core focus of a character, but gives a character more options, or expands upon their secondary focuses, usually. A Barbarian 18/Fighter 2 isn't better DPS than a pure Barbarian, but it has more options. The multiclassed Bard I used as an example earlier isn't a better buffer or caster than a pure bard, but he's a little bit better at melee and has the added role of being a trapmonkey. The tree limitation would say that, no, you can either be a halfway decent bard with trap skills or a halfway decent bard with mediocre melee, but you can't do both together. That's a problem.

I comprehend it just find. I disagree that is as big of a deal as some players are claiming. It's not a difficult concept to understand and explaining something to me that I am quite clear on repeatedly is not likely to change my opinion, nor is assuming I do not understand it just because I disagree.

That first commented you quoted was just me being a bit snarkey with A_D and leaving the qualifier I had behind it out could lead to an out of context interpretation.

A 3 tree system removes some choices. Period. The swap out system provides choices that a pure class does not have. Period. Having those choices is still versatility. Period.

Using the word period does not change my opinion either. It doesn't make your opinion fact either. Maybe is had more impact with me using it? :D

A bard with 16 bard levels can still take fighter 2 for extra feats and rogue 2 for trapskills and sneak attack and evasion. It would be easier for him to gain TWF and he would have free martial proficiency. Forgetting enhancements completely that would be versatility added over a few spell slots and casters levels.

That same bard can choose to use all 3 bard trees, drop 1 bard tree for a fighter or rogue tree, or focus heavily in one bard tree and take a fighter and a rogue tree for a bit variation. Or focus heavily in 1 bard tree and grab a few odds and ends from either 2 fighter or 2 rogue trees. He not only gained the bit of versatility in the class he gained versatility in his enhancement choices over a pure bard. A pure bard has no option to select more appropriate trees for his planned role and still has to give up access to all of the same enhancement options he would have now.

Some builds might need changed but I do not see that and an impact because by not moving to the tree system even if we could get all the PrE's completed that would still be an eventuality.

If you want to tell me again that means he loses options from a different tree I'm going to respond with a 'Thanks, Tips' because no doubt that would happen. That was obvious from the get go. If you tell me he needs some of those enhancements I'm going to respond with so does that pure bard who lost access to enhancements from the 3 tree system. Because that would be happening to pure classes too. Multiclasses are not special in that regard.

The difference between my opinion and your opinion has nothing to do with understanding. It has to do with how much we value being able have those choices and our perception of the overall impact. And based on your comments above what is an acceptable level of versatility and what is not an acceptable level of versatility. In the end I expect multiclassing to flourish just as much as it does now in the new system regardless of the concerns brought up.

If you don't agree with me I can understand that. If you tell me I don't understand something blatantly obvious I take that as an insult and I'm kindly requesting that you do not continue to state that knowing that I consider it an insult.

Aashrym

01-18-2012, 11:18 PM

Well said +1 and let's hope like hell its Option B, cause if its option A this game will change for the worse. Nobody wants another wow clone.

I think it is option B. There wouldn't be much point opening up a feedback thread if it were option A. :)

Aashrym

01-18-2012, 11:36 PM

Irony is when players who have been restricted to three tier 1 trees in the current system complain that they will be restricted to three tier 3 trees with the upcoming change.

Irony is when people complain about diversity when they will be getting 2 Trees open to them even if they pure class, as opposed to the one they have now.

I still would like to see how this plays out. Can we get moved to Lammy Land ASAP.

Everyone has a full list of enhancements available now. PrE's lock each other out and the full PrE lists do not exist yet but that access is there. The 3 tree system definitely locks out access to existing enhancements.

For pure classes it's the full range of upper level enhancements separated by tree and for multiclass it is full sets of trees. I'm not seeing much irony there. I disagree with that the overall impact looks negative but it doesn't take much to see how this can affect choices players do enjoy adding to their builds and it's a legitimate concern to lose an option someone does enjoy. I can disagree with opinions and explain mine but I cannot tell someone else what his is or consider it invalid. That's how an opinion works. ;)

My position is it might very well be worth it and players will adapt to the change with a new set of builds. That doesn't mean existing builds will not see impact.

I'd love to see it on Lamma but I doubt it's anywhere near ready for that. I'd be happy if we could see some actual trees and PrE's so we can see exactly what we are gaining versus what we would be losing.

That and no one is taking 3 tier III's because it costs 90 AP. It's not a multiclass option or a pure class options. You might be looking at 2 PrE III's with a pure class or a multiclass with a matching race to pull it off as the closest scenario.

Aashrym

01-18-2012, 11:56 PM

That statement is obviously incorrect.

Here's an example of the logical failure:
Suppose you are playing a gambling game based on poker or blackjack. You're given 5 random cards and have to sort them into the best possible hand. But first you are given one chance to exchange one card for another card. You pick the card to trade, and then pick the letter A or B. If you say A, then the dealer shows you one new card and you can decide whether to keep it. If you say B, then the dealer shows you three new cards and you can decide to keep any one of them.
According to your logic, it is equally as good for the player to pick A or B. In either case he gets one new card for his hand, and one new card is as powerful as one card. Having more choices does not virtually triple the chance that one of the new cards will be a good one.

The card game has random values and the tree lists do not. That's a failed analogy.

Your logic statements started with 'enhancements are good'. If that is true and we don't assign random values to those choices for no reason then one enhancement is good or another enhancement is good. Because both enhancements are good number 2 is still not validated as weaker.

Seeing what the values of those trees are will still allow for a good choice if all choices are good. That is how your logic statement worked. For that not to work statement 1 would need to be 'not all enhancements are of equal value to each build' which might be more accurate anyway. Unfortunately unequal values that are unknown are pretty much equal until they are known.

2 face down cards are indeterminable of the actual value of each until we flip them over. Once the dev's release what is in those trees that will be easier.

And before anyone decides to continue with that analogy stating that 3 upside down cards have a better chance of a higher value than 1 upside down card I shall point out that isn't true either if the choice of 1 card is a face card while the choice of 3 are all numbered 2-9.

The choice of 3 poor choices is not necessarily better than one good choice. Number of choices still has nothing to do with the individual value of each choice and we cannot see that yet.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 12:40 AM

The card game has random values and the tree lists do not. That's a failed analogy.

If we're interested in analyzing the rules as we know them so far, treating tree enhancement lists as random is useful. It lets us isolate the biases inherent to the rules system being discussed.

If a certain group of builds has more possible choices of sets of enhancements, we can expect that group of builds to be more powerful. If a certain group of builds has more possible choices of high level enhancements than another, we might expect that group of builds to be more powerful. It's not a guarantee, of course, but it's useful to think about what is likely given the system we do know about.

And before anyone decides to continue with that analogy stating that 3 upside down cards have a better chance of a higher value than 1 upside down card I shall point out that isn't true either if the choice of 1 card is a face card while the choice of 3 are all numbered 2-9.

If part of the rules established is that the 1 upside down card is a face card, and the 3 are numbered 2-9, then yes, that would be true. We should expect the 1 upside down card to be higher. But if the rules established are that purely random cards are in each pile, then we should expect the 3 face down cards to contain a higher value card than the 1 face down card. Your scenerio is one possible outcome, but not a given.

Since we know very little about what the enhancements will be, it's proper to treat them as essentially random for the purposes of reasoning our expectations based on what we do know.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 12:51 AM

If we're interested in analyzing the rules as we know them so far, treating tree enhancement lists as random is useful. It lets us isolate the biases inherent to the rules system being discussed.

If a certain group of builds has more possible choices of sets of enhancements, we can expect that group of builds to be more powerful. If a certain group of builds has more possible choices of high level enhancements than another, we might expect that group of builds to be more powerful. It's not a guarantee, of course, but it's useful to think about what is likely given the system we do know about.

If part of the rules established is that the 1 upside down card is a face card, and the 3 are numbered 2-9, then yes, that would be true. We should expect the 1 upside down card to be higher. But if the rules established are that purely random cards are in each pile, then we should expect the 3 face down cards to contain a higher value card than the 1 face down card. Your scenerio is one possible outcome, but not a given.

Since we know very little about what the enhancements will be, it's proper to treat them as essentially random for the purposes of reasoning our expectations based on what we do know.

All unknown values are equal so a choice 3 choices of equal value compared to 1 choice of equal value is a null gain. This is true because there is no random value range we can use to predict any probability.

I would stick with not all enhancements are suitable to all builds and therefore more choices is has the potential for better options. It works for the case of wanting more choices. ;)

It doesn't demonstrate to me that multiclassing will be a poor choice compared to a pure class (yet -- I still predict high level with splashing to carry the best benefits) but I think it's more accurate and reflects the actual issue players are facing with the loss on their builds more. I don't see multiclassing as the actual issue so much as the loss of specific builds.

EnjoyTheJourney

01-19-2012, 12:56 AM

I had a little fun playing with a kind of math that I've not done in a while (combinatorial mathematics), and I thought I'd post the results here. The provide some interesting food for thought, or at least an opportunity to see where I went wrong, if I did the calculations incorrectly.

For a brief period, let's assume we're not talking about DDO. We can talk instead about "Lack of Choice Online", the "poor" cousin of DDO that railroads players into choosing templates and is generally hostile to giving players control over their own characters. In fact, the dev team for that game is so nasty that they only give players the following choices to make:

Races: 4 choices - Human, Elf, Halfling, Dwarf
Classes: 4 choices -- Melee Tank, Ranged DPS / Pet Summoner, Healer, Elemental Mage
Enhancements: 2 choices -- choose 1 of 2 templates with all choices determined by the chosen template, and templates determined by your race and class
Gear: 2 choices -- choose from 2 outfits that are pre-selected for you according to your class and racial choice, no matter what you do or how well you play.
Feats: 2 choices -- Almost all feats except 1 are pre-determined for you; but you do, at least, get to choose between two different feats at one point in the leveling curve
Skills: 2 choices - there are two skill point templates from which you can choose when you make your character. You will never, ever, get to choose where to allocate skill points while leveling up.
Stats: 2 choices -- same as for skill points, choose at the beginning and never get another choice after that
Powers / Spells: No choices whatsoever.

To add another injustice to the litany of previous injustices, no substitutions, respecs, TRs, or swaps are allowed for anything. Ever. If you want to change a character, then you have no choice but to rebuild them from level 1 upward and you'll be facing exactly the same set of choice-killing restrictions as before, if you do.

These devs in "Lack of Choice Online" sure are nasty. I'll bet that when you do the math, you can see what a pathetically small amount of choice players have.

In fact, if you use the usual combinatorial formula, I believe you get 347,351,004,000 unique combinations*. You might claim that a lot of those are "wasted" choices (ie" obviously dysfunctional, unattractive). Fine, then, cut the amount down by 99.99% and you would still have well over 30 million choices.

* There is the thorny issue of how to account for any restrictions associated with race and class. I don't know how to calculate that, though, and I'd be interested to see how the numbers change. The number of combinations would still be larger than anybody could play through in 10 lifetimes, I'd wager, but they could admittedly be a lot lower.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 01:04 AM

All unknown values are equal so a choice 3 choices of equal value compared to 1 choice of equal value is a null gain. This is true because there is no random value range we can use to predict any probability.

Unknown variables are not "equal". It's completely absurd to assume that the value of all enhancements will be equal. As soon as there is any variance at all (which there obviously will be), more choices = more expected value. We don't know what the variance will be, but we don't have to. Any variance is sufficient. And non-zero variance is clearly far more likely than zero variance.

I would stick with not all enhancements are suitable to all builds and therefore more choices is has the potential for better options. It works for the case of wanting more choices. ;)

If we used the notion of "all unknowns are equal", then this argument fails just the same. Fortunately, that notion has no basis.

It doesn't demonstrate to me that multiclassing will be a poor choice compared to a pure class (yet -- I still predict high level with splashing to carry the best benefits)

We need to be differentiating between splashes, and deep multiclasses. Splashes are clearly in a good position. Deep multiclasses are clearly not.

But I wasn't really trying to persuade anyone of that in my post. Rather, to make it clear that we do have a basis for meaningful analysis given the info we have already. Throwing up out hands and pretending we can't know anything until we learn about all the enhancements gets us nothing useful.

Angelus_dead

01-19-2012, 01:16 AM

We need to be differentiating between splashes, and deep multiclasses. Splashes are clearly in a good position. Deep multiclasses are clearly not.
You don't really need to make that distinction. Analysis of the rules as known will clearly show that the 3 tree limitation will impair both splash and deep multiclasses, because both of them will be able to take fewer good enhancements than if the tree limit were higher.

We could go further and assume pretty safely that because higher-level enhancements will tend to be more powerful, characters who've taken 4-8 alternate levels will be relatively worse off than those who took only 1-3. But it's not necessary to go that far to reach the conclusion that a 3 tree limit makes multiclassing less powerful and less attractive.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 01:28 AM

Unknown variables are not "equal". It's completely absurd to assume that the value of all enhancements will be equal. As soon as there is any variance at all (which there obviously will be), more choices = more expected value. We don't know what the variance will be, but we don't have to. Any variance is sufficient. And non-zero variance is clearly far more likely than zero variance.

If we used the notion of "all unknowns are equal", then this argument fails just the same. Fortunately, that notion has no basis.

We need to be differentiating between splashes, and deep multiclasses. Splashes are clearly in a good position. Deep multiclasses are clearly not.

But I wasn't really trying to persuade anyone of that in my post. Rather, to make it clear that we do have a basis for meaningful analysis given the info we have already. Throwing up out hands and pretending we can't know anything until we learn about all the enhancements gets us nothing useful.

A person has no way to compare an unknown range of variance on separate unknown values. An unknown value is an unknown value and predetermining that the results of the ranges on one set of values can fall withing the range and or exceed the second set of values just because you want that possibility to exist for the sake of your argument does not make that happen. That defies the principal of unknown.

You may as well call the psychic hotline or use the magic 8 ball to come up with that conclusion.

I agree that not all enhancements will have equal value once we do know but I don't agree that they will not have good choices just because they have less choices. That is a point that I see people refusing to acknowledge. Just because there are less or different choices on in one aspect of multiclassing while there are different choices in other aspects does not make the remaining choices bad. The potential is there but the only way to consider that potential valid is with assumption. The assumption that the choices that become available will not be good choices.

Claiming it's a nerf when it's a change in how the choices are made hasn't done anyone a lot of good yet either because that remains to be seen. ;)

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 01:38 AM

You don't really need to make that distinction. Analysis of the rules as known will clearly show that the 3 tree limitation will impair both splash and deep multiclasses, because both of them will be able to take fewer good enhancements than if the tree limit were higher.

We could go further and assume pretty safely that because higher-level enhancements will tend to be more powerful, characters who've taken 4-8 alternate levels will be relatively worse off than those who took only 1-3. But it's not necessary to go that far to reach the conclusion that a 3 tree limit makes multiclassing less powerful and less attractive.

Your analysis is biased and based on the assumption that the choice of spending AP on more lower level enhancements guarantees more value than the choice of the spending those same AP on higher level enhancements instead and that is not a safe assumption.

Angelus_dead

01-19-2012, 01:45 AM

A person has no way to compare an unknown range of variance on separate unknown values.
People have Bayes Rule, Hidden Markov Models, and many other techniques for these kinds of comparisons.

Your analysis is biased and based on the assumption that the choice of spending AP on more lower level enhancements guarantees more value than the choice of the spending those same AP on higher level enhancements instead and that is not a safe assumption.
No, it is an extremely safe assumption.

There are only two possibilities:Sometimes spending 1 AP on a low level enhancement would provide more value than spending it on a higher-level one.
The designers are totally foolish and they added explicit rules to prevent something that no player would intentionally do anyhow.
It is remotely concievable that the devs will design enhancments so that spending higher points in every tree A is always better than spending lower points in every tree B. But if they had managed to achieve that, then there'd be no reason for them to create a 3 tree limit because nobody would want to use more than 2 trees anyway.

Angelus_dead

01-19-2012, 01:46 AM

Aldured

01-19-2012, 02:16 AM

First of all I wanted to say Im really happy to see the direction things are going. We have an open channel of communication, prestiges are getting finished (and even updated =D) not to mention the whole enhancement interface is going through a major overhaul ! ! !

Second Id like to share my optimism in that respect. It stands to reason that since I like this game, and the people who are handling this game as well as the comunity that loves it are investing so much effort into DDOs next phase, the outcome is most likely going to be positive.

I for one agree with the tree view, most OS sistems stopped using lists and embraced trees for a reason, clutter is frustating and often leads to poor decision making. As for the details (how many, and what will be in there) all Ill say is I keep to my optimism and hope to offer constructive criticism as soon as information becomes available.

One thing Id like to mention however (which I havent seen mentioned in the whopping 3000 posts so far) is the usefulness of skills. In the curent state of the game there are many skills that have really dated poorly or have little if any relevance (heal anybody?). Since most skills have enhancement counterparts, maybe it could be constructive to review these as well (hopefully in a seperate thread).

Well in anycase, I know you have a HUGE proyect on your hands but giving this topic a review might help fleshout some of the games weakeneses (ever had a rogue stay waaayyy behind because he was disarming traps?).

So once again, I do wish the best of luck to you and look forward to building with those new tools as they become available.

sephiroth1084

01-19-2012, 02:34 AM

Your analysis is biased and based on the assumption that the choice of spending AP on more lower level enhancements guarantees more value than the choice of the spending those same AP on higher level enhancements instead and that is not a safe assumption.
There's simply no way that higher level enhancements in your main class will yield the same kinds of benefits as low level enhancements in your other classes, hence my bard example. The bard capstones can have all the power in the world, but if you want to have that strong trapmonkey role as a secondary, they may not matter to you.

Razcar

01-19-2012, 05:11 AM

Can we get moved to Lammy Land ASAP.
No.
Devs, listen to the players, plan it carefully, programme it meticulously, test it thoroughly. Don't listen to the kids jumping up and down in the back seat. This is an important one. Don't rush. Do it right.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 07:21 AM

No.
Devs, listen to the players, plan it carefully, programme it meticulously, test it thoroughly. Don't listen to the kids jumping up and down in the back seat. This is an important one. Don't rush. Do it right.

Qft.

orakio

01-19-2012, 07:23 AM

No, it is an extremely safe assumption.

There are only two possibilities:Sometimes spending 1 AP on a low level enhancement would provide more value than spending it on a higher-level one.
The designers are totally foolish and they added explicit rules to prevent something that no player would intentionally do anyhow.
It is remotely concievable that the devs will design enhancments so that spending higher points in every tree A is always better than spending lower points in every tree B. But if they had managed to achieve that, then there'd be no reason for them to create a 3 tree limit because nobody would want to use more than 2 trees anyway.

No, there are not only 2 possiblities.
1) Sometimes spending 1 AP on a low level enhancement would provide more value than on a higher-level one
2) Sometimes spending 1 AP on a higher level enhancement would provide more value than a lower-level one
3) 1 AP on higher level enhancements may have the exact same value as 1 AP on lower level ones.
4) Some enhancements benefit classes to different degrees, example: attackspeed or Double attack is very good for monks, crit multiplier a bit less so due to their crit profile.

You are right, it is possible that higher points are better or lower points are better but wouldn't it seem like a smart dev team would make each point invested equivalent to eachother to prevent the balance issues this may cause? There is a very real and likely possibility in the new system that you will not have access to the exact same sets of enhancements you used to have. That is even true for some pure builds as well (FvS wants to go Divine Avenger+Avatar of Vengeance, may not be able to reach high tier positive energy enhancements). But you can't definitively say that your enhancement options are somehow worse as a multiclass without knowing what the enhancements are.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 07:38 AM

But you can't definitively say that your enhancement options are somehow worse as a multiclass without knowing what the enhancements are.

Two old jokes that I seem to apply here with some.

You can always tell a statistician, but you cant tell him much.

A statistician is a person who diligently collects facts and data and then carefully draws confusions about them.

The numbers on the last few pages mean very little without knowing the values of the numbers quantified (what the new set of enhancements are). Access rules will also change the formulas perpetrated here, dynamically at best, and possibly renders all said pessimism null and void.

Imho, the optimists are seriously kicking butt in this thread. There's just not much left to say until we hear more.

UniqueToo

01-19-2012, 07:49 AM

Why not add a single extra tree for multi's secondary classes (made up of nearly all options from the other trees in that class, but without the bonuses)? Give them a generic (multi-specific) path option (and even possibly different prestige).

P.S. I could swear 120 of these pages are the same few people talking... A rest? I think we got your points already.

nibel

01-19-2012, 07:53 AM

Would be asking too much to the devs to show only one full* tree, so people stop claiming that only the enhancements that are in the game now will be on the 3-tree system?

I mean, some time ago Eladrin gave some hints on the tempest tree (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4250802&postcount=609). At least half the names he gave are new, and some aren't ranger lines today (haste boost). And some lines make sense to be split on the 3 class lines, so a pure class will be better than a multiclass. Eg, I think lingering song is one of those. A pure bard will have better and longer songs investing in all three lines, while the multiclass can choose to fit the line that linger the song most (Virtuoso), or have shorter songs for other benefits (warchanter). Benefits that we have no way to say what will be at the time.

*Subject to future changes, yadda, yadda, yadda

Scraap

01-19-2012, 07:54 AM

Qft.

We agree on something. Time to check the temperature Down Below.

So again, devs: You've mentioned lowering the bar on feat requirements for enhancement lines, and PMs mention additional level splits. What are we looking at in terms of required class levels for unlocking numerical augmentations, and what proportion of those will be making up the various tree lines as opposed to applications of those numbers? It makes quite a bit of difference in the resultant outcome of other aspects, such as tree trades, and the provided enhancement examples thusfar would seem to indicate that that is going to continue to be the lions share.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 09:03 AM

A person has no way to compare an unknown range of variance on separate unknown values. An unknown value is an unknown value and predetermining that the results of the ranges on one set of values can fall withing the range and or exceed the second set of values just because you want that possibility to exist for the sake of your argument does not make that happen. That defies the principal of unknown.

The problem is you are demanding deductive proof, when inductive reasoning is more than sufficient in this context. Deductive reasoning asks "what is guaranteed to be true given what we know?", whereas inductive reasoning asks "what is the most likely (or well-supported) hypothesis given what we know?"

You are applying a stricter standard of proof to a discussion about MMO game design, than is applied by nuclear physicists, rocket scientists, medical researchers, and judges/juries in criminal trials of capital offenses. Sherlock Holmes is a master of induction, not deduction.

Do we know with absolute certainty what range of values there will be? No. We don't really know that about todays game, even, given how many hidden or not-well-documented effects there are. But you would have us be paralyzed into uselessness rather than do the best we can.

Consider two hypotheses:

1) Under the new system, every enhancement will have exactly equal value to any given build.
2) Under the new system, there will be at least some variance in the value of enhancements to any given build.

Is either "guaranteed" to be true? No. But is one far more likely? Obviously. #1 is just laughably absurd, in comparison to #2.

Now, if we take #2 as the most likely hypothesis, consider these hypotheses:

3) Under the new system, having more choices of enhancements will tend to produce more powerful builds
4) Under the new system, number of choices will not tend to produce more powerful builds

Now, since we've already established that hypothesis #2 is most likely, it's clear that #3 is more likely than #4. As long as there is any variance in enhancement value, being able to choose the best of them out of a larger set is likely to produce a more powerful set of enhancements, than if you are chosing from a smaller set. Again, is it guaranteed? No. But it's clearly the most likely hypothesis.

I agree that not all enhancements will have equal value once we do know but I don't agree that they will not have good choices just because they have less choices. That is a point that I see people refusing to acknowledge.

Then consider it acknowledged. Except that it is besides the point, because simply being a possible outcome doesn't mean it's a likely outcome.

Claiming it's a nerf when it's a change in how the choices are made hasn't done anyone a lot of good yet either because that remains to be seen. ;)

Oh, so now it's OK to draw absolute conclusions on the basis of limited info? We don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

Chai

01-19-2012, 09:04 AM

People are still talking about needing to know the actual enhancements before we can even talk about any part of the system. If this was the case this thread would have zero posts in it.

They have already fed us some information, and the information we have is what we are talking about. There are things that can be rightfully concluded without having to know what goes into those boxes.

We arent talking about enhancements individually being better or worse as a multiclass. We are talking about number of options being more or less. If they give us a bunch of "better" (more powerful) options but in doing so everyone just becomes a cookie cutter because theres one or two obvious ways to build toons.

The people with accounts loaded with multiclass toons such as 12-6-2 splits are the most concerned, and for a few reasons. The justification (and assumption) seems to be that if we can build more powerful toons then its all good, but if those "more powerful" toons have to be built pure or lightly splashed, this is committing players with heavily multiclassed builds to TRs they normally wouldnt have done, or multiple LRs they normally wouldnt have done. Who picks up the cost on that? Before you answer, I dont agree with the justification that Turbine completely destroyed peoples builds in the past in the other revamps, so its just cool for them to do that here as well.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 09:10 AM

Snip.. again.. and again.....and

Optimism wins (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=358497). Just have faith and let Turbine work. Lets see what they can do. This is looking good, we tried to tell ya ;)

Note to Turbine almost all of us agree on: Please, take your time.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 09:15 AM

Optimism wins (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=358497). Just have faith and let Turbine work. Lets see what they can do. This is looking good, we tried to tell ya ;)

I don't see what that thread has to do with the discussion in this thread. Please clarify.

And besides, who made you the arbiter of optimism? I am optimistic that the system will get fixed and improved. Precisely because of how much feedback there is on how bad it is currently. But I wouldn't be optimistic if we all just sat on our hands, and smiled and nodded, while we waited for every single bit of info before giving any meaningful feadback.

Chai

01-19-2012, 09:19 AM

Optimism wins (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=358497). Just have faith and let Turbine work. Lets see what they can do. This is looking good, we tried to tell ya ;)

Note to Turbine almost all of us agree on: Please, take your time.

Those are two completely different topics of conversation. How does one have to do with the other?

Calling yourself and those who agree with you optimists and those who disagree with you pessimists is convenient isnt it?

I disagree with that extreme point of view to have to personally label people negatively simply due to disagreement, and of course, give yourself the more advantageous label and others the same, simply because they agree with you. Its just as bad as those who call people who stand up for Turbines decision making fanbois. It not only far from being correct, but its also not contributing to the discussion.

We point out one flaw in the system, and now we are pessimists and are never happy? I dont feel you are familiar with my post history then, because there are quite a few things Turbine has done I agree with, and quite a few I disagree with.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 09:20 AM

And besides, who made you the arbiter of optimism? I am optimistic that the system will get fixed and improved. Precisely because of how much feedback there is on how bad it is currently. But I wouldn't be optimistic if we all just sat on our hands, and smiled and nodded, while we waited for every single bit of info before giving any meaningful feadback.

Not the point I was making. Meaningful feedback has been coming in from both sides of the debate. I'm not disagreeing with you one bit.

But, after reading 2500+ posts, lets be honest, some of us were overly pessimistic and some of us were cautiously optimistic. I havent really seen anyone admit they were euphoric.

Those of us who were cautiously optimistic deserve our say too... and I just said mine.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 09:29 AM

Not the point I was making. Meaningful feedback has been coming in from both sides of the debate. I'm not disagreeing with you one bit.

But, after reading 2500+ posts, lets be honest, some of us were overly pessimistic and some of us were cautiously optimistic. I havent really seen anyone admit they were euphoric.

Those of us who were cautiously optimistic deserve our say too... and I just said mine.

I think you're confusing concern about the system as currently described, with pessimism about what system we will ultimately be getting. We are discussing the specific set of rules that has been described by the devs in this thread. Comments or concerns about that set of rules are neither inherently optimistic nor pessimistic.

I would certainly describe myself as cautiously optimistic. So don't cast yourself as the side of "optimists". Unless, of course, when you said the "optimists are kicking serious butt" you were in fact referring to me and others who have been expressing serious concerns about the currently described system, in addition to yourself and others of similar opinions? But that wasn't my impression. But if so, exactly who are the non-optimists?

And I'm still not seeing what the Underdark expansion has to do with this thread.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 09:36 AM

I would certainly describe myself as cautiously optimistic.

If you would like to cast yourself as cautiously optimistic about the new UI, that's fine by me. I dont believe that was your original outlook, but I could be wrong. Just the way I see it, I have enjoyed reading everyone's feedback, even those who I perceived to be overly negative.

What was getting to be "a bit much" in this thread wasn't the constructive feedback, which poured in from both sides, but the relentless repetition of the same stuff over and over. Still an epic thread tho, but like I said before, I dont think we are that far apart at this point.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 09:45 AM

And I'm still not seeing what the Underdark expansion has to do with this thread.

One of the links between the two threads is that some of the same people who swore Turbines actions and behaviors here are glowing in the new thread. Disingenuous? That was my original thought. But ya know what, if Turbine puts words into actions and turns those who were cautiously pessimistic into cautiously optimistic, that's not a bad thing at all.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 09:49 AM

If you would like to cast yourself as cautiously optimistic about the new UI, that's fine by me. I dont believe that was your original outlook, but I could be wrong. Just the way I see it, I have enjoyed reading everyone's feedback, even those who I perceived to be overly negative.

If anything, my assessment of the existing system has only gotten worse. The more I think about the Racial PrE system, the more terrible I think it is.

But that doesn't mean I'm not cautiously optimistic about where we'll end up. I don't like the current set of rules. But the fact that we're learning about it in a feedback thread before they've even been coded (from the sounds of things), as opposed to in release notes, is something to be optimistic about.

What was getting to be "a bit much" in this thread wasn't the constructive feedback, which poured in from both sides, but the relentless repetition of the same stuff over and over. Still an epic thread tho, but like I said before, I dont think we are that far apart at this point.

Sure, I've repeated myself. To try to clarify my point. Because I saw it being consistently misrepresented, or responded to in ways that seemed entirely tangential to it. When I see responses that don't seem to actually rebut the point I was making, I have to consider that perhaps I wasn't clear in the expression of my point (or that I'm misunderstanding the rebuttal, but there's not much I can do about that besides ask for clarification, which I often have done).

But at this point, I've largely given up trying to discuss the actual system any further. What I am mostly concerned about is this notion that you and Ash both have that it's somehow better to hold out for more info, than to do the best we can with the info we do have. And we do have quite a bit of it. Inductive reasoning is a powerful and very useful tool, and we should not be restricting ourselves from it. Throughout this feedback process, and likely even after release, there will always be things we don't know, that just might, in theory, tip the analysis either way. Inductive reasoning helps us understand the unknowns, and comment on what we do know.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 09:52 AM

One of the links between the two threads is that some of the same people who swore Turbines actions and behaviors here are glowing in the new thread. Disingenuous? That was my original thought. But ya know what, if Turbine puts words into actions and turns those who were cautiously pessimistic into cautiously optimistic, that's not a bad thing at all.

Even if we equate concern with "pessimism", in what way is it disingenuous to be optimistic about one set of changes, and pessimistic about another? From the sounds of it, the only thing in that new announcement that comes even close to how revolutionary and game-changing these new enhancements are, is the level cap raise. And we have no info to judge that. We have lots of info about the new enhancement system.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 09:56 AM

If anything, my assessment of the existing system has only gotten worse. The more I think about the Racial PrE system, the more terrible I think it is.

But that doesn't mean I'm not cautiously optimistic about where we'll end up. I don't like the current set of rules. But the fact that we're learning about it in a feedback thread before they've even been coded (from the sounds of things), as opposed to in release notes, is something to be optimistic about.

Sure, I've repeated myself. To try to clarify my point. Because I saw it being consistently misrepresented, or responded to in ways that seemed entirely tangential to it. When I see responses that don't seem to actually rebut the point I was making, I have to consider that perhaps I wasn't clear in the expression of my point (or that I'm misunderstanding the rebuttal, but there's not much I can do about that besides ask for clarification, which I often have done).

But at this point, I've largely given up trying to discuss the actual system any further. What I am mostly concerned about is this notion that you and Ash both have that it's somehow better to hold out for more info, than to do the best we can with the info we do have. And we do have quite a bit of it. Inductive reasoning is a powerful and very useful tool, and we should not be restricting ourselves from it. Throughout this feedback process, and likely even after release, there will always be things we don't know, that just might, in theory, tip the analysis either way. Inductive reasoning helps us understand the unknowns, and comment on what we do know.

Just because Ash and I (and many others) have held much of our judgment close to the chest doesn't mean we haven't given our constructive critique of the new system. We simply have held back on making as many assumptions. In truth, assumptions themselves werent bad. Great debate and commentary, albiet we probably spent far too much of our time in here this week ;)

Lets just say I agree with what you say here, with the aforementioned notation.

Valezra

01-19-2012, 11:06 AM

So here is the mockup that was promised.

To make it easier to digest, I’ve copy-pasted a section direct from Eladrin’s spec below. Again, all of this is subject to change.

In practice, the trees will probably look different, with more sideways arrows, etc but it should give you a pretty good idea of what we have in mind.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup.jpg

A single classed character will have their racial tree and the three trees that are associated with their class displayed. These trees correspond to the three Prestige Enhancement lines tied to the class.

A multiclassed character can change a class enhancement tree with 0 points spent in it to a different class tree that is available to them using the drop down menus. For example, if this character multiclassed into Wizard, it could change the Rogue: Thief-Acrobat tree into Wizard: Archmage, Wizard: Pale Master, or Wizard: Wild Mage. Trees that have points spent in them cannot be changed to other trees. The racial tree cannot be swapped out for a different one.

Each race will have an enhancement that adds another specific enhancement tree to the character’s available list of trees. Elves and Half-Elves, for instance, gain access to the Arcane Archer tree if they take the racial enhancement to unlock it. Dwarves gain access to Stalwart Defender. The player can choose to unlock the tree and then not use it, if they so desire. Trees unlocked in this way use the character’s total character level instead of class level for prerequisites and effects.

Initially, players will have the bottom row of enhancements available to them. As players spend enhancement points within the current tree, additional tiers of enhancements will become available to them. Enhancements will no longer have a “total action points spent” prerequisite, this is replaced by a “total action points spent in this tree” prerequisite, and is defined by the tier the enhancement is on. (5 * [Tier of Enhancement – 1])

Most enhancements will be able to be selected multiple times – the player will do this by selecting the same enhancement repeatedly, incrementing the number of times it has been taken, giving greater effects, up to a limit. (For example, Sneak Attack Damage can be taken 5 times.) High tiers of most enhancements will have class level requirements.

Enhancements that are unavailable to the player are greyed out. Enhancements can still have feat or class level prerequisites – if a player does not meet these prerequisites, a red border or lock display is added to the icon. This should not be subtle, it should be absolutely clear to the player that there’s something wrong here, and they need to do something if they want this enhancement. Players can figure out what requirements they’re missing by viewing the tooltip.

Some enhancements have other enhancements as a prerequisites chain. These are shown in the mockup with arrows in between them. Knife Attack leads to Knife Damage, which then leads to Knife Specialization. An enhancement that has another as a prerequisite cannot have a rank higher than its prerequisite, so to get Knife Damage III, the player must have Knife Attack III. To get Knife Spec IV, the player must have both Knife Attack IV and Knife Damage IV. Most enhancements cost 1 Action Point. Rare ones will cost more. Costs do not increase each time you take an enhancement.

Each enhancement tree will have a line of enhancements that are automatically granted to the character based on the number of points spent in that tree. For example, when a character puts any 10 points in the Assassin tree, they will gain the Assassin I enhancement if they meet all other prerequisites. (Rogue level 6 in this case.) If they do not meet the prerequisites, then they will NOT gain the enhancement until they do. (Any time a player modifies their feats or gains a level, we’ll have to check access to the auto-granted enhancements.) These are shown in the mockup as the horizontal row of enhancements beneath the tree name.

Players should be able to spend action points anywhere in the world by opening up the Enhancements UI, without needing to seek out a trainer. Enhancements can be reset on a tree-by-tree basis using the “Reset Enhancements” button near the bottom of each pane, which is only available in public areas. This has a platinum cost associated with it based on the number of points currently spent in the tree.

So basically after 6 years you finally figured out that all the other MMO's had it right? This looks like a page taken out of any other joe-schmoe MMO. Why not take the opportunity to do something totally different? Is there not a creative bone left in Turbine? Very sad.

Val

Chai

01-19-2012, 11:17 AM

One of the links between the two threads is that some of the same people who swore Turbines actions and behaviors here are glowing in the new thread. Disingenuous? That was my original thought. But ya know what, if Turbine puts words into actions and turns those who were cautiously pessimistic into cautiously optimistic, that's not a bad thing at all.

I have about a 50% track record when agreeing or disagreeing with what they have done with this game over the years.

There are quite a few examples of each. I dont find it odd at all that I can agree with one change Turbine makes and disagree with another. I -also- dont find it odd at all that I can agree with a user like yourself or Dkyle on one issue and disagree on another issue.

One of the reasons that Turbines game stays alive is their ability to cater to multiple different mindsets of players at the same time.

Silverleafeon

01-19-2012, 11:33 AM

QUOTE="It will also be the foundation for some future work."/QUOTE
(from post #1: http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4247024&postcount=1)

Would hope you will consider, revise, and playtest the following for future work:

*****Creating a Past Life enhancement tree. (Does not count towards the three tree limit).

*****Containing active purchasable past life feats for a signifcant amount of action points.
(Including Completionist feat.)

Perhaps 5 action points to purchase any active past life feat.
Perhaps 2 action points to purchase Completionist.

*****Granting +1 bonus action points per each past life (possibly restricted to this tree).

*****Creating active and passive Racial Past Lifes, granted from each race one has played in a past life (even if the bonuses are small).

Perhaps something like this:

passive Dwarf grants +1 balance (stackable three times)
active feat purchasable with 3 action points Athletic or Great Fortitude
http://ddowiki.com/page/Athletic
http://ddowiki.com/page/Great_Fortitude

passive Halfling grants +1 bluff (stackable three times)
active purchasable with 3 action points Nimble Fingers or Luck of Heroes
http://ddowiki.com/page/Nimble_Fingers
http://ddowiki.com/page/Luck_of_Heroes

passive Half Orc grants +1 intimidate (stackable three times)
active feat purchasable with 3 action points Acrobatic or Bullheaded
http://ddowiki.com/page/Bullheaded
http://ddowiki.com/page/Acrobatic

passive Half Elf grants +1 diplomacy (stackable three times)
active feat purchasable with 3 action points Alertness or Negotiator
http://ddowiki.com/page/Alertness
http://ddowiki.com/page/Negotiator

passive Elf grants +1 concentration (stackable three times)
active feat purchasable with 3 action points Alertness or Combat Casting
http://ddowiki.com/page/Alertness
http://ddowiki.com/page/Combat_Casting

passive Drow grants +1 perform (stackable three times)
active feat purchasable with 3 action points Stealthy or Snake Blood
http://ddowiki.com/page/Stealthy
http://ddowiki.com/page/Snake_Blood

passive Warforged grants +3 repair (stackable three times)
active feat purchasable with 3 action point Discipline or Self Sufficent
http://ddowiki.com/page/Discipline
http://ddowiki.com/page/Self_Sufficient

passive Human grants +1 haggle (stackable three times)
Active feat purchasable with 3 action points Skill Focus (limit one choice)
http://ddowiki.com/page/Skill_Focus

{granting action point purchase of these interesting feats gives new life to them}

*****Creating a "Racial Symbiosis Feat" unlocked and purchasable for 2 action points by having 1 each of all the passive Racial Past Life Feats.
"insert cool description here" ~ gain +2 stackable bonus to all your skill checks and saving throws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

*****Going ahead with the promised project that all +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6 tomes will not be lost when one TRs.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 12:24 PM

So, most of this thread I've railing against the 3 tree limit, but I thought that maybe I'd try to see what kind of system could actually keep that limit, and still make sense. My goal is to preserve the thing that lots of people are excited about (the Racial PrE opening up combos of classes and PrEs currently impossible), but eliminate what I perceive as serious, inherent biases against certain kinds of builds. For one, I want to avoid making choice of Race as completely essential to builds as the current system does.

To that end, I'd like to propose the following system:

* We keep the 3 tree limit. Each character gets a racial general enhancement tree, plus PrE trees, as in the current system. We keep the same APs spent in tree system.

* The choice of which PrEs to choose from for those 3 trees is entirely unrestricted. You don't need to take class levels in a class, or take a Racial PrE, to gain access to a class's PrE. The entire list is open to you (new characters would default to the three PrEs associated with the level 1 class, though).

* Bonus PrE ranks would be gated by APs spent in tree, as currently. However, instead of class level, it would be character level, for all PrEs.

* Each PrE would have 63 APs of enhancements. 23 of them would have class level requirements, spread evenly from 1 to 20, and then 3 more at 22, 24, 26 (I'll get to these later). This means that you must have at least one class level to take a capstone from a PrE belonging to that class. About half of these 23 would be directly focused on improving the class features of the associated class, about half would be more general, but still meant as a reason to put class levels in a class if you want one of its PrEs.

* The remaining 40 enhancements would mostly be unrestricted (aside from APs spent requirements), although some might have feat requirements if designed to directly improve a feat.

* In place of Racial PrEs, races would get "favored class" enhancements. Each AP spent (up to 6) would count as a virtual "effective level" in that class for access to all of that class's PrEs. This is how those 22, 24, and 26 level enhancements would get accessed.

* Finally, classes that don't currently get much, aside from capstone, at level 20 (most melee classes) would get something there as part of their levelup to 20, itself. I don't see much reason to put an all-but-mandatory capstone in the enhancement system for pure 20s, when we can just add it to the class itself. The goal would be to make pures worthwhile in their own right, not just on the basis of their PrEs.

I think the strengths of this system are:

* Lots of flexibility. We get the neat combos that Racial PrEs currently allow, but without the harmful side effect of make race-selection very obvious. Race gets a bonus (that works well for pures and multis of their favored class, as well as those that don't take that class at all), but I don't think it'll be so much that it can't be overridden by alternatives. For example, if I want to make a tank Monk in the current system, I'd be a fool not to be Dwarf. Going, say, Half orc would be giving up a ton of tank capability, for just a little DPS. In my proposed system, the Half-orc would be less of a dedicated tank, but wouldn't give up nearly as much, to gain some DPS in its place.

* Less bias towards pures and splashes. Pures would still get the biggest possible selection of high level enhancements, since they have access to the whole trees of their 3 PrEs, but of course, the APs spent requirement limits that. But deep multis don't get nearly as screwed on the class PrEs they pick up. They can go all the way to capstone in any one of their PrEs (requiring only a level in the appropriate class, or a racial favored class, as opposed to requiring a specific Racial PrE in the current system), and go tier III in two PrEs, just like Pures can. For builds that want to make use of a variety of PrEs, from different classes, there will be a fairly strong incentive to multiclass in those PrE's associated classes, but hopefully not so strong that a Pure build with those PrEs isn't viable.

* Less bias towards splashes. Since pures would get improved level 20 abilities, that no splash has any possibility of getting, there's a better way to ensure that pures truly get something special.

* Death to the 2/6/12/18 breakpoints. There would no longer be any inherent reason to stick to those break points when building multiclasses. Each and every level of a class would have something to offer from enhancements.

ArcaneMelee

01-19-2012, 12:30 PM

...
* The choice of which PrEs to choose from for those 3 trees is entirely unrestricted. You don't need to take class levels in a class, or take a Racial PrE, to gain access to a class's PrE. The entire list is open to you (new characters would default to the three PrEs associated with the level 1 class, though).
...

Wait, so a pure 20 WF Wizard could get the Kensai PrE?

I'm presuming that this means that qualifying for a PrE would be more like how you qualify for a PrC - based on things like BaB, ability to cast spells, specific feats, etc...

...
* Finally, classes that don't currently get much, aside from capstone, at level 20 (most melee classes) would get something there as part of their levelup to 20, itself. I don't see much reason to put an all-but-mandatory capstone in the enhancement system for pure 20s, when we can just add it to the class itself. The goal would be to make pures worthwhile in their own right, not just on the basis of their PrEs.
...

I agree with this - imodifying FeatureB to fix deficiencies in FeatureA sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul. If a pure class is lack-luster, improve the class itself.

orakio

01-19-2012, 12:40 PM

@dkyle The biggest problem i see with your suggested system of allowing full access to enhancements is that it best benefits classes with the strongest inherent class features then. I can't remember who said it but having unlimited options limits variety every bit as much as not enough options. While it feels like the class would be more flexible what wound really end up happening is somebody would find the "perfect dps enhancement combination" and everyone wanting to go full dps would use the exact same enhancement setup, or near enough to it.

I do however really like the idea of providing more class feature incentive for staying pure, that would allow you to increase the tree choices for multiclasses past the 3 tree system without creating as much of an advantage to multiclasses.

The system as you describe it sounds really complicated, but i think a non-horizontally limited tree system with vertical limitations and increased class features for high end pure's could create enough of a decision that both multiclassing and staying pure are the right decision based on player preference. There should be something representing racial favored classes though. Do you think something as simple as racial points spent count towards your PrE's for that class up to a certain limit would work? Like the first 6 points count towards all PrE's for the "favored class" thereby allowing greater access to PrE's for somebody playing say a dwarf fighter?

dkyle

01-19-2012, 12:43 PM

Wait, so a pure 20 WF Wizard could get the Kensai PrE?

I'm presuming that this means that qualifying for a PrE would be more like how you qualify for a PrC - based on things like BaB, ability to cast spells, specific feats, etc...

Yes, that's the idea. And actually, the WF part wouldn't be necessary. Any 20 Wizard could get Kensei PrE. WF would just get the advantage of being able to take the first 6 levels of Fighter-only enhancements in Kensei. Which would be tradeoff from Elf, who would be able to get the 22, 24, and 26 level enhancements from Archmage or Pale Master.

I would add BaB, ability to cast certain level spells, maybe even total caster level (summing across all spell-casting classes taken), as possible prereqs for those 40 APs not tied directly to class levels. So a pure Wizard might have a tough time making full use of Kensei due to feat and BaB prereqs, but still might be tempted to take it as a tertiary PrE if they're going for a melee-arcane approach.

@dkyle The biggest problem i see with your suggested system of allowing full access to enhancements is that it best benefits classes with the strongest inherent class features then. I can't remember who said it but having unlimited options limits variety every bit as much as not enough options.

This is definitely a concern, and I fully agree with your quote. It may well have been something I've said in this thread.

But I think the same issue with the capstone applies here: we should be fixing the classes themselves, not using PrEs as a way to patch over flaws. We're already breaking the class/PrE ties with Racial PrEs, so the problem could manifest even with the current system.

While it feels like the class would be more flexible what wound really end up happening is somebody would find the "perfect dps enhancement combination" and everyone wanting to go full dps would use the exact same enhancement setup, or near enough to it.

That is an issue, and one I'm concerned about in the current system as well. But I think it's ultimately easier to try to limit synergy between PrEs of similar focus, than to try to work around the inherent biases against deep multis present in the current system.

The system as you describe it sounds really complicated, but i think a non-horizontally limited tree system with vertical limitations and increased class features for high end pure's could create enough of a decision that both multiclassing and staying pure are the right decision based on player preference. There should be something representing racial favored classes though. Do you think something as simple as racial points spent count towards your PrE's for that class up to a certain limit would work?

I think unlimited trees, with favored class instead of the current Racial PrE, might be the safest thing to do, and I would certainly not mind it at all. The ability to truly mix-and-match PrEs and classes would be a really nice thing to have, though.

orakio

01-19-2012, 01:10 PM

This is definitely a concern, and I fully agree with your quote. It may well have been something I've said in this thread.

But I think the same issue with the capstone applies here: we should be fixing the classes themselves, not using PrEs as a way to patch over flaws. We're already breaking the class/PrE ties with Racial PrEs, so the problem could manifest even with the current system.

That is an issue, and one I'm concerned about in the current system as well. But I think it's ultimately easier to try to limit synergy between PrEs of similar focus, than to try to work around the inherent biases against deep multis present in the current system.

I think unlimited trees, with favored class instead of the current Racial PrE, might be the safest thing to do, and I would certainly not mind it at all. The ability to truly mix-and-match PrEs and classes would be a really nice thing to have, though.

I completely agree on the fixing the classes themselves, building the "capstone" effects into the class rather than as an enhancement. Let class features (new "capstone vs. say evasion or bonus feats) balance against other class features, and enhancements against enhancements. Let you make your decision on class choices by breaking down each portion of a character rather than comparing different parts of classes(enhancements vs. features/feats is hard to compare really).

The one thing that I am so intrigued about in the racial PrE system is that it does allow us to get that mix and matching of PrE's and classes. I REALLY want a FvS or monk defender but both those classes are so level dependant that it is hard to multi out of the class and remain effective. The dev's did mention the concept of using stances to limit the synergy between similar roles and perhaps that would be enough to keep things balanced without everyone needing to double tank or healer PrE, or anything like that. Ultimately I would like to see a racial PrE system that gives access to the PrE's and better promotes characters utilizing that favored class at the same time. It would again be along that concept of lateral vs. vertical increases in options/effectiveness.

Maybe one of the things they can do to limit having to take a specific race if you are looking for certain types of builds is keep the racial PrE's but give each race access to 2 of them? It would allow more overlap so everything doesn't have to be 1 race or potentially human as a second. Say dwarf could be Stalwart defender or ravager, drow tempest or assassin, etc. Maybe lockout to only 1 racial PrE tree so that class choice isn't irrelevant either and people can't get dual Tier3 off of zany splits without high levels?

All in all I just think the racial PrE's and the tree system have a ton of potential, both positive and negative and it will really come down to implementation.

Angelus_dead

01-19-2012, 01:15 PM

* The choice of which PrEs to choose from for those 3 trees is entirely unrestricted. You don't need to take class levels in a class, or take a Racial PrE, to gain access to a class's PrE. The entire list is open to you (new characters would default to the three PrEs associated with the level 1 class, though).
Obviously, that kind of change would completely and monsterously break DDO's class design.

To completely separate out prestige specialties from classes would require the developers to somehow balance the classes without specialties, and then keep them balanced with each possible specialty they can have. It would break the largest reason that enhancements even exist in DDO, which is to correct flaws in the D&D 3.5 classes.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 01:28 PM

boomer70

01-19-2012, 01:35 PM

Obviously, that kind of change would completely and monsterously break DDO's class design.

To completely separate out prestige specialties from classes would require the developers to somehow balance the classes without specialties, and then keep them balanced with each possible specialty they can have. It would break the largest reason that enhancements even exist in DDO, which is to correct flaws in the D&D 3.5 classes.

I disagree with this assertion.

There is nothing in the idea that inherently breaks anything else in the system. I don't agree with everything in the post but the idea that PrE can't be separated from classes *could* be made to work if that is how the system is designed.

Step 1. Remove PrE from the system.
Step 2. Create an enhancement system for each class that is balanced including more *viable* options for spending points. This system should have enhancements spread from level 1-20.
Step 3. Create PrE that actually do what they were intended (in PnP) to do. That is, focus on a specific character role and add abilities to a character that support that role. They should not add so much power to a character that it is clearly a better choice to have *any* PrE at all rather than have none. They can have requirements that make getting into the PrE easier for some race/class.

Obviously Step 3 is the hardest part of that equation. However if I created an enhancement system where I would have trouble deciding which enhancements I want to spend my 80AP on just from class/race lists (because I have more good options than points) then balancing PrE becomes much easier because I have to spend AP on the PrE and its enhancements and not on the class/race enhancements I already want more of than I have AP.

Failedlegend

01-19-2012, 01:40 PM

I DONT think they should seperate PrEs I'll edit in more detail in when I get home but for now i'll just say honestly 3.5 systems are crazy broken and DDO has done alot to stave off or solve those problems (Not all ie. AC but alot) and tying PrEs to classes has helped with this...racial PrEs that are copies of class PrEs threaten this. Removing that restriction would be a disaster

Chai

01-19-2012, 02:05 PM

Cyr

01-19-2012, 02:30 PM

Djeserit

01-19-2012, 02:53 PM

Be very careful how you go about this. It could have a more serious impact on the future of the game than anything we have seen. I cannot stress this enough. This will be a make or break thing for a lot of players.

I stay with the game because I can customize my characters. Enhancements are a major part of that.

Don't care which world setting I play in (though I like Eberron). Don't care much what you do with epic. Don't care which new class or race you bring out as long as it's something.

If I end up with the same cookie cutter builds as everybody else, I loose interest in the game.

Be careful.

MadFloyd

01-19-2012, 03:32 PM

Cyr

01-19-2012, 03:34 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Very interesting. Could we get that one with the descriptions of the individual enhancements and the freebies along the bottom row after spending X points? I see you still have a 41 point thing on the racial one...

Oh I thought you had to spend 5 points on the bottom row of purchasable enhancements before you could buy stuff from the next row up?

Thalmor

01-19-2012, 03:41 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

You guys at turbine are making it extremly difficult to work today....

This is the least productive day I have since Cannith Crafting.

red_cardinal

01-19-2012, 03:42 PM

You guys at turbine are making it extremly difficult to work today....

This is the least productive day I have since Cannith Crafting.

Shouldn't be a habbit. I get the same days. :)

CaptGrim

01-19-2012, 03:43 PM

Very interesting. Could we get that one with the descriptions of the individual enhancements and the freebies along the bottom row after spending X points? I see you still have a 41 point thing on the racial one...

Oh I thought you had to spend 5 points on the bottom row of purchasable enhancements before you could buy stuff from the next row up?

^^this

even tho I knew it wouldn't work I was hovering over it waiting for tool tips :(

dkyle

01-19-2012, 03:44 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

Interesting. How much should we be reading into those icons (which, BTW, definitely glad to see new icons)? Is that a Bard racial PrE unlock for Elves? I'm surprised at the lack of an apparent Arcane Archer icon, and the Sword icon at the end of what appear to be spell-casting enhancements.

Also, what's with the Rogue icon? Are there Rogue general enhancements mixed in there? Is that where all those sneak-attack-looking icons are coming from? What determines that a character gets the "Rogue" enhancements, instead of others?

Riggs

01-19-2012, 03:45 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

That is a rather odd statement to make in a thread that is on page 128 after a week or so.

LeLoric

01-19-2012, 03:47 PM

Interesting. How much should we be reading into those icons (which, BTW, definitely glad to see new icons)? Is that a Bard racial PrE unlock for Elves? I'm surprised at the lack of an apparent Arcane Archer icon, and the Sword icon at the end of what appear to be spell-casting enhancements.

If we go by how he stated they work earlier prestiges like arcane archer are opened up on a seperate tree choice.

ArcaneMelee

01-19-2012, 03:49 PM

That is a rather odd statement to make in a thread that is on page 128 after a week or so.

Aye - at this point in the discussion, Mad could pop in and post "Oohga-boohga", and we'd be all over it.

Poster1: See, I told you that it was too soon to decide.
Poster2: What are you talking about? Clearly, that supports my position on the issue.
Poster1: How did you come up with that? We don't have enough to know one way or the other.
Poster3: Look at me! I'm posting in this thread!
etc...

Edit: Look at me! I'm posting in this thread!

dkyle

01-19-2012, 03:49 PM

If we go by how he stated they work earlier prestiges like arcane archer are opened up on a seperate tree choice.

But I thought the tree choice was unlocked by spending AP on the race tree. That's what Madfloyd's post with the original mockup said. Is the race tree now just available by default?

MaxwellEdison

01-19-2012, 03:52 PM

I don't know what to belieeeeeeeeeve anymore

Cyr

01-19-2012, 03:52 PM

If we go by how he stated they work earlier prestiges like arcane archer are opened up on a seperate tree choice.

Yeah, but based upon the previous statements we would have expected one of those icons on the bottom indicating what you get for free at X AP spent on the racial tree to be one that looks something like an AA icon.

LeLoric

01-19-2012, 03:52 PM

But I thought the tree choice was unlocked by spending AP on the race tree. That's what Madfloyd's post with the original mockup said. Is the race tree now just available by default?

The original said you spend a certain number of points in the racial tree to unlock arcane archer yes. But you get arcane archer by selecting it under one of your trees once youve unlocked it by spending racial points. Therefore arcane archer enhancments should not be here on this page but a seperate tree once enough points are spent in this tree have been used. At least that's how I have understood it to work.

Valezra

01-19-2012, 03:53 PM

I stay with the game because I can customize my characters. Enhancements are a major part of that.

Don't care which world setting I play in (though I like Eberron). Don't care much what you do with epic. Don't care which new class or race you bring out as long as it's something.

If I end up with the same cookie cutter builds as everybody else, I loose interest in the game.

Be careful.

Agreed. Over the last several years the game has been moving closer and closer to pure builds being the best, and certain PrE's being the best. When once there was hundreds upon hundreds of strong end-game builds, there is now dozens upon dozens.

The prestige system and capstones have actually been the cause for this. While some multi-class builds are still strong, Pure Builds are usually stronger.

Prestige Enhancements aren't even 50% complete. This is a great opportunity to do away with them and open up the system to pure customization.

But a much simpler thing to do is tone down the Prestige Enhancements and Capstones to bring Pure Classing back in line with multi-classing. Oh, and finish what you started over 3 years ago........

Val

Riggs

01-19-2012, 03:54 PM

It would be a big change, certainly, and a big challenge to get right.

But I think one problem is that enhancements shouldn't be how classes got fixed, in the first place. They should've fixed the classes themselves. Trying to combine fix-ups that should just be part of the class, and specialties that add significantly different capabilities, makes things messy.

True.

I realize Turbine would not even be allowed to comment on another game - but Pathfinder did all this and did it well to fix classes. I recommend anyone looking to what to fix about 3.x edition classes read their work.

however given the new mockup that looks exactly like the old mockup, just with new icons...I think this whole thing is already pretty far along and anything that is arguing about anything than numbers at this point seems moot.

LeLoric

01-19-2012, 03:55 PM

Yeah, but based upon the previous statements we would have expected one of those icons on the bottom indicating what you get for free at X AP spent on the racial tree to be one that looks something like an AA icon.

Yeah this is probably true and I dont necessarily see one looking like anything arcane archerish (the second looks arcane'ish but it's an active square icon versus a passive octoganal.) It's possible that racial prestiges are not going to show up on that bottom screen though.

Coldin

01-19-2012, 03:55 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Looks pretty nice so far. UI doesn't seem to quite conform to our current UI, especially in terms of color. But yeah, overall I like it. :)

Captain_Wizbang

01-19-2012, 03:56 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Nice work, love the layout.

But I cant get the hover & tooltip to work when I mouse over it!

gloopygloop

01-19-2012, 03:56 PM

dkyle

01-19-2012, 04:00 PM

The original said you spend a certain number of points in the racial tree to unlock arcane archer yes. But you get arcane archer by selecting it under one of your trees once youve unlocked it by spending racial points. Therefore arcane archer enhancments should not be here on this page but a seperate tree once enough points are spent in this tree have been used. At least that's how I have understood it to work.

I wasn't talking about Arcane Archer enhancements themselves. I was talking about the enhancement to unlock Arcane Archer.

Here's the relevant part:

Each race will have an enhancement that adds another specific enhancement tree to the character’s available list of trees. Elves and Half-Elves, for instance, gain access to the Arcane Archer tree if they take the racial enhancement to unlock it. Dwarves gain access to Stalwart Defender. The player can choose to unlock the tree and then not use it, if they so desire. Trees unlocked in this way use the character’s total character level instead of class level for prerequisites and effects.

Reads to me like it's a chosen enhancement ("take the racial enhancement"), not one of the bonus ones. And even still, I don't see any icons in the bonus list that seem likely as the unlock for Arcane Archer. No bow or arrow icons at all, actually, which is surprising.

My guess is the icons are just placeholders. Especially since that Dragonmark icon is the Sentinel one (Human), not Shadow. I am curious about the Rogue icon, though. What would any class icon be doing there on a Race tree?

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 04:00 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Very nice work so far! Nice to see actual DDO icons in place of the generic mmo icons you used earlier. This might quell some of the folks who stated it looks to much like wow. Please make the end product look very much UN-like wow! ;)

boomer70

01-19-2012, 04:03 PM

True.

I realize Turbine would not even be allowed to comment on another game - but Pathfinder did all this and did it well to fix classes. I recommend anyone looking to what to fix about 3.x edition classes read their work.

however given the new mockup that looks exactly like the old mockup, just with new icons...I think this whole thing is already pretty far along and anything that is arguing about anything than numbers at this point seems moot.

Unfortunately this is sort of how I feel after that post as well. Which is... disappointing.

Since it appears we are only going to get to comment on what they are already doing (and even that may not have any effect since 1000s of posts have questioned the basic premise and that didn't even get acknowledged), may as well ask this: Is there no class level limits to the enhancements in the race tree? It looks like you can take 3 copies of each enhancement are they all available at level 1? I don't see any mechanism in the UI to show at what level they become available.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 04:06 PM

boomer70

01-19-2012, 04:07 PM

Very nice work so far! Nice to see actual DDO icons in place of the generic mmo icons you used earlier. This might quell some of the folks who stated it looks to much like wow. Please make the end product look very much UN-like wow! ;)

Seriously? Did you think all the concerned posted in this thread were about the look of the icons being too WoW-like?

Darkrok

01-19-2012, 04:08 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

I know others have been more focused on the nuts and bolts but I have to say that this looks outstanding from a pure aesthetics standpoint. I'd assume we're in for more changes to the look and feel of things and from the look of this it will be a much more attractive UI overall.

boomer70

01-19-2012, 04:10 PM

There's still the AP spent in tree requirement. 0 for first row, 5 more for each row higher (although the mockup violates this, so that's confusing...). I would expect Race enhancements get character level requirements, as well. I doubt class level, since it's race.

Oh sorry my bad I did mean character level.

If I remember from 1000s of pages back I think the tier unlocks were at 3/something... The "free" abilities were at 5. I could be remembering wrong though.

Still don't see how you could display the character level limit in an icon that shows 0/3. Maybe the number turns grey once you take all the copies you can at that level and then you have to mouse over to see what level you can take the next one? yuck.

LeLoric

01-19-2012, 04:11 PM

Not trying to get too preemptive here as we dont know what everything does but if we assume there to be a 1 point per tier (devs have stated soem powerful ones may be 2) it looks like a total of 45 ap you can spend in this tree.

So this would mean only 4 point not spent to get the 41 capstone. That is at most 1 choice is not taken. Once again, and possibly way off based, assumptions based off icons leads one to believe that there is a bardic related option, several melee related options, as well as things I would expect to carry over from current like elven arcanum and possibly arcane fluidity.

This likely means that unless you are some sort of melee/spellcasting hybrid if you wanted the 41 point elf capstone you are probably going to have to spend some points in unwanted stuff.

If class trees are setup similarly there could be issues too. A case in point may be acrobat. Many players take acrobat prestige line right now with no intention of ever using staffs but for some of the other benefits (faster movement, showtime buff, extra uncannies and immunity to knockdowns and slippery surfaces.) Hopefully an acrobat focused rogue could still take the tree capstone and not have to throw a bunch of points into qstaff options.

Once again of course this is all probably undue speculation based on something we don't know enough about but I am right I could see it being a limiting problem similar to what we have now of spending points on things we don't want to qualify for stuff.

Riggs

01-19-2012, 04:14 PM

Unfortunately this is sort of how I feel after that post as well. Which is... disappointing.

Since it appears we are only going to get to comment on what they are already doing (and even that may not have any effect since 1000s of posts have questioned the basic premise and that didn't even get acknowledged), may as well ask this: Is there no class level limits to the enhancements in the race tree? It looks like you can take 3 copies of each enhancement are they all available at level 1? I don't see any mechanism in the UI to show at what level they become available.

Yeah, 2 weeks and 1000s of posts later we got "We are listening" + "Here is what we are doing that in no way shape or form has been altered by any feedback from the last 2 weeks".

Listening is only actually listening if one party can actually say what it is the other party said - and have some kind of response.

Everyone jumped all over this thread salivating over a real, live discussion with the chance to provide some actual, meaningful feedback. And some spent 100 pages arguing against the cynics saying "Look everything has changed they are listening to the community!"

End result? "Here is exactly the same thing as we were doing before, BUT - new icons!"

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-19-2012, 04:14 PM

Seriously? Did you think all the concerned posted in this thread were about the look of the icons being too WoW-like?
Who said "all the concerned?" I was talking about the handful or so who commented on the original mockup looking like Wow. It was a small contingent, but it was said more then once, hence my phrase "some of the folks."

boomer70

01-19-2012, 04:23 PM

Who said "all the concerned?" I was talking about the handful or so who commented on the original mockup looking like Wow. It was a small contingent, but it was said more then once, hence my phrase "some of the folks."

I think/hope that however many people that posted where stating they were concerned the SYSTEM was looking like it was becoming WoW-like. Yes some people posted screenies comparing them but the point that I got from those points was look how similar the SYSTEM is becoming. I suppose some may have been concerned about the UI being too similar but I don't know how placated they would be with the new pretty screen.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 04:40 PM

Oh sorry my bad I did mean character level.

If I remember from 1000s of pages back I think the tier unlocks were at 3/something... The "free" abilities were at 5. I could be remembering wrong though.

Here's the relevant part of Mad's post:

Initially, players will have the bottom row of enhancements available to them. As players spend enhancement points within the current tree, additional tiers of enhancements will become available to them. Enhancements will no longer have a “total action points spent” prerequisite, this is replaced by a “total action points spent in this tree” prerequisite, and is defined by the tier the enhancement is on. (5 * [Tier of Enhancement – 1])

You have it backwards. Tier unlocks are 5 per row up, while the minimum level for the free bonus abilities are 3/6/9/12/15/18/20.

Still don't see how you could display the character level limit in an icon that shows 0/3. Maybe the number turns grey once you take all the copies you can at that level and then you have to mouse over to see what level you can take the next one? yuck.

I'm guessing that's how it'll work.

rimble

01-19-2012, 04:53 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

It's hard to visualize this so abstractly, just seeing the vague parts that we see, but consider that you could provide multiple things at each horizontal 5 point tier of Elf, rather than all Elves progressing along that one line.

To be clear, I'm referring to the bottom horizontal row with a black background, which looks like it is probably automatically unlocked at those 5 point (or 41 point) investment increments. Instead of that one row of things that all Elves gain access to, there could be two or three choices at each tier from which the Elf could choose.

When I think of Elf I guess I think of a dextrous melee fighter, ranged combatant, and arcane. So you could have three horizontal rows there, each progressing down those archetypal paths. I would allow these to be picked between freely, not requiring any 'build up'..but at each tier you could only choose one...so at 5 points you pick the melee one (whatever it is), at 10 points you can pick the ranged one, at 15 points the arcane one, and so on.

Maybe these don't even need to be TOO race specific and could be used to nudge a character along generic Melee / Ranged / Defense / Stealth / Caster types of paths.

To simplify the UI, use dropdown boxes for these.

Just a thought, to think in multiple dimensions. I honestly envision some kind of intense 3-D level up system to properly model the relationships between all the race and class choices, but that's not particularly feasible.

These could be used to model existing types of dependencies and requirements. You don't have to take the automatic 5 point Stealth talent, but it's a requirement for some sort of other nice Stealth talent up in the point trees...

BananaHat

01-19-2012, 05:14 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Look at the top left enhancement... look closer.... four legs.... feathery antennae... could it be???

A rust monster?!?!?!? :confused::D

I can envision it now...

Elven Aspect of the Rust Monster I
Benefit: You are the bane of constructs everywhere! You deal additional acid damage to constructs on unarmed attacks. (1d3 + 1d3 every 3 character levels)

Elven Aspect of the Rust Monster II
Benefit: You become more like the rust monster... and learn its ancient secrets. You gain the ability to stun constructs on unarmed critical hits (Fort save DC = 10 + character level + con. mod. negates)

Elven Aspect of the Rust Monster III
Benefit: You know the horrible truth that elves are really just tree-dwelling rust monsters! That is why they live in the woods! You damage any metal object you wear at a rate of 1 point of durability a second, ignoring hardness. You also gain the ability to damage the equipment of your opponents! All unarmed hits will damage a random metallic item on your opponent (1 point of durability / hit). [PvP only] All metallic chest loot will be randomly damaged for your party due to you rummaging around for your own treasure. Metallic items will no longer drop under your name. [PvE only]

I know, I know, horribly overpowered, but this is probably what the devs have in mind for that slot.

littlewing

01-19-2012, 05:28 PM

why are they messing with this anyway?
up until this thread, i have never seen anyone asking for a change.

turbine: if it aint broke, lets mess with it anyway..

and if it is broke, ignore it.

Jaxom_Faux

01-19-2012, 05:44 PM

Artos_Fabril

01-19-2012, 05:45 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg
What I am not seeing, which I am concerned by, is any of the general enhancements that are now gated by character level.

This indicates that the concerns about stacking enhancements from multiple trees could be a big issue, unless they decided to use lockouts, which Eladrin mentioned they want to avoid, or some other exclusionary method.

Without a "General" tab per class, I'm seeing more evidence that multi-class characters will be disadvantaged by the new system. Here's an example to better describe what I mean:

Possibility A: Stacking stat enhancements in multiple PrEs)
Fighter Strength I, II in Kensai and PDK trees, Fighter Con I,II in Stalwart Tree (See Eladrin's comment about Acrobat Dex, Assassin Dex, Mechanic Int)
Pure fighter may have access to 4 str and 2 con by investing in all 3 fighter trees, as well as any fighter capstone and lower tiers of other trees.
12fighter/6ranger/2monk might then have access to all of the same enhancements (depending on class levels required) by locking in all 3 fighter trees, but would then be locked out of any capstone (unless dwarf/WF/Human?/HElf?), or could sacrifice a fighter tree for an even more restricted ranger or monk tree, which is even less likely to unlock the first rank of stat increase, and is likely to be dex or wis, based on current class design. Pure classes would gain a big advantage in base stats if this were the case, which would put a multi-class much farther behind, with more limited options to make up the difference.

Possibility B: Stacking stat enhancements exist in single tree per class)
Fighter Strength I,II,III in Kensai tree, no (or different) stat enhancements in other trees (See Eladrin's comment about placing class core enhancements into the single tree they best fit)
Pure fighters may have access to 3 Str, but only if then invest in the Kesai tree. Multiclass and splash fighters have access to 3 str, reduced by any class level requirements, but only if they take Kensai as one of their 3 trees.

Possibility C: Lockouts or non-stacking stat enhancements in multiple trees per class)
Fighter Strength I,II,III in all fighter trees, placing points into strength enhancement in one tree locks it out in other trees. (Unlikely based on Eladrin's prior comments about lockouts and intuitive interface, but basically Status-Quo)
Pure fighters have access to 3 Str, but have reduced options to spend points in other trees depending on which tree they buy fighter strength I in. Multi-class and fighter splash characters have access to up to 3 Str, reduced by any class-level requirements, but must take at least 1 fighter tree.
possible second-order effect: Dwarf and WF become the preferred races for pure melee builds that don't use all 3 class PrE trees because of racial +Con enhancements and racial PrE +Str enhancements

Pwesiela

01-19-2012, 05:46 PM

Looks slick. Now I want to see under the hood.

Also, I'm confused why the elf rogue's race tree doesn't show icons for AA, but instead has icons for rogue....

Artos_Fabril

01-19-2012, 05:48 PM

Look at the top left enhancement... look closer.... four legs.... feathery antennae... could it be???

A rust monster?!?!?!? :confused::D

I can envision it now...

Elven Aspect of the Rust Monster I
Benefit: You are the bane of constructs everywhere! You deal additional acid damage to constructs on unarmed attacks. (1d3 + 1d3 every 3 character levels)

Elven Aspect of the Rust Monster II
Benefit: You become more like the rust monster... and learn its ancient secrets. You gain the ability to stun constructs on unarmed critical hits (Fort save DC = 10 + character level + con. mod. negates)

Elven Aspect of the Rust Monster III
Benefit: You know the horrible truth that elves are really just tree-dwelling rust monsters! That is why they live in the woods! You damage any metal object you wear at a rate of 1 point of durability a second, ignoring hardness. You also gain the ability to damage the equipment of your opponents! All unarmed hits will damage a random metallic item on your opponent (1 point of durability / hit). [PvP only] All metallic chest loot will be randomly damaged for your party due to you rummaging around for your own treasure. Metallic items will no longer drop under your name. [PvE only]

I know, I know, horribly overpowered, but this is probably what the devs have in mind for that slot.
Bwahahaha! So then, what's that tower-looking enhancement icon linked to the rust monster?

Failedlegend

01-19-2012, 05:49 PM

Bwahahaha! So then, what's that tower-looking enhancement icon linked to the rust monster?

It makes you into construct..it called Elven Masochist

rimble

01-19-2012, 06:13 PM

To simplify the UI, use dropdown boxes for these.

Few more thoughts since I was thinking about it in the car.

I think dropdowns might 'hide' too much information, so you could instead sort of used offset little decks of cards.

So I was thinking, for example, Human Adaptability...that 'icon' could actually be a deck of six icons, that you cycle through with a little + symbol or something. Cycle through to the ability score you want, then spend your point on that (which could lock that deck in place).

Then HA II could be a another full six card deck, but if you select the same ability score it gets X'd out...or you could just remove that ability scores card from even being in the deck.

This could work for choosing between things like Elven Dex I and Human Adaptability I too. The deck could have 7 cards: the 6 Human ones plus Elven Dex, you cycle through to the one you want, then spend points there. Then dependencies to the second tier could be enforced like previously mentioned.

Again, just trying to think about more visually than just the normal branching up tree system that is so (boringly) prevalent today.

(What I'd really want is 3d visualizations. Depending on how many different trees you have available, they'd be represented on a d4, or d6, or d8, that you could rotate and interact with. Dependencies could pass THROUGH the 3D object, to create interdependencies between all the various trees, rather than only ever having a tree dependent on something within itself)

karl_k0ch

01-19-2012, 06:17 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.
Looking at these icons, I have the strong feeling that this is a Mockup indeed.

The icons are mostly rogueish icons (rightmost row, and bottom row mostly). The Bard Icon makes only a limited sense on the racial tree, and I don't see an icon which could easily related to racial toughness. Also the axe symbol seems odd. I don't think that the actual icons in the picture are telling us anything on the new enhancement distribution.

Krell

01-19-2012, 06:32 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

That brings back some memories of AC2. The tree and requirements structure has some similarities. Definitely easier to see and use than the current UI.

Silverleafeon

01-19-2012, 06:53 PM

Looks nice.

Carpone

01-19-2012, 06:55 PM

Looks pretty nice so far. UI doesn't seem to quite conform to our current UI, especially in terms of color.
I consider that promising. The current UI needs a radical overhaul.

That brings back some memories of AC2. The tree and requirements structure has some similarities. Definitely easier to see and use than the current UI.
It's pretty similar to Rifts. Regardless, it's a much welcomed change from the current interface. Maybe one day the LR/GR interface will get revamped in a similar fashion. The current interface is painful to use.

Kilarthia

01-19-2012, 07:25 PM

Someone mentioned earlier of leveraging the concept of PREs to increase the permutations available to let players better tailor their characters to their own style. I fully support this idea. I think the devs should keep in mind the roots of this game, that it is called Dungeons and Dragons Online. It would be more valuable to the game to showcase the uniqueness of the dungeons and dragons system than to imitate the generic mmo and fall short of anything memorable.

I think that while it is tempting to simply be like all those other games' by doing the class specific ability tree ui thing, this update has the potential for so much more with just a couple of simple conceptual tweaks!

With the old UI, it was quite clunky to display lots of options, since it was linear UI, adding many enhancements not restricted by class would generally pollute and bog down every list. HOWEVER with the new UI, it suddenly becomes quite possible (and much more usable than before) to implement PREs much more like Dungeons and Dragons PRCs, since entire pages/trees can be hidden in one click. Before, having non class specific enhancements would result in having all its bits and pieces scattered everywhere for everyone.

(TL;DR?) So what I would really like to see is: small Prestige Enhancements trees that are not tied to a single class or race. Remember how some Prestige Classes are 10 levels, others only 5, or even less or more? And requirements were based on feats, skills, ab/cl, and generally not the class specifically? We can do the same here! This is DDO after all.

Also, of course, I support NOT having a restriction of 3 active trees. This would give more flexibility and help small creative concepts make it into the game without forcing it to be shoehorned onto something bigger.

Instead of having static class PRE trees, we can have this:
-racial tree
-core sets of large class trees with some class based PREs
-a bunch of small to medium sized non class based(requiring feats and/or enhancements and/or even character favor or certain quest completions instead) enhancement tree pages.

Now that would allow for some real character customization and individuality!

EnjoyTheJourney

01-19-2012, 07:35 PM

I believe I got 512 unique combinations. (For me to determine where 347351004000 comes from would probably take more effort than I'm willing to go through).

To convince yourself that the number of combinations is 512, you could do it in two steps. First list off all of the class-race combos and count them: you'll get 16 (HT,HR,HH,HM,ET,ER... DH,DM). Then pick just one class-race (like HT) and list all the gear/feat/skill/stat combos it could have, like HT11111, HT11112, HT11121... HT22222. That will wind up being 32 entries.

Since one class-race combo becomes 32 builds, and you have 16 class-race combos, then the number of builds in the system will be 16*32 = 512. Alternatively you could list all of them, which will take under an hour with a few sheets of paper.Thank you for clearing this up.

The formula I used was n! / (m1!*m2!*...*mx!), where n = m1+m2+...+mx

The way you calculated it make sense; first work out the number of "background" conditions, then calculate unique sets for which order doesn't matter for each "background" condition, and then add everything up.

To apply this to DDO itself, instead of the fictional "Lack of Choice Online", class is probably the best starting point; combinations of race, feats, gear, etc that are likely to be workable choices would seem conditioned most of all on the class chosen.

Doing a few "back of the matchbook" calculations about the amount of choice actually in the game might be helpful, as part of a discussion of how much choice is desirable or functional.

Dagolar

01-19-2012, 07:57 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Can you tone down the brightness of that backdrop just a touch? It quite hurts my eyes [which, are, admittedly, rather sensitive, but still..]
It'd be appreciated.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 08:01 PM

People have Bayes Rule, Hidden Markov Models, and many other techniques for these kinds of comparisons.

No, it is an extremely safe assumption.

There are only two possibilities:Sometimes spending 1 AP on a low level enhancement would provide more value than spending it on a higher-level one.
The designers are totally foolish and they added explicit rules to prevent something that no player would intentionally do anyhow.
It is remotely concievable that the devs will design enhancments so that spending higher points in every tree A is always better than spending lower points in every tree B. But if they had managed to achieve that, then there'd be no reason for them to create a 3 tree limit because nobody would want to use more than 2 trees anyway.

Your probabilities rely on randomness for that to work. There is no randomness in the choice. There are just choices.

Those choices would dictate that it is possible that more choices has a better chance at a better choice but plausibility dictates that it is possible that the existing choices are still better because more choice still does not guarantee better choices. That would be subjective reasoning.

Without random variables we will all simply make the best choices with what we have and that does not mean multiclassing will suffer. It means some multiclass builds will not be possible but does not mean other multiclass builds will not be possible. For multiclass builds to really suffer pure class builds would need to be clearly superior and that is not the case.

Just following your stipulation that more trees means better choices would destroy the concept that pure classes because they have the least number of tree options.

If you have a hidden markov model to post please do so. I would be rather interested in what you have come up with.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 08:03 PM

There's simply no way that higher level enhancements in your main class will yield the same kinds of benefits as low level enhancements in your other classes, hence my bard example. The bard capstones can have all the power in the world, but if you want to have that strong trapmonkey role as a secondary, they may not matter to you.

Not for the same build possibly not. For a different build possibly. That does not mean all multiclassing will have an issue. It means specific build choices will, which is a different statement. Individual builds can absolutely be impacted.

gloopygloop

01-19-2012, 08:04 PM

Without random variables we will all simply make the best choices with what we have

My experience in a large number of PUGs suggests that your statement is incorrect.

Opening up more possiblities by allowing more trees will also open up more options to make terrible characters (as so many multiclass characters already are today), but if someone wants to make a terrible character, why not let them?

Kilarthia

01-19-2012, 08:06 PM

It would also be great to have a consistant and systematic (built in to the renderer, instead of manually added to descriptions) display of what requirements unlock a certain enhancements (even make it clickable!), as well as a listing of what other enhancements that particular enhancement can help unlock (that are not already shown on the current page as an arrow link). This would allow players to more easily browse through cross referencing enhancement chains, or if you don't have those yet, allow it in a usable way! And of course, some sort of navigation history "back" button to go with it. The behaviour will end up similar to using a webpage.. everyone's familiar with that sort of interface.

A natural (but slightly off the wall) extension to this would be "custom" enhancement trees. It would be a purely UI thing of course. It wouldn't actually change any enhancements. But it would be good support for enhancements that cross reference other enhancements from different pages as requirements, and also understanding sets of enhancements from multiple different trees as one character. The idea is essentially have a blank page, then allow dragging or otherwise adding enhancements from other pages onto it. enhancement nodes would be linked to direct prerequisite nodes if they were also on that page. They would also be naturally selectable/clickable/investable like normal enhancement icons. This simple feature could allow players to effectively plan out what they want (enhancement wise) with their character without leaving the game! An alternative custom viewing structure for already existing enhancements.

Kilarthia

01-19-2012, 08:08 PM

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 08:11 PM

You are applying a stricter standard of proof to a discussion about MMO game design, than is applied by nuclear physicists, rocket scientists, medical researchers, and judges/juries in criminal trials of capital offenses. Sherlock Holmes is a master of induction, not deduction.

You should see what I expect of my employees. :D

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 08:38 PM

But I thought the tree choice was unlocked by spending AP on the race tree. That's what Madfloyd's post with the original mockup said. Is the race tree now just available by default?

There were always 4 trees. The race tree and the 3 PrE trees. The race tree would be for things like elven dexterity or dwarven toughness. The arcane archer would be a trade in on one of the 3 PrE trees.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 08:47 PM

why are they messing with this anyway?
up until this thread, i have never seen anyone asking for a change.

turbine: if it aint broke, lets mess with it anyway..

and if it is broke, ignore it.

Asking for more PrE's and changes to existing PrE's is very common on the boards. This does both at once and faster. ;)

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 08:52 PM

Without a "General" tab per class, I'm seeing more evidence that multi-class characters will be disadvantaged by the new system.

If a general tab were to be added there could be a severe impact to the ability to advance upwards for pure classes because they already look like they will be severely limited in the ability to progress in the existing trees by AP costs. One more tree they would need means one more set of costs restricting what else they could take.

EnjoyTheJourney

01-19-2012, 09:16 PM

Truly. Why not let them indeed? They will be more satisfied that they got what they wanted (not referring to the terribleness here).

On the other hand, there is also more opportunity to salvage usefulness out of a poorly planned class-level combination. So it goes both ways! :)
Ramping up choice doesn't just offer more freedom that then gets used well, or not, by players. Ramping up choice also ramps up complexity, which means more bugs, more exploits, more nerfs when unintended consequences emerge, longer development times, and (most likely) less well developed documentation and tools tips. As a bonus, UIs tend to become more complicated and the learning curve for players gets longer and steeper.

New stuff is good, but with a huge amount of choice (and complexity) already in the game new stuff that's relatively simple and reliable would be even better.

Artos_Fabril

01-19-2012, 09:50 PM

If a general tab were to be added there could be a severe impact to the ability to advance upwards for pure classes because they already look like they will be severely limited in the ability to progress in the existing trees by AP costs. One more tree they would need means one more set of costs restricting what else they could take.
Or they could, you know, do the intelligent thing and shorten the PrE trees when they take general enhancements out of them. 41 points was a balance decision to prevent multiple capstones, and is a huge jump from the next lower rung of the PrE. That could be fixed by making capstones lock each other out, which isn't a nerf compared to either the current system or the proposed one, or by giving them a requirement like "10 (or 15, or whatever) points spent in general tab and 31 points spent in (PrE) tab" changing the tiers to 4/8/12/16/20/24/31. 5 points per freebie tier and 41 points for the capstone are not requirements of the system, they are design decisions which can be changed (and should be, if they are demonstrably flawed).

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 10:02 PM

My experience in a large number of PUGs suggests that your statement is incorrect.

Opening up more possiblities by allowing more trees will also open up more options to make terrible characters (as so many multiclass characters already are today), but if someone wants to make a terrible character, why not let them?

I think the players try to make the best choices. Some of them do value other things than effectiveness and not all character builders have the same level of skill.

I would be concerned about potential stacking issues for additional PrE trees, the addition of any general tree robbing me of the ability to spend points in other trees, and investing development into something I don't see a need for if it is not easy to accomplish.

Players keep posting about limitations on the choices for multiclassing but pureclassing faces a serious lack of choices already and that lack of choices does not make them look very appealing. I would have the option of investing AP in a choice 1 tree with a capstone and whatever limited options I could get in the other 4 trees with unlock requirements preventing access to higher tiers even if I had more points. Or I could invest heavily in 3 tier III PrE's and a bit in the race or other tree. That really does lock out so many options on pure classes it isn't funny.

Remove those AP per tier in each tree requirements and pureclassing would have all these benefits that class level can bring but higher class level is meaningless without the points to spend on enhancements that require that higher class level in the first place. I can just multiclass and not be limited to what trees I can have and still spend my points and still focus on 1 or 2 trees just like a pureclass is forced to do but with a lot more choices in what those 1 or 2 trees are.

Belief that multiclasses are suddenly subpar compared to pure classes because of change in the system from current to proposed isn't completely valid because is a statement that because it doesn't take the changes to pureclasses into consideration, only the changes to multiclassing.

That was a brief summary of the concern over adding more trees and a longer summary of why pureclassing does not appear to have all these great benefit over multiclassing in the new system.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 10:11 PM

Or they could, you know, do the intelligent thing and shorten the PrE trees when they take general enhancements out of them. 41 points was a balance decision to prevent multiple capstones, and is a huge jump from the next lower rung of the PrE. That could be fixed by making capstones lock each other out, which isn't a nerf compared to either the current system or the proposed one, or by giving them a requirement like "10 (or 15, or whatever) points spent in general tab and 31 points spent in (PrE) tab" changing the tiers to 4/8/12/16/20/24/31. 5 points per freebie tier and 41 points for the capstone are not requirements of the system, they are design decisions which can be changed (and should be, if they are demonstrably flawed).

There's only 5 tiers now. How much shorter could they realistically be?

I think it is possible but not with the 5 AP per tier unlock per tree in place and shortening the trees cannot go much shorter either. Removing that 5 AP per tier unlock per tree also opens up the potential for more stacking issues.

I don't disagree it's possible. It's just a lot more work and not as simple as "just add a general" tree.

dkyle

01-19-2012, 10:15 PM

There were always 4 trees. The race tree and the 3 PrE trees. The race tree would be for things like elven dexterity or dwarven toughness. The arcane archer would be a trade in on one of the 3 PrE trees.

I am well aware of this (heck, I relayed two dev PMs to that effect). My point was, we were told that the unlock of Arcane Archer would cost APs. Presumably on the race tree, but there is no apparent enhancement line in the mockup of the elven race tree for Arcane Archer. None of the icons are especially evocative of that PrE. So it suggests that the icons are purely placeholders, and not anything we should read anything into.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 10:16 PM

New suggestion: Why not just get rid of the separate PrE trees completely to avoid losing access to enhancement choices all around and have individual enhancements within the tree contribute to the PrE freebee unlocks if that would be possible?

Keep a race tree and just one tree per class.

For example, Inspired Damage could contribute to the warchanter total but song magic to the spellsinger total but from within the same tree.

That's just an expansion on the general tree idea to encompass them all better.

EDIT: NM, I just realized that will likely interfere with the ability to add PrE's more easily and swap in racial PrE's. It was a quick random thought.

Aashrym

01-19-2012, 10:18 PM

I am well aware of this (heck, I relayed two dev PMs to that effect). My point was, we were told that the unlock of Arcane Archer would cost APs. Presumably on the race tree, but there is no apparent enhancement line in the mockup of the elven race tree for Arcane Archer. None of the icons are especially evocative of that PrE. So it suggests that the icons are purely placeholders, and not anything we should read anything into.

I realized that after reading farther and forgot to edit. I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a change to the way racial PrE's unlock and we just were not informed.

Kargon

01-20-2012, 12:20 AM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Kargon make a few modimifications that SHOULD pretty much finamalize the design right away, can't get much bettermer than this!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/FusionBlast/EnhancemamentRevamamp.png

Guenalicious

01-20-2012, 12:23 AM

Kargon make a few modimifications that SHOULD pretty much finamalize the design right away, can't get much bettermer than this!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/FusionBlast/EnhancemamentRevamamp.png

LOL Kargon +1

LeLoric

01-20-2012, 12:23 AM

TiranBlade

01-20-2012, 12:27 AM

karl_k0ch

01-20-2012, 02:47 AM

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 04:06 AM

Players keep posting about limitations on the choices for multiclassing but pureclassing faces a serious lack of choices already and that lack of choices does not make them look very appealing. I would have the option of investing AP in a choice 1 tree with a capstone and whatever limited options I could get in the other 4 trees with unlock requirements preventing access to higher tiers even if I had more points. Or I could invest heavily in 3 tier III PrE's and a bit in the race or other tree. That really does lock out so many options on pure classes it isn't funny.

Remove those AP per tier in each tree requirements and pureclassing would have all these benefits that class level can bring but higher class level is meaningless without the points to spend on enhancements that require that higher class level in the first place. I can just multiclass and not be limited to what trees I can have and still spend my points and still focus on 1 or 2 trees just like a pureclass is forced to do but with a lot more choices in what those 1 or 2 trees are.

Belief that multiclasses are suddenly subpar compared to pure classes because of change in the system from current to proposed isn't completely valid because is a statement that because it doesn't take the changes to pureclasses into consideration, only the changes to multiclassing.

That was a brief summary of the concern over adding more trees and a longer summary of why pureclassing does not appear to have all these great benefit over multiclassing in the new system.

ummmm thats EXACTLY whats Single Classes and Multiclasses are meant for

Single Class = Much Better at whatever their designed for
Ie. Monk = Higher Fist Damage
Casters = Higher Level Spells and hoiw good they are at using them
Bard = Better Songs
Barbarian = Rage
Artficer = Everything

Multiclass = More Useful in more situations due to having more options

Also Multiclasses CANNOT take the capstones as they have a Lvl 20 CLASS Level requirement. (IIRC it goes 3/6/9/12/15/18/20)

Taking choice/options away from multiclasses WILL cripple them..I know your a Purist but I don't see how you can't see that...if you want more choice than MULTICLASS...if pure classes all of a sudden had the same amount of choices (ie. 3 Trees) multiclasses would become useless

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Hmmm...are we getting a general UI upgrade as well I love the Blue and Silver + More Sleek Look as opposed to the WIndows 95 looking Burgundy and Gold

Also since people are speculating about it are those icons just placeholders or should we be actually garnering info from them :P

Drona

01-20-2012, 04:56 AM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

This is nice! Looks like we will not have a gazillion useless enhancements just populating the current UI.

Also, looks like this is in "Tab" format, so we getting more than 3 trees..?? ;)

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 07:38 AM

Kargon

= Legend ;)

stainer

01-20-2012, 08:31 AM

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 08:48 AM

I hate to steal any idea from Blizzard, but why not have a "hidden" goof quest where all we fight is armies of Kargon's tasty hams!? :) (Ode to the old mad cow zone in Diablo). Akin to the kobald's amusing rants in the Cove, I'd like hear some of Kargon's best funny quotes :) Let him do the voice over too, Pay the man! ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfYInNvYyFA

Heh heh heh...

Steiner-Davion

01-20-2012, 09:24 AM

I think that it is a bit unbalanced that these spells for sorcerers cost 0 action points (as they are part of the savant tier) and cost Archmages not only spell points for each use, but also a ton of max/permanent spell points to gain the ability when they purchase the enhancement. Let's revisit these as well.

katz

01-20-2012, 09:27 AM

Glenalth

01-20-2012, 09:28 AM

I think that it is a bit unbalanced that these spells for sorcerers cost 0 spell points to use and cost Archmages not only spell points for each use, but also a ton of max/permanent spell points to gain the ability. Let's revisit these as well.

All of my sorcs SLAs cost points, not sure what you are talking about here.

xoowak

01-20-2012, 09:40 AM

I think that it is a bit unbalanced that these spells for sorcerers cost 0 spell points to use and cost Archmages not only spell points for each use, but also a ton of max/permanent spell points to gain the ability. Let's revisit these as well.

Sorcerer SLAs do cost spell points. Wizards are still superior at endgame; I can't see any reason to nerf sorc/buff wizard.

gloopygloop

01-20-2012, 09:44 AM

Sorcerer SLAs do cost spell points. Wizards are still superior at endgame; I can't see any reason to nerf sorc/buff wizard.

For now. Once Drow start polluting end game quests with their filthy Spell Resistance, the forums will be filled with the salty tears of Wizards who are relegated to the job of buff-bot and Web slinger.

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 10:03 AM

All of my sorcs SLAs cost points, not sure what you are talking about here.

I think 'he's refering to the fact that getting the SLAs on an Archmage actually reduces Max SP

xoowak

01-20-2012, 10:11 AM

But the archmage enhancements increase it. Taking both foci and one line of SLAs up to five is only a net loss of 75 SP.

For now. Once Drow start polluting end game quests with their filthy Spell Resistance, the forums will be filled with the salty tears of Wizards who are relegated to the job of buff-bot and Web slinger.

True, but I don't feel we should start calling for nerfs based on what we think content that's coming out in 6+ months is going to be like. I think it's quite likely Turbine will lower the SR of epic drow a little. Also, if the new content is going to be more epic than the old epic to account for 21-25, those sorcs better hope the drow are xXxDrizzztclonexXx-types without a CON item, or nuking may not be an effective strategy.

Steiner-Davion

01-20-2012, 10:16 AM

I think 'he's refering to the fact that getting the SLAs on an Archmage actually reduces Max SP

Yes. I edited my above post to be clearer on this. The loses of max/permanent SO also seems to be against the spirit if the Prestige Class/ Archtype.

kingfisher

01-20-2012, 11:22 AM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

looks pretty. but it also looks like almost every other mmo out there. dont get the need to copy whats been done before but its too late for them to go back now as its pretty clear this mostly done and ready for lama. i find it funny and a little sad that they keep doing this and peeps keep falling for the 'we want your feedback' line when all they really want is to guage the support/outrage levels so they know how much extra xp/loot/reknown boosts to give out to distract and placate the masses.

the only question is how many of these trees are we getting? lol. from the looks of it they could easily add a general tab or additional class tabs for multi's. no way this hurts the game to do so. wont make it more cluttered or harder to understand for their new target 9 year old demographic. dont see a good reason not too.

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 11:52 AM

ummmm thats EXACTLY whats Single Classes and Multiclasses are meant for

Single Class = Much Better at whatever their designed for
Ie. Monk = Higher Fist Damage
Casters = Higher Level Spells and hoiw good they are at using them
Bard = Better Songs
Barbarian = Rage
Artficer = Everything

Multiclass = More Useful in more situations due to having more options

Also Multiclasses CANNOT take the capstones as they have a Lvl 20 CLASS Level requirement. (IIRC it goes 3/6/9/12/15/18/20)

Taking choice/options away from multiclasses WILL cripple them..I know your a Purist but I don't see how you can't see that...if you want more choice than MULTICLASS...if pure classes all of a sudden had the same amount of choices (ie. 3 Trees) multiclasses would become useless

This is not true. EVERY race will have a RACE capstone available pure or not and EVERY race with have a RACE PrE UNLOCK that provides access to a capstone based on CHARACTER LEVEL.

The level 20 CLASS requirements MIGHT be applicable for SOME but NOT FOR ALL capstones.

Or do you choose to disagree with what the DEV'S HAVE POSTED IN THIS THREAD? :D

I can take a child into a toy store and tell that child she gets 1 toy. She has a choice of a more expensive toy in the more expensive section or a cheaper toy in the cheaper section. Both option are available to her. It doesn't matter that there are 10 rows of toys or 20 rows of toys in the cheap section. They are all cheaper toys. More rows might provide more chance there is something she might want but in the end the existing toys didn't lose value and the more expensive section is still going to be the more likely choice.

More choices does not change the value of the choices all by itself. It is the perceived value of the purchaser that makes the difference and that is entirely subjective based on personal opinion. In the case of the tree system we would be looking at tier costs that are already for higher cost (req) items already partially paid for in the previous AP spends compared to opening up new tiers for more cost requirements. So the effect ends up with purchasing a more expensive item for less cost than purchasing a cheaper item providing incentive to not want to open up more of those other trees, and if we can get a more expensive item for the same price than a less expensive item it makes sense to give those more expensive items a bit of a priority just to eliminate unnecessary costs.

Asking for more cheaper choices would never guarantee effectiveness in power or versatility. It is a request in the hopes the possibility will exist. There would be a higher possibility that there would be something that person wants but that does not guarantee effectiveness or versatility in the slightest.

In the meantime, I would never plan a character in the new system around what I could do in the old system. I would plan it around what I can do in the new system.

That means if I want to be a caster, melee, or some hybrid of abilities I'm going to look at what races, PrE's, and level splits provide what I am looking for. Then I will select what best fits what I am looking for and multiclassing will not preclude vertical progression in several areas so I would take advantage of that. If I want to make a melee there is a great chance drow, horc, dwarf, and halfling are going to be the choices for those races with what information we have now. If I want ranged then elf or helf. If I want a caster then that is not clear yet and casters do tend to make use of the higher levels more so that is more likely to be more effective pure but the tree system already limits progression in too many trees so that does not provide more incentive over multiclassing just looking at enhancements.

In the end, I will still be able to build that multiclass, it will still be effective, and it will still provide advantages over going pureclass in many cases. If single classes are designed for heavy vertical progression in one tree how is that an incentive to go pure over multi when multi has that same option unless they simply choose to ignore it?

MadFloyd

01-20-2012, 12:09 PM

This awesome can not be surpassed.

I KNEW you guys would improve on our ideas. :D

MadFloyd

01-20-2012, 12:12 PM

Also since people are speculating about it are those icons just placeholders or should we be actually garnering info from them :P

Yes, all the icons, values etc are placeholder. This is NOT a real tree. The value in this image is the general appearance.

We do not yet a real tree to share, but when we do, I will share it for purposes of feedback.

stainer

01-20-2012, 12:14 PM

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 12:15 PM

Yes, all the icons, values etc are placeholder. This is NOT a real tree. The value in this image is the general appearance.

We do not yet a real tree to share, but when we do, I will share it for purposes of feedback.

So no Elven Rust Monster -> Elven Masochist than :(

So ummm...about getting more than 3 trees for multi's? Any chance? Also MUlticlass PrEs, Favored PrE System, REAL Racial PrEs,etc. any word on those...not necessarily yeah or nay...just your opinions..maybe?

Steiner-Davion

01-20-2012, 12:19 PM

Madfloyd could we also get the ability to do a partial enhancement switch/swap out option with these changes. Really stink's to have to redo all of them to just change out one.

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 12:24 PM

If single classes are designed for heavy vertical progression in one tree how is that an incentive to go pure over multi when multi has that same option unless they simply choose to ignore it?

Ummm...probably because they can't...you know those pesky class levels mean your limited how high you can go up a tree.

I'm sorry Aash but this isn't a matter of opinion..your just wrong...I know your worried about you precious Single Classes(which FYI I play a mix of Pures, Light Splashes and Deep MUlticlasses) but once you take away versatility from multiclasses you lose all reason to multiclass. Also by adding more trees NOTHING changes for pures so what are you complaining about.

Darkrok

01-20-2012, 12:29 PM

Madfloyd could we also get the ability to do a partial enhancement switch/swap out option with these changes. Really stink's to have to redo all of them to just change out one.

That's a great idea...honestly it would be really easy to just 'unlock' the tree when you do a respec. Keep all selections clicked, just make them changeable again.

dkyle

01-20-2012, 12:33 PM

I can take a child into a toy store and tell that child she gets 1 toy. She has a choice of a more expensive toy in the more expensive section or a cheaper toy in the cheaper section. Both option are available to her. It doesn't matter that there are 10 rows of toys or 20 rows of toys in the cheap section. They are all cheaper toys. More rows might provide more chance there is something she might want but in the end the existing toys didn't lose value and the more expensive section is still going to be the more likely choice.

I'm pretty sure if you asked most children if they want to choose among 10 toys, or among 20, they'd know that 20 is the better option. The more toys, the more likely there's something they'll want.

Even if it is "more likely" that a child would want a more expensive toy, this is hardly guaranteed. If there is even a minuscule chance of the child wanting a cheaper toy, then the expected value of the child's selection is likely to be greater with 20 options available instead of 10.

More choices does not change the value of the choices all by itself.

No, but it makes it more likely that the optimal (as determined by the player's own values) subset of those choices will be better, if there are more choices.

It is the perceived value of the purchaser that makes the difference and that is entirely subjective based on personal opinion. In the case of the tree system we would be looking at tier costs that are already for higher cost (req) items already partially paid for in the previous AP spends compared to opening up new tiers for more cost requirements. So the effect ends up with purchasing a more expensive item for less cost than purchasing a cheaper item providing incentive to not want to open up more of those other trees, and if we can get a more expensive item for the same price than a less expensive item it makes sense to give those more expensive items a bit of a priority just to eliminate unnecessary costs.

I don't think I'm following. Are you saying that it will never be true that spending AP in additional trees (if we had access to them) would be better than focusing on just 3?

Asking for more cheaper choices would never guarantee effectiveness in power or versatility. It is a request in the hopes the possibility will exist. There would be a higher possibility that there would be something that person wants but that does not guarantee effectiveness or versatility in the slightest.

So you seem to understand how more choices = more likely to be more powerful.

So at what point will you understand that "more likely" is what this thread is all about? We have no guarantees. We know this. But "more likely" is plenty to comment on the system as we know it.

In the end, I will still be able to build that multiclass, it will still be effective, and it will still provide advantages over going pureclass in many cases. If single classes are designed for heavy vertical progression in one tree how is that an incentive to go pure over multi when multi has that same option unless they simply choose to ignore it?

Suppose you want to make an FBIII/RavagerIII/TempestI. A pure can potentially do this. A deep multi simply cannot, even if FB becomes a Racial PrE for some race.

A deep multiclass that wants a tier III PrE must choose a specific race, and are locked into the PrEs available to races. Pures are more free to choose their race, and their focused PrE.

Being able to choose among a wider array of PrE/class/race combinations is likely to provide a huge advantage to pures and splashes, compared to deep multis. Just because all of them can get a tierIII PrE, doesn't mean they are likely to benefit equally from the enhancement system.

SisAmethyst

01-20-2012, 12:34 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Ohh I do like it a lot as it make it much easier to find out pre-req. for certain Enhancements. Right now if I want a specific PrE I have to first search and find the PrE in the whole list, then take a look at the pre-req. and then lookup those in the whole list just to be sure to not make an error.

Now an arrow will show certain dependencies and everything for one PrE is on one page.

My point is just, that I hope that with creating such a tree it may happen that certain combinations fall appart that previously where possible. E.g. spending all AP in Concentration, UMD, Search, Spot etc. enhancements and not take a single point in a PrE at all (even if that would be crazy). So I hope it will not been cut down at all or being keept down to a bare minimum.

dkyle

01-20-2012, 12:40 PM

My point is just, that I hope that with creating such a tree it may happen that certain combinations fall appart that previously where possible. E.g. spending all AP in Concentration, UMD, Search, Spot etc. enhancements and not take a single point in a PrE at all (even if that would be crazy). So I hope it will not been cut down at all or being keept down to a bare minimum.

If you put all your points into skill enhancements, you'd likely end up with at least a few ranks of the bonus PrE tiers, for free. Those bonus tiers appear to be where the bulk of the current PrEs' abilities are going to be put.

Cyr

01-20-2012, 12:42 PM

If you put all your points into skill enhancements, you'd likely end up with at least a few ranks of the bonus PrE tiers, for free. Those bonus tiers appear to be where the bulk of the current PrEs' abilities are going to be put.

Yup, I like it as it is kind of like a anti-noob mechanic which gives something nice even if you have no clue how to build a toon and end up thinking that having a huge listen, spot, and repair are awesome.

stainer

01-20-2012, 12:44 PM

Ebondevil

01-20-2012, 12:48 PM

Just had an interesting idea for a Drow Racial PrE: Something that evolves them into a Scorrow, would be pretty cool.

Racial PrE's would be better than rehashing Class PrE's for the races.

SisAmethyst

01-20-2012, 12:54 PM

Who said "all the concerned?" I was talking about the handful or so who commented on the original mockup looking like Wow. It was a small contingent, but it was said more then once, hence my phrase "some of the folks."

Well I used for exampel the term WoW but not for the look and feel but for the restrictions. The System in WoW has far less depth of how Enhancements can be combined as we do have in DDO. For example an Elven Rogue could put a lot of points in those single Skill Enhancements like Skill Spot, Skill Search, Skill Bluff, Skill Balance and so on.

To cover this in a tree would make the tree very wide (horizontal) but with a short hight as nearly all of those elements are at the base level (quite a lot of branches next to each other). Currently only a few elements have a vertical dependency, mainly the PrE. In fact the current system which we have doesn't really fit or look much like a tree then more like a fens where you have some lines going a bit cross.

While I not intend to create a Character that only put points in the skill Enhancements and skip the PrE it is possible right now and provides some very unique possibilities. It would be sad if this would be cut down in a way that you on the base could only select between 3 branches and you have to stick with ony those predefined branch setup that not leave much of options horizontally.

SisAmethyst

01-20-2012, 12:57 PM

boomer70

01-20-2012, 12:57 PM

Yup, I like it as it is kind of like a anti-noob mechanic which gives something nice even if you have no clue how to build a toon and end up thinking that having a huge listen, spot, and repair are awesome.

While providing an easy to use clear system will benefit everyone (and even more so a "noob") it does not REQUIRE eliminating choices to make that so.

The problem of having a "noob" selecting all the "wrong" enhancements could be fixed as being proposed (i.e. provide fewer choices, have bonuses when you pick "the right choices").

It could also be fixed by providing fewer choices that are so obviously superior/inferior. How many characters with a fighter or rogue level do not have any Haste Boost enhancements at all? I would say not too many. If most enhancements were reasonably useful I think the vast number of player would make reasonable choices.

The bigger issue as I see it with the current (not proposed) system is that too many choices are hidden. This means that it is entirely possible to create a character without ever knowing you had a certain option available. A new UI could address this issue without ANY changes to the existing system. Therefore, the proposed system is not required to improve this situation.

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 12:58 PM

Ummm...probably because they can't...you know those pesky class levels mean your limited how high you can go up a tree.

I'm sorry Aash but this isn't a matter of opinion..your just wrong...I know your worried about you precious Single Classes(which FYI I play a mix of Pures, Light Splashes and Deep MUlticlasses) but once you take away versatility from multiclasses you lose all reason to multiclass. Also by adding more trees NOTHING changes for pures so what are you complaining about.

They are not limited by class levels in 2 trees in the new system. I'm not worried about my pure classes I'm flat out telling you that multiclassing does not limit vertical progression in 2 tree because those 2 tree are based on character level and not class level.

Once any character spends their AP in those 2 trees there are no AP left to spend in the other 2 tree that would hit the class level limits.

That part has nothing to do with opinion. It is a clear fact that multiclassing has the option to use 2 full trees and a clear fact that a person could spend all of their AP in those 2 trees without completely filling them and a clear fact that this is true going pure or not.

Pure classes do not magically have 150 AP so they can spend on those other 2 trees anymore than a multiclass would. Either has the same potential to develop 2 trees.

If you can spend 80 AP in 2 trees either way because 2 of them are not limited by class levels then that option is available. It's clearly available for multiclassing or pureclassing. Once you spend those AP in the first 2 trees that AP is gone and cannot be spent in the 2nd 2 trees regardless of multiclassing or not. The other class level restrictions don't come into effect.

The difference is multiclassing provide more options to supplement those main trees to meet the characters focus than pure classing does.

The only level limitations that would apply in practice on the new system would have to be self imposed by that player given the options available and choosing not to make the best use of the vertical advancement that does exist.

An 18/2 or 18/1/1 or 16/2/2 or 17/2/1 etc still have plenty to spend points on and higher tiers even giving up the option for a class PrE unlock and would still have a boat load available in the race tree unless you want to assume the race tree you have is useless to you and at that point why would you have selected that race in the first place. And the option for a race capstone for spending 41 AP in the race tree and 39 in the other 3 trees.

MadFloyd

01-20-2012, 12:58 PM

Madfloyd could we also get the ability to do a partial enhancement switch/swap out option with these changes. Really stink's to have to redo all of them to just change out one.

You can reset one tree at a time - if that's what you mean.

Cyr

01-20-2012, 12:59 PM

While providing an easy to use clear system will benefit everyone (and even more so a "noob") it does not REQUIRE eliminating choices to make that so.

No doubt about that.

That does not make it any less of a point in it's favor. I agree though that the points not in it's favor outweigh the good points, because most of the good points can be accomplished in better ways.

Phemt81

01-20-2012, 01:00 PM

madfloyd could we also get the ability to do a partial enhancement switch/swap out option with these changes. Really stink's to have to redo all of them to just change out one.

/Signed

Cyr

01-20-2012, 01:01 PM

You can reset one tree at a time - if that's what you mean.

So does the mock up still look the same when you include the new expansion raising the level cap Mad?

boomer70

01-20-2012, 01:03 PM

We do not yet a real tree to share, but when we do, I will share it for purposes of feedback.

Feedback
1.
a. The return of a portion of the output of a process or system to the input, especially when used to maintain performance or to control a system or process.
b. The portion of the output so returned.
(free online dictionary)

It is only feedback when there is an actual change that results. This statement basically says that all the "feedback" from this thread will continue to be ignored while they get on with what they are doing. Thanks for playing.

dkyle

01-20-2012, 01:14 PM

Feedback
1.
a. The return of a portion of the output of a process or system to the input, especially when used to maintain performance or to control a system or process.
b. The portion of the output so returned.
(free online dictionary)

It is only feedback when there is an actual change that results. This statement basically says that all the "feedback" from this thread will continue to be ignored while they get on with what they are doing. Thanks for playing.

I'm not ready to write off the thread, yet. The mockup is the work of a graphic designer, not a game designer (presumably). They're going to be mostly concerned with how it looks, not portraying the game mechanics accurately.

MadFloyd

01-20-2012, 01:27 PM

So does the mock up still look the same when you include the new expansion raising the level cap Mad?

Yessir, it does. This system is limited to heroic levels.

Cyr

01-20-2012, 01:28 PM

Yessir, it does. This system is limited to heroic levels.

Hmm, so no new AP when you hit level 21+ or just no new 'capstone' type things at the top end?

MadFloyd

01-20-2012, 01:33 PM

Feedback
1.
a. The return of a portion of the output of a process or system to the input, especially when used to maintain performance or to control a system or process.
b. The portion of the output so returned.
(free online dictionary)

It is only feedback when there is an actual change that results. This statement basically says that all the "feedback" from this thread will continue to be ignored while they get on with what they are doing. Thanks for playing.

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.

AZgreentea

01-20-2012, 01:33 PM

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpgI was doing my best to not think about work while I was sitting at work and a thought occurred to me:

Having a separate racial enhancement line would be great if they introduced Shifters. Then you could focus on the racial attack aspect of the character instead of the class. It would really play into the lore of the shifters, were they tend to have more or less of the animal side from one shifter to the next.

Oh, and can I ask that the UI components be available for customization upon release? Blue is great and all, but I would love it if someone made alternatives.

Havok.cry

01-20-2012, 01:41 PM

Yup, I like it as it is kind of like a anti-noob mechanic which gives something nice even if you have no clue how to build a toon and end up thinking that having a huge listen, spot, and repair are awesome.

Yes it will be an anti noob mechanic, but while it is killing the noob builds it will also be killing the possibility of creating an awesome build, because no matter how you do it it will be just as awesome as every other build out there. It will be boring. All sense of accomplishment when you make an awesome build will be gone from the game.

waterboytkd

01-20-2012, 01:48 PM

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.

Any chance we could get some fly-on-wall intelligence on those discussions?

For examlpe:

What does the team(s) think about no tree limit? Does the limit have anything to do with stacking enhancements?

What does the team(s) think about no class level limits on tree tiers/enhancement tiers (just on PrE bonus enhancements and enhancements tied to specific class abilities gained at class level X), but retain the 3 tree limit?

Does a lot of the debate circle around info we don't have yet, like new tree tier 1 enhancements for every tree? (yeah, I'm fishing for info on how many new enhancements here ;P)

boomer70

01-20-2012, 01:53 PM

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.

I will be happy if I am wrong. Just analyzing what we have gotten in terms of information.
Initial Proposal
pages of debate
screen shot
then your comment say you don't have specifics for the trees YET but WHEN you do you will post them.

The screen shot without any further comment implies that work is being done one the new system regardless of the feedback. Not a bad thing in and of itself and not entirely unexpected.

The comment you made implies that you are actively working on fitting enhancements into the proposed trees.

Combined this led me to the conclusion that this isn't a request for feedback so much as a preview. "Heres the great stuff we are working on".

I will happily eat crow if I am wrong.

boomer70

01-20-2012, 01:57 PM

Any chance we could get some fly-on-wall intelligence on those discussions?

For examlpe:

What does the team(s) think about no tree limit? Does the limit have anything to do with stacking enhancements?

What does the team(s) think about no class level limits on tree tiers/enhancement tiers (just on PrE bonus enhancements and enhancements tied to specific class abilities gained at class level X), but retain the 3 tree limit?

Does a lot of the debate circle around info we don't have yet, like new tree tier 1 enhancements for every tree? (yeah, I'm fishing for info on how many new enhancements here ;P)

This sort of feedback from the dev side would go a long way to making this feel like an actual loop. Even if the system remains 100% the same as it was originally shown if the dev team came out and said this is how it is and heres why and here is why we can't do x, y, or z.

I am sure all the devs are very busy but starting a thread and asking for feedback then not providing and concrete evidence that feedback is being heard (not saying anything needs to be changed just here is our analysis of the feedback) leads one to the feeling that the feedback is not being heard at all.

dkyle

01-20-2012, 01:58 PM

Yes it will be an anti noob mechanic, but while it is killing the noob builds it will also be killing the possibility of creating an awesome build, because no matter how you do it it will be just as awesome as every other build out there. It will be boring. All sense of accomplishment when you make an awesome build will be gone from the game.

Picking all skill enhancements is still quite likely to result in a very gimped build, compared to more sensible choices.

Fomori

01-20-2012, 02:07 PM

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.
We thank you for that comment MF. Comments back from the devs is appreciated, even mediocre or bad news.

My biggest concern is that in the end it will be completely ignored anyways.

I feel that in this case the motivation is to the make the enhancement system over simplified. The majority of those against what we are being given want a more robust system, which clashes with the perceived motivation. In that battle simple will always win because its usually easier to capitulate to someone wanting less rather than more. That is why I feel we will just be swept under the rug.

I'm not saying that my opinions are the only ones that matter, but it is proven from other MMOs that having minimal simple options will lead to simple cookie cutter characters.

ArkoHighStar

01-20-2012, 02:08 PM

I will be happy if I am wrong. Just analyzing what we have gotten in terms of information.
Initial Proposal
pages of debate
screen shot
then your comment say you don't have specifics for the trees YET but WHEN you do you will post them.

The screen shot without any further comment implies that work is being done one the new system regardless of the feedback. Not a bad thing in and of itself and not entirely unexpected.

The comment you made implies that you are actively working on fitting enhancements into the proposed trees.

Combined this led me to the conclusion that this isn't a request for feedback so much as a preview. "Heres the great stuff we are working on".

I will happily eat crow if I am wrong.

I would look at it this way.If you were concerned about the switch to skill trees in general consider your feedback useless as it appears the switch to skill trees is their intended path regardless of feedback. If you wish to make feedback on how skill trees are implemented, then comment away.

pregnable

01-20-2012, 02:10 PM

Shadowdancer.

Music of the Gods.

Replace everything with Bards...

Shapeshifting Bards Wielding other Bards in their off hand as a light weapon.

Chai

01-20-2012, 02:13 PM

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.

Im not suspecting any feedback is being ignored. When a developer posts a thread specifically requesting that feedback and more than 100 pages of it pours in over the course of a week or so, its got to take a while to digest it all much less debate specific points that were made.

Not to mention the ~six month time frame involved - I wouldnt expect to see alot of concrete set in stone game mechanics just yet either, so its cool if you guys decide to trickle information in over time to be able to center the player base's feedback on specific proposed game mechanics.

Be happy player base - you dont get this out of most software companies much less MMO companies.

Havok.cry

01-20-2012, 02:14 PM

Picking all skill enhancements is still quite likely to result in a very gimped build, compared to more sensible choices.

Of course it would, my point was that the more they remove the possibility of failing at character creation the more boring it gets. It's like a quest, without the possibility of failure, without the challenge the quest is uninteresting.

On a related note I am opposed to changing something to cater to stupid people, as that just encourages them to remain stupid. If they are challenged and have to overcome that challenge they are either weeded out or progress past the point of being stupid. Common sense is a developed trait, that when un-encouraged, never develops. I am worried that changes like this will flood the game with idiots because they can succeed now without changing their idiot status.

Also I apologize if anyone is offended by that opinion, but someone getting offended by it won't change it for me. I also think turbine (like almost every game company out there) is purposely trying to dumb it down because stupid people will give them more money for less effort on their part. It really is a solid business strategy. Just one that will hurt the game for me.

ArkoHighStar

01-20-2012, 02:17 PM

Of course it would, my point was that the more they remove the possibility of failing at character creation the more boring it gets. It's like a quest, without the possibility of failure, without the challenge the quest is uninteresting.

On a related note I am opposed to changing something to cater to stupid people, as that just encourages them to remain stupid. If they are challenged and have to overcome that challenge they are either weeded out or progress past the point of being stupid. Common sense is a developed trait, that when encouraged, never develops. I am worried that changes like this will flood the game with idiots because they can succeed now without changing their idiot status.

Also I apologize if anyone is offended by that opinion, but someone getting offended by it won't change it for me. I also think turbine (like almost every game company out there) is purposely trying to dumb it down because stupid people will give them more money for less effort on their part. It really is a solid business strategy. Just one that will hurt the game for me.

What you have there is the balancing act between making a system simple enough for newer players to grasp easily yet robust enough that veteran players have plenty of flexibility. This is an extremely difficult task, and my guess is the devs will err on the side of easy to use but less flexible.

dkyle

01-20-2012, 02:18 PM

Of course it would, my point was that the more they remove the possibility of failing at character creation the more boring it gets. It's like a quest, without the possibility of failure, without the challenge the quest is uninteresting.

I'm sure it will still be possible to fail at character creation. A few bonus tiers of PrE aren't going to turn a fail build into a good one.

On a related note I am opposed to changing something to cater to stupid people, as that just encourages them to remain stupid. If they are challenged and have to overcome that challenge they are either weeded out or progress past the point of being stupid. Common sense is a developed trait, that when encouraged, never develops. I am worried that changes like this will flood the game with idiots because they can succeed now without changing their idiot status.

I doubt the bonus tiers are there to make it "idiot-proof". They're just there as a way to model PrE prereqs in a flexible manner.

SisAmethyst

01-20-2012, 02:19 PM

Picking all skill enhancements is still quite likely to result in a very gimped build, compared to more sensible choices.

Well I guess what is optimal depends on the background, circumstances and play style. I guess if you play a perma death character without access to DDO store and other stuff suddenly certain skills may suddenly start to become much more appealing. E.g have a higher repair or heal skill to be beefed up after the shrine with less resources, or swim because for the hell of your luck you wheren't able to loot an underwater action item.

Not everybody of us is trying to build the most efficient character (damage wise) to beat the high end raids. I know some player that play since a very long time but not have a single character over level 16. Not because they aren't able to build an efficient character but because they hate Amrath and love all the house K quests.

While one player love to see big numbers others like to explore and break each single box. Some lack orientation and can't remember all the traps and need that points in spot. Others just like to create flavour build that shine with crazy little things but not damage output. Heck most players in game even don't know that their +2 STR belt not stack with the +1 on the gloves. The minority of the players in game actually is reading the forum and evolve their characters accordingly.

However who am I to judge their gameplay and if they want to build such a character or have just fun to try them out I will not stop them to do so...

However with such a tree it automatically get less complicated as it is now where you have in worst case to scroll through the whole list to find the right one that is even a prereq for another.

Havok.cry

01-20-2012, 02:22 PM

What you have there is the balancing act between making a system simple enough for newer players to grasp easily yet robust enough that veteran players have plenty of flexibility. This is an extremely difficult task, and my guess is the devs will err on the side of easy to use but less flexible.

I just hope they consider this aspect of the balance you refer to :) As with everything in this though I am still in a wait and see mode.... just have to get concerns out while we have a chance.

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 02:22 PM

Well I guess what is optimal depends on the background, circumstances and play style. I guess if you play a perma death character without access to DDO store and other stuff suddenly certain skills may suddenly start to become much more appealing. E.g have a higher repair or heal skill to be beefed up after the shrine with less resources, or swim because for the hell of your luck you wheren't able to loot a underwater action item.

Not everybody of us is trying to build the most efficient characcter to beat the high end raids. I know some player that play since a very long time but not have a single character over level 16. Not because they aren't able to build an efficient character but because they hate Amrath and love all the house K quests.

While one player love to see big numbers others like to explore and break each single box. Some lack orientation and can't remember all the traps and need that points in spot. Others just like to create flavour build that shine with crazy little things but not damage output. Heck most players in game even don't know that their +2 STR belt not stack with the +1 on the gloves. The minority of the players in game actually is reading the forum and evolve their characters accordingly.

However who am I to judge their gameplay and if they want to build such a character or have just fun to try them out I will not stop them to do so...

and all of the above will be inhibited by a 3 tree system. Tree Sytem? Works for me..limiting build options? thats a no go

jejeba86

01-20-2012, 02:22 PM

ArkoHighStar

01-20-2012, 02:28 PM

How can you think about something as less customization?
You will be able to have lots of prestiges, we will have much more customization going on, and those that don`t have a clue will follow the trees and be happier then ever. As those that run with them, and probably will see better results.

Way to go, Mad.

I`m so looking forward to this that I'm postponing levelling my chars just to wait and see how this goes. My initial idea of a drow assassin, that was changed to a halfling, will be certainly pretty!

Putting the PrE's as the base of the tree inherently makes the system less flexible than it is today which instead puts the general enhancements at the bottom as it were and you build to a PrE. In essence you are forcing people down a certain set of paths. Sure within those paths there are lots of choices, but you are stuck with the path.

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 02:28 PM

I'm pretty sure if you asked most children if they want to choose among 10 toys, or among 20, they'd know that 20 is the better option. The more toys, the more likely there's something they'll want.

Even if it is "more likely" that a child would want a more expensive toy, this is hardly guaranteed. If there is even a minuscule chance of the child wanting a cheaper toy, then the expected value of the child's selection is likely to be greater with 20 options available instead of 10.

No, but it makes it more likely that the optimal (as determined by the player's own values) subset of those choices will be better, if there are more choices.

I don't think I'm following. Are you saying that it will never be true that spending AP in additional trees (if we had access to them) would be better than focusing on just 3?

So you seem to understand how more choices = more likely to be more powerful.

So at what point will you understand that "more likely" is what this thread is all about? We have no guarantees. We know this. But "more likely" is plenty to comment on the system as we know it.

Suppose you want to make an FBIII/RavagerIII/TempestI. A pure can potentially do this. A deep multi simply cannot, even if FB becomes a Racial PrE for some race.

A deep multiclass that wants a tier III PrE must choose a specific race, and are locked into the PrEs available to races. Pures are more free to choose their race, and their focused PrE.

Being able to choose among a wider array of PrE/class/race combinations is likely to provide a huge advantage to pures and splashes, compared to deep multis. Just because all of them can get a tierIII PrE, doesn't mean they are likely to benefit equally from the enhancement system.

I'm pretty sure if I asked a child to choose 1 toy from a selection of higher end toys over 1 toy from a bigger selection of lower end toys the child tends to select the higher end toys. It's still one toy and having a larger selection of lower end toys cannot decrease the value of the existing higher end toys nor the value of the existing lower end toys.

I could make that build with a drow barbarian and take ravager FB and race unlock tempest on an 18/2 barbarian fighter 2 for more feats to better make use of those enhancements with my melee style. Or I could make him a pure drow and make the same build. There is no need to go pure for it and the fact that a deeper splash cannot do it doesn't mean the deeper splash will not have good options they can do. Pure is not required and if I did to that I wouldn't have any more AP to spend either way after already spending 70 on FB III, Ravager III, Tempest I plus whatever on the race tree making having access to addition trees pointless on that multclass splash.

I have no doubt more trees could provide more choices. That does not mean the existing trees without them do not provide good benefits or better benefits for some multiclass builds. An absolute statement like all multiclasses will suffer is incorrect because it relies on the preconceptions that those better options will exist which not necessarily true. More choices still doesn't mean better options. It means more choices.

gloopygloop

01-20-2012, 02:37 PM

I'm pretty sure if I asked a child to choose 1 toy from a selection of higher end toys over 1 toy from a bigger selection of lower end toys the child tends to select the higher end toys. It's still one toy and having a larger selection of lower end toys cannot decrease the value of the existing higher end toys nor the value of the existing lower end toys.

And some kids will open the most expensive toy in the lot and end up playing with the box.

If the "better" toys/enhancements are better, that's great. I'm sure most people will pick them. But there is no good reason to limit the choices so that we can *only* pick the "better" options. Some people will want to pick options that aren't optimal. There's a long tradition of gimpy multiclass characters in DDO. Why eliminate options when you don't have to?

I understand (and mostly agree with) your opinion that *more* options does not guarantee *better* options. What I want to know is why you're so dead set against having more options in the first place. Having more options certainly won't eliminate any of the better options. All of the 3-tree options will still exist if we have access to 4 or 5 or 10 trees.

quickgrif

01-20-2012, 02:47 PM

Putting the PrE's as the base of the tree inherently makes the system less flexible than it is today which instead puts the general enhancements at the bottom as it were and you build to a PrE. In essence you are forcing people down a certain set of paths. Sure within those paths there are lots of choices, but you are stuck with the path.

Perhaps depending on how they work the tree. Think about this, how many wasted points did you have to blow on enhancements that were totally useless to your build not to mention feats taken that do not help you out. Then after you spend those you have to have points for the PRE itself.

Now I cannot say if the system they are coming up with will be more flexible or less but the fact remains if they
1) Remove or make useful all the wasted enhancements
2) Make the PRE abilities cost nothing directly
3) Remove some of the limitations on PREs requirements such as blocking you out of another PRE because you took another.
It could be possible that the new system will be just as flexible in its own right.

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 02:50 PM

1) Remove or make useful all the wasted enhancements
2) Make the PRE abilities cost nothing directly
3) Remove some of the limitations on PREs requirements such as blocking you out of another PRE because you took another.
It could be possible that the new system will be just as flexible in its own right.

As long as were not arbitrarily limited to 3 Trees I 100% agree. (Having Multi-class PrEs would be nice too :P)

dkyle

01-20-2012, 02:59 PM

I'm pretty sure if I asked a child to choose 1 toy from a selection of higher end toys over 1 toy from a bigger selection of lower end toys the child tends to select the higher end toys.

If I had to bet, I'd bet the same. But that's besides the point. The mere possibility that a lower end toy might catch the child's eye is sufficient to make the range of selection of lower end toys relevant.

And if you deny that possibility, I have to think you don't know children very well.

It's still one toy and having a larger selection of lower end toys cannot decrease the value of the existing higher end toys nor the value of the existing lower end toys.

The issue isn't the value of the toys themselves. It's the expected value to the child of the smaller set of choices vs. the larger set of choices. With the safe assumption that not all toys will be of equal value to the child, the larger set will always have a higher expected value.

I could make that build with a drow barbarian and take ravager FB and race unlock tempest on an 18/2 barbarian fighter 2 for more feats to better make use of those enhancements with my melee style. Or I could make him a pure drow and make the same build. There is no need to go pure for it and the fact that a deeper splash cannot do it doesn't mean the deeper splash will not have good options they can do. Pure is not required and if I did to that I wouldn't have any more AP to spend either way after already spending 70 on FB III, Ravager III, Tempest I plus whatever on the race tree making having access to addition trees pointless on that multclass splash.

First, I was arguing about the deep multis. I'm not that concerned about splashes at this time.

Second, again, you are arguing absolutes. Is it possible for there to be combo that's truly spectacular, that only a deep multiclass can pull off? I suppose, but there's little reason to believe that will happen at this time. Or that there will be more than a few of them. At this time, fewer choices is sufficient to expect less power. And deep multis clearly have fewer options under this system, in terms of the high level enhancements you are valuing so much.

Finally, you really don't think there'd ever be a point in putting even a single AP out of 10 into a Fighter tree on a 2-level fighter splash? If that's the case, you are making far more absolute claims about the system than I have.

I have no doubt more trees could provide more choices. That does not mean the existing trees without them do not provide good benefits or better benefits for some multiclass builds. An absolute statement like all multiclasses will suffer is incorrect because it relies on the preconceptions that those better options will exist which not necessarily true. More choices still doesn't mean better options. It means more choices.

I haven't claimed that multiclasses "will" suffer (and if I have, it was a matter of poor word choice, not intention).

However, a statement like "given the info we have now, the system proposed in this thread seems likely to discourage deep multiclasses compared to the current system, or a similar system with no tree limit", is entirely reasonable at this time. And I believe well justified. More choices doesn't necessarily mean better options. But it is likely to produce better options than less choices. Given no info on what those options will actually be, the most justified hypothesis at this time is that builds that gain more options than other builds are likely to gain more power as well.

Scraap

01-20-2012, 03:00 PM

Yes, all the icons, values etc are placeholder. This is NOT a real tree. The value in this image is the general appearance.

We do not yet a real tree to share, but when we do, I will share it for purposes of feedback.

Keeping the 5 point unlocks for the class trees as well? If so, even if we're limited to the 40 aps we've got and there's no progress beyond that for 21-25, I could easily see an 18/x or pure that's willing to drop a cap picking up 30/30/20.

edit: That being said, it is a clean layout, and does seem relatively simple to comprehend, which I believe were your goals.

Captain_Wizbang

01-20-2012, 03:25 PM

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

I copied this then showed a lot of people in-game that dont come here, and they are thrilled like a kobold in the caverns!
Nice work.

B0ltdrag0n

01-20-2012, 03:30 PM

Personally I really hope you are considering making certain enhancements go into multiple tree, and that selecting them in one tree will also select them in the other tree. For example Fighter Toughness. *I* would place it in the Stalwart Tree and the Purple DragonKnight. And selecting in one selects in the other. Also if I multiclassed into a Barbarian it would be selected in whatever tree from that I took.

This would help you with 'stacking' issues, as well as allow for multiclass builds to not die overnight. That is the biggest concern I have, and have seen others express. The way you have the system explained to us now, there will be little to no reason to make 12/6/2 or 12/7/1 or any other such builds. We will get pure 20 and 18/2 at best, and I feel that would negatively impact what I think is one of the best mechanics of our game. That is to say, Multiclassing.

Add onto that Epic Levels which, I dont know much about for how you will implement them, but if they are similar to pen and paper then they will drastically encourage single class builds over multiclassing, due to how their 'bonus feat' system and requirements worked.

ComicRelief

01-20-2012, 03:50 PM

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.

@MadFloyd: Maybe it's because out of over 2k total posts, there is only the one other previous post (other than this one) by you that indicates you are "actively debating some of [our] feedback", but it is all being kept internally (at Turbine) and none of what is being debated is being shared in the thread. Coupled with the fact that it seems like the only other posts being made by you deal almost exclusively with the "trees".

I can easily see why some are quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored.

There are several other aspects of enhancements that a few have commented on, but they are being swallowed by the overwhelming forest of tree talk, so it does seem like they are being ignored.

And yes, that was indeed an intentional pun.
;)

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 03:57 PM

@MadFloyd: Maybe it's because out of over 2k total posts, there is only the one other previous post (other than this one) by you that indicates you are "actively debating some of [our] feedback", but it is all being kept internally (at Turbine) and none of what is being debated is being shared in the thread. Coupled with the fact that it seems like the only other posts being made by you deal almost exclusively with the "trees".

I can easily see why some are quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored.

There are several other aspects of enhancements that a few have commented on, but they are being swallowed by the overwhelming forest of tree talk, so it does seem like they are being ignored.

And yes, that was indeed an intentional pun.
;)

We don't even need much just list off the ideas you've found interesting

ie.

Read up to this point

Currently Discussing or Found Interesting, or even just Noticed these ideas

- Multiclass PrEs
- Increasing or Removing the Tree Limit
- Returning to Racial PrEs as opposed to carbon copies of class PrEs
- Favored PrE System
- Ham Based Economy
- and some possibilities we thought of

Obviously thats not word for word and you would have to make it sound more professional but that would be enough to know your paying attention ask it requires at least reading the thread to see the ideas

Dark_Helmet

01-20-2012, 03:58 PM

Lolth (All Hail) may spare you. MajMalphunktion will be Drider food.
Looks at title and sees:Prophet of Lolth

Sell out! ;)

stainer

01-20-2012, 04:00 PM

Looks at title and sees:Prophet of Lolth

Sell out! ;)

All hail!

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 04:29 PM

looks pretty. but it also looks like almost every other mmo out there. dont get the need to copy whats been done before but its too late for them to go back now as its pretty clear this mostly done and ready for lama.

It is only feedback when there is an actual change that results. This statement basically says that all the "feedback" from this thread will continue to be ignored while they get on with what they are doing.

Yes, all the icons, values etc are placeholder. This is NOT a real tree. The value in this image is the general appearance.

We do not yet a real tree to share, but when we do, I will share it for purposes of feedback.

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.

Seriously?

As has been explained from Madfloyd at the onset, and as many of us have been reminding a few of the most pessimistic in this thread, they are NOT near a stage of completion. This isnt "done" or "near done".

Its clear they are still messing with graphics and still deep in discussion on basic elements of this UI. They seem closer to the beginning or middle then the end. I'd guess somewhere early in the beginning/middle phase.

We were given a glimpse, through an eyehole, to what one dev wanted to change. He had someone draw up a mockup so he could start a thread and get our insight so he can make the most people happy. That doesnt mean he needs to fax you boys a summary report every time he has a random thought! He owes you nothing.

I'm grateful, and it sounds many people are also grateful, that Mad did grant us an opportunity to give our thoughts so early in this process. Its clearly a great new change of policy that I'm happy to play a small role in. :)

Failedlegend

01-20-2012, 04:46 PM

I'm grateful, and it sounds many people are also grateful, that Mad did grant us an opportunity to give our thoughts so early in this process. Its clearly a great new change of policy that I'm happy to play a small role in. :)

Says the person who thinks NOTHING needs to be changed and its perfect as is

Yaga_Nub

01-20-2012, 04:47 PM

Feedback
1.
a. The return of a portion of the output of a process or system to the input, especially when used to maintain performance or to control a system or process.
b. The portion of the output so returned.
(free online dictionary)

It is only feedback when there is an actual change that results. This statement basically says that all the "feedback" from this thread will continue to be ignored while they get on with what they are doing. Thanks for playing.

That's not true at all. Feedback might not change the system. But since we're talking about conversations and a person that is designing something, there's a lot more feedback than just these forums. Usually the strongest feedback is what makes something change or not change.

MadFloyd

01-20-2012, 04:47 PM

Hmm, so no new AP when you hit level 21+ or just no new 'capstone' type things at the top end?

Different system kicks in at that point. Not trying to tease, I just can't divulge any info just yet, but rest assured I will when the time is right as I will want feedback before we get too far into it.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 04:55 PM

That's not true at all. Feedback might not change the system. But since we're talking about conversations and a person that is designing something, there's a lot more feedback than just these forums. Usually the strongest feedback is what makes something change or not change.

Well said. Usually is clearly the operative in your comment ;)

This time, I think we are going to see clear signs that our input was utilized in the final product.

jadenkorr

01-20-2012, 05:55 PM

Different system kicks in at that point. Not trying to tease, I just can't divulge any info just yet, but rest assured I will when the time is right as I will want feedback before we get too far into it.

Speaking of info, are you allowed to tell us any of the following? Do epic feats exist? Are there feats that are exclusive to epic levels, and/or we still getting the normal feats every 3 levels? Im particularly interested in the last question, as this would open up a ton of build space for builds that are very feat starved, and allow builds that werent possible before.

Artos_Fabril

01-20-2012, 06:04 PM

Personally I really hope you are considering making certain enhancements go into multiple tree, and that selecting them in one tree will also select them in the other tree. For example Fighter Toughness. *I* would place it in the Stalwart Tree and the Purple DragonKnight. And selecting in one selects in the other. Also if I multiclassed into a Barbarian it would be selected in whatever tree from that I took.The problem with having it "selected" in multiple trees would be how points spent are tracked for PrE gain. If it counts as spent in both trees, pure classes could gain 2-3 capstones, depending on how many enhancements were shared between trees, unless capstones were designed to lock each other out. There are other ways to limit stacking of course, and I agree with your basic idea. You could also cap things, especially if all ranks of an enhancement provide the same benefit/cost, like capping a character at 4 (class) toughness enhancements, regardless of what tree they were purchased from. Although that seems counter-intuitive, greying out the option in the UI after a total of 4 had been purchased would be an easily understood visual cue (as long as you also gave a colorblind option)

stainer

01-20-2012, 06:07 PM

It makes Lolth sad that people are fighting when Madfloyd is trying to do work in her name. All Hail.

azrael4h

01-20-2012, 06:07 PM

Not sure why you're so quick to jump to the conclusion that feedback is being ignored. I did post in this thread that we were actively debating some of your feedback (here at Turbine). We have not reached a conclusion yet.

Historically, Turbine has ignored feedback. Look at the bugs and exploits found on Lammania which made it live. Even with the lack of people playing, they found a lot of things which were, simply put, ignored. Look at the U5 TWF rape. Very few, if any, did not speak out against it. The whole thing vastly over-shadowed the rest of the update, which was pretty good by itself. The FvS Wing rape. And on and on.

This is coupled with a lack of communication about the concerns brought up about multi-classing. Specifically the fact that they'll be losing a lot of the low-level enhancements they pick up by the multi-class due to core-class abilities being spread among three trees.

Other than two posts from you, there is no indication that any of our concerns are being given any consideration, and if so, what you are even considering. This is where being a bit more forthright with communicating what, exactly, you are debating would help allay fears and concerns that our feedback and concerns are being ignored.

quickgrif

01-20-2012, 06:10 PM

It makes Lolth sad that people are fighting when Madfloyd is trying to do work in her name. All Hail.

Yes lets keep the infighting over labels off here, we have plenty of infighting to do just over the new enhancement system.

stainer

01-20-2012, 06:11 PM

Yes lets keep the infighting over labels off here, we have plenty of infighting to do just over the new enhancement system.

You have pleased her. Your bone marrow will be nurturing.

quickgrif

01-20-2012, 06:18 PM

Question @MadFloyd:

Would it perhaps help you guys out if you allowed the full digital mock up out for us to "test, pick apart" after you get the first one complete?
It would save you a lot of self testing and help iron out many of the initial bugs. Heck I will run everyone of my current builds through the mock up to see if they are possible.
Plus to see what can and cannot be done under the new enhancement system I think many of us would be more than happy to post our results. :D

ArkoHighStar

01-20-2012, 06:26 PM

CaptGrim

01-20-2012, 07:02 PM

You have pleased her. Your bone marrow will be nurturing.

Ur shiny new forum tag has infected you :)

And it is great fun to read smattered in the 40 year old school yard finger pointing and other serious business the last few pages has had to offer.

Scraap

01-20-2012, 07:38 PM

HalfORCastrator

01-20-2012, 07:51 PM

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 08:19 PM

So does the mock up still look the same when you include the new expansion raising the level cap Mad?

This is what I was wondering. How the levels from 21-25 are implemented could mean a lot in these trees. I'm also curious which we'll see first.

Silverleafeon

01-20-2012, 08:32 PM

quickgrif

01-20-2012, 08:35 PM

As a new player of almost three months, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I don't understand how you(developer/designers) can warp the game from the balance levels that are understood currently. The whole game, for the last few years up to now, has been designed with the PREs and the dungeons/packs of today in mind. Right now, you have context, you know what numbers to tweak, what you need to do. I suggest finishing the PREs, balancing out class archetypes(melee power vs. caster power?), fix bugs while minimizing new ones, doing all this within the current system. This radical change shouldn't be a current focus.

I'm not saying it's not better, or that it is, I'm just saying there are other more important things to do right now. You have said you're going to try to finish PREs, but these changes bring many questions that shouldn't be on your plate while trying to re/design and balance tweak the old and new PREs.

After all the PREs are more or less fleshed out, continue exploring racial PREs and bracketed classes then.

You made this thread, and besides the early hour doom and gloom knee-jerk reaction, there has been very positive, intelligent, constructive responses by five to fifteen members of this forum, reaffirming and encouraging you to continue on this route. But they don't represent the majority of this community, probably not even all of the regular forum posters represent it. I strongly suggest that you have some type of link to this thread in-game, so that this announcement gets more exposure, more understanding, and more feedback by more players.

I'm nervous about this, but I'll see where it ends up.

Problem with the current system is that it is clunky and confusing to operate.

For example my wife has played casually almost as long as I have played, yet trying to sort what is needed for what PRE turns into several minutes of frustrated scrolling for her that ends in calling me to come do the massive scrolling to help her. She is not stupid and she knows the system well enough, however the layout needs a facelift for sure to give it more ease of use.

The other thing I hate is the large amount of "useless" enhancements you have on the current skill tree. It does need to be looked at and fixed.

My only worry is how it will be handled. I am hoping to maintain the flexibility while cleaning up the system.

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 08:59 PM

And some kids will open the most expensive toy in the lot and end up playing with the box.

If the "better" toys/enhancements are better, that's great. I'm sure most people will pick them. But there is no good reason to limit the choices so that we can *only* pick the "better" options. Some people will want to pick options that aren't optimal. There's a long tradition of gimpy multiclass characters in DDO. Why eliminate options when you don't have to?

I understand (and mostly agree with) your opinion that *more* options does not guarantee *better* options. What I want to know is why you're so dead set against having more options in the first place. Having more options certainly won't eliminate any of the better options. All of the 3-tree options will still exist if we have access to 4 or 5 or 10 trees.

I posted that earlier. I'm not dead set against it; I disagree with the necessity or the statement multiclassing would automatically become suboptimal to pureclassing sentiments.

The reasons I would have concerns, though, would still be:

1) Stacking enhancements / free PrE abilities producing unintentional benefits that are in excess of what is intended.
2) A general tree that limits the ability to spend per tree even more impacting access to higher tiers of prestige enhancement I want on small splashes or pure classes.
3) Because I do not see the necessity I would not want a lot of dev time spent on it as opposed to other things.

If those 3 points are non-issues having more trees wouldn't bother me one bit and I certainly would not be telling the devs to remove them if they were present and caused no issues. I have no problem with adding choices, I have issues with unintended side effects, however.

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 09:16 PM

If I had to bet, I'd bet the same. But that's besides the point. The mere possibility that a lower end toy might catch the child's eye is sufficient to make the range of selection of lower end toys relevant.

And if you deny that possibility, I have to think you don't know children very well.

The issue isn't the value of the toys themselves. It's the expected value to the child of the smaller set of choices vs. the larger set of choices. With the safe assumption that not all toys will be of equal value to the child, the larger set will always have a higher expected value.

First, I was arguing about the deep multis. I'm not that concerned about splashes at this time.

Second, again, you are arguing absolutes. Is it possible for there to be combo that's truly spectacular, that only a deep multiclass can pull off? I suppose, but there's little reason to believe that will happen at this time. Or that there will be more than a few of them. At this time, fewer choices is sufficient to expect less power. And deep multis clearly have fewer options under this system, in terms of the high level enhancements you are valuing so much.

Finally, you really don't think there'd ever be a point in putting even a single AP out of 10 into a Fighter tree on a 2-level fighter splash? If that's the case, you are making far more absolute claims about the system than I have.

I haven't claimed that multiclasses "will" suffer (and if I have, it was a matter of poor word choice, not intention).

However, a statement like "given the info we have now, the system proposed in this thread seems likely to discourage deep multiclasses compared to the current system, or a similar system with no tree limit", is entirely reasonable at this time. And I believe well justified. More choices doesn't necessarily mean better options. But it is likely to produce better options than less choices. Given no info on what those options will actually be, the most justified hypothesis at this time is that builds that gain more options than other builds are likely to gain more power as well.

I was referring several general sentiments that have come up about this huge impact when it's not a huge impact. If a person wanted that 1 first level fighter 1AP it won't kill the build to not have it just because the option isn't there or stop the player from continuing to multiclass.

I can easily see playing a 12/6/2 multiclass on this system and enjoying it. It would likely be melee. 7/7/6 and 8/6/6 might be a bit more difficult but I don't see those being played now so not being able to play then in the new system doesn't seem that important.

Given what we have now and comparing it to what we have in the new system isn't going to encourage or discourage multiclassing. The choice to take a deep splash, light splash, or pure would be a choice between what the have to offer over each other in the new system. What we have now with multiclassing compared to what we will have is relevant to existing builds but it is irrelevant to whether there will be incentive to multiclass or not because the incentive comes from the differences between pureclasses and multiclasses in the new system, which is a completely different comparison.

Of course having said that the epic levels could completely destroy my opinion anyway now that they are coming. I'm curious which we'll see first. ;)

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 09:21 PM

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 09:25 PM

It makes Lolth sad that people are fighting when Madfloyd is trying to do work in her name. All Hail.

That was almost a mouthful of mountain dew on the monitor, lol.

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 09:35 PM

As a new player of almost three months, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I don't understand how you(developer/designers) can warp the game from the balance levels that are understood currently. The whole game, for the last few years up to now, has been designed with the PREs and the dungeons/packs of today in mind. Right now, you have context, you know what numbers to tweak, what you need to do. I suggest finishing the PREs, balancing out class archetypes(melee power vs. caster power?), fix bugs while minimizing new ones, doing all this within the current system. This radical change shouldn't be a current focus.

I'm not saying it's not better, or that it is, I'm just saying there are other more important things to do right now. You have said you're going to try to finish PREs, but these changes bring many questions that shouldn't be on your plate while trying to re/design and balance tweak the old and new PREs.

After all the PREs are more or less fleshed out, continue exploring racial PREs and bracketed classes then.

You made this thread, and besides the early hour doom and gloom knee-jerk reaction, there has been very positive, intelligent, constructive responses by five to fifteen members of this forum, reaffirming and encouraging you to continue on this route. But they don't represent the majority of this community, probably not even all of the regular forum posters represent it. I strongly suggest that you have some type of link to this thread in-game, so that this announcement gets more exposure, more understanding, and more feedback by more players.

I'm nervous about this, but I'll see where it ends up.

The problem is with the existing system is it's been years to get the PrE's we have and I cannot see it going any faster than experience has shown us.

I can really appreciate not needing to wait 3-5 more years to see full PrE's and if a change is needed to accomplish that the change has a huge positive going for it right there. ;)

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 09:37 PM

All I've seen is you calling other people pessimists and telling them their wrong

Well theres been a lot of repeating and insistence, from a handful of folks, who think this tree system is so bad, its not worth perusing. Those few people are, at least, being pessimistic.

I gave my opinions immediately after the 1st and 2nd mockup, and read every post thereafter. I found no need to repeat my opinion more then once. I've enjoying reading everyone's opinion. I did not enjoy reading a handful of people who repeated the same doomspeak for hundreds of posts, each.

But, I'm still here because I'm enjoying reading what the 1st time readers have to say, on either side of the debate.

When more data comes out, I'll comment if I have something to say.

PS. Like Aashrym just stated, my opinion may very well change, especially if the new levels relegate this new system mute, or worse. I have a funny feeling however that both will be relative to each other, and maybe they felt the new UI was necessary to allow us to see levels beyond 20.

Artos_Fabril

01-20-2012, 09:38 PM

If those 3 points are non-issues having more trees wouldn't bother me one bit and I certainly would not be telling the devs to remove them if they were present and caused no issues. I have no problem with adding choices, I have issues with unintended side effects, however.
Yet you haven't seemed to express any concern over the more likely possibility of stacking similar enhancements from different trees of the same pure class, or the potential side effects of a pure class gaining significant benefits from a racial tree that supports their primary tree while sacrificing little to swap out a tree that doesn't benefit their build goals.

Meanwhile, you propound the notion that these exact same advantages will compensate multi-classes for a loss of options for which they were built, including access to 2/3rds of the enhancements they should have access to based on their class levels.

Then you claim that because neither build can afford all possible enhancements under a 3-tree system, there is no need to retain options currently available which are moved into a PrE rather than a general tab.

You say that access to higher tier racial PrE enhancements is an overbalancing factor for the multi-classes, but ignore or minimize the benefit those same enhancements provide to pure class characters, presumably because a choice between 4 capstones is equivalent to a choice of one or zero capstones, because no character can ever have more than one capstone at a time anyway.

And you're afraid the expansion of options will lead to more characters selecting the exact same ones.

I understand what your arguments are, I just don't understand how they are consistent either with each other or the reality with which the rest of us are interacting.

Artos_Fabril

01-20-2012, 09:46 PM

Well theres been a lot of repeating and insistence, from a handful of folks, who think this tree system is so bad, its not worth perusing. Those few people are, at least, being pessimistic.
The people insisting that the tree system itself are bad are a rather small and non-vocal minority, particularly compared to the two most vocal groups of people: Those who believe that additional, artificial limits to the tree system are bad, and those who believe that those limits are either good, inconsequential, or necessary.

I gave my opinions immediately after the 1st and 2nd mockup, and read every post thereafter. I found no need to repeat my opinion more then once. I've enjoying reading everyone's opinion. I did not enjoy reading a handful of people who repeated the same doomspeak for hundreds of posts, each.
Addressing only briefly, right here, that terms like "doomspeak" are inherently prejudicial to honest debate and constitute ad-hominem attacks... It would have been refreshing to have your opinion repeated or restated, as opposed to the simple assertion that "we must wait for more information and anyone who wants to provide feedback on the system as described, before we know the new system in its entirety, is a whiner crying doom because they fear change"

ThomasMink

01-20-2012, 09:58 PM

Lurker that I am, I find the discussions going on quite amazing.. and that surprises me. Both sides, if you can call them that, have good points.

My own view is that what was shown looks pretty, but I don't know enough about what will actually be inside to make a decision just yet. That doesn't mean concerns shouldn't be raised about potential problems, however.. and that certainly doesn't make those that are raising those concerns pessimistic.

Don't know why, but I find all of this interesting to read.. so, sorry for the brief interrupt.. back to lurking. :)

Vargouille

01-20-2012, 10:05 PM

it is proven from other MMOs that having minimal simple options will lead to simple cookie cutter characters.

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit, but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come.

Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

It makes Lolth sad that people are fighting when Madfloyd is trying to do work in her name. All Hail.

All hail Lolth!

What? I'm an evil flying bloodsucking head. Yeah, Lloth is cool in my book. A little wild at times for my tastes, but generally pretty cool.

Edit: Derf, Barbarian PALADINS are a true example of things you can't have. Barbarian Bards are all the rage, music to my frenzied ears.

Yaga_Nub

01-20-2012, 10:10 PM

... Yeah, Lloth is cool in my book. A little wild at times for my tastes, but generally pretty cool.

I bump uglies with Lloth on a regular basis and you have NO idea how wild she really is.
;)

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 10:12 PM

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit....

Awesome! Thank you for laying out the myriad of options that will be available this summer. Looking forward to the time when you can release the enhancements and other data necessary, so that we can get to rolling some toons. We can be a bit more helpful at that point. ;) I find it grand that you are filling us in, this early in the process, and allowing us a voice in helping to shape this game.

Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Bards

Love ya like a brotha from anotha motha, :) ...but just to curb confusion, Barbarian Bards aren't alignment breaking.. Barbarian/monk Pali/bard of course would make your point much better. -- edit - turns out we were both tired! ;)

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 10:48 PM

Yet you haven't seemed to express any concern over the more likely possibility of stacking similar enhancements from different trees of the same pure class, or the potential side effects of a pure class gaining significant benefits from a racial tree that supports their primary tree while sacrificing little to swap out a tree that doesn't benefit their build goals. That would be because 3 locked in trees where the old class enhancements have all be slit up are less likely to be stackable than 5 trees that can be swapped out for similar bonuses each instead, not more. I seriously doubt there is a CHA bonus in each bard or sorc tree but I'm willing to bet there could be one in a bard tree, a sorc tree, a fvs tree, and a paladin tree. A pure class won't get significant benefits from the racial tree not available to multiclassing so a rather moot point of contention.

Meanwhile, you propound the notion that these exact same advantages will compensate multi-classes for a loss of options for which they were built, including access to 2/3rds of the enhancements they should have access to based on their class levels. Yes, actually, because different options does not equal poor options. The reality is that 2/3's of the new options still looks like more than the total number of old options. The choice to add a 5 AP requirement just to spend 1 AP on a level 2 enhancement you could have on the old system instead of just spending those 6 AP in what you have unlocked in the other trees seems like those 6 AP could easily be better spent on higher tier (more powerful) enhancements while still taking advantage of the widest selection of trees to choose from. Aside from that even limiting oneself to level 1 enhancements in another class tree is still giving up a higher level enhancement for a lower level enhancement. It might be nice to have the choice but as far as necessary not so much. That cost might make the stacking concern moot aside from PrE .5's and level 2 enhancements for the most part, tbh, but that's why I have no problem admitting that the trees can't really hurt anything beyond my few concerns if they turn out to be non-issues.

Then you claim that because neither build can afford all possible enhancements under a 3-tree system, there is no need to retain options currently available which are moved into a PrE rather than a general tab. Because that is true. There is no need. Vertical advancement exists to the same degree as not multiclassing so there is no need. It's a desire for more options but not a need.

You say that access to higher tier racial PrE enhancements is an overbalancing factor for the multi-classes, but ignore or minimize the benefit those same enhancements provide to pure class characters, presumably because a choice between 4 capstones is equivalent to a choice of one or zero capstones, because no character can ever have more than one capstone at a time anyway.

I don't recall saying multiclasses were overbalanced at all. I recall saying that adding the capstone to the PrE's for multiclassing is a nice feature and I like it.

What I said was it removes incentive not to multiclass depending on the capstones available. If capstones are the incentive for going pure then creating a situation where removing that capstone would remove that particular incentive. Wizard 18 / Monk 2 is a good example there. If a person doesn't need wizard 20 for the capstone there is less incentive to go wizard 20. If a person does need or want that capstone and it is not available through a racial PrE unlock then there would still be incentive for the capstone. Either way there is still incentive for 2 levels of monk but the difference is where there would be more incentive. If humans can just open up any PrE capstone that would completely remove the incentive for not multiclassing based on capstone needs and be a bad idea IMO.

I would rather see humans not get any racial PrE unlock at all (maybe dragon mark heir tho) and change the race PrE unlocks to be only race specific instead of standard class PrE's. Remove arcane archer from ranger and add initiate of the bow or extreme explorer or something. If the ability did not exist for full PrE advancement then I would have some definite concerns for multiclassing in the new system.

A 12/8/6 with a PrE III or capstone has received some nice benefits instead of those other lower level enhancements. That doesn't mean overbalanced, it means not lacking in options or feasibility.

And you're afraid the expansion of options will lead to more characters selecting the exact same ones. Because that isn't already happening in forums? I'm not afraid of that at all and don't recall saying I was. I expect that players will have their ideas of best builds with or without a tree limitation and post them for everyone.

I understand what your arguments are, I just don't understand how they are consistent either with each other or the reality with which the rest of us are interacting. So are you saying you are choosing to reject my reality for your own because you don't like mine or something? :D

In gold. If you are trying to state I said multiclassing is over powered then allow me to clarify that is not my current opinion. My current opinion is that proposed options look sufficient to me.

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 10:55 PM

Aashrym

01-20-2012, 10:57 PM

Love ya like a brotha from anotha motha, :) ...but ... bards have no alignment restriction. monk pali barbarian would be the classes that have the restrictions.

*cough* can't be lawful *cough*

Theolin

01-20-2012, 10:58 PM

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 11:00 PM

*cough* can't be lawful *cough*

Rotflmao. Thank you. Worded it wrong. Kinda dangerous typo in this thread, so consider it fixed! ;)

Meat-Head

01-20-2012, 11:16 PM

SNIP.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FZjQ4Pbit7s/TdMwsXtuvCI/AAAAAAAAB-Y/0pe_Cxf8x6I/s1600/dont-forget.jpg

DOMAINS!!!

Am I right people, or am I right??

.

Jasparion

01-20-2012, 11:23 PM

It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

I would think the vast majority of players would at least like each class to have Tier 3 Pre available, and maybeeven more than one Pre to choose from.

That should be the starting point.

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-20-2012, 11:28 PM

DOMAINS!!!
Am I right people, or am I right??

Domains would rock, and would spur people to roll clerics. Would be great timing, considering current changes in mind.

I'll up you one and suggest boosting up dragonmarks again. Dragonmarks are unique to Eberron, and should be incredibly powerful. It would offer even more options than what is being proposed this summer. With all the crawling we are going to be doing in the Forgotten Realms, Dragonmarks would allow us to stand out in the Forgotten Realms, and allow us to represent some of the uniqueness of Eberron. I can see it being worked into the storyline.

Missing_Minds

01-21-2012, 01:16 AM

Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

Does it have to be trees? Why not have roots? Bushes? A castle, dice?

Or what makes up a tree? You've got your bases, your race aka roots. You've got your main trunk, your lvl, and then you have the branches which are the classes of which some overlapping abilities.

Build a house/castle. What makes up the walls, the foundation, the roof, the internal systems of plumbing, heating, air conditioning.

Dice have many sides, how many divots will you put into your dice when you create your own?
Do you have special dice for spells? I know I have certain d20s I'll use for my attack rolls, certain d6 I'll use for damage and others for skill checks. I've got a few random dice with different markings like body shots, weather, direction, some that I'll use when rolling up new chracters and that is all I'll use them. Yeah.. gamers not superstitious? yeah right.

While trees are easy to understand, but maybe it is time to actually go beyond what is normal and be creative without such limitations?

karl_k0ch

01-21-2012, 02:28 AM

Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Bards the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations.
You mean Barbarian Monks, and Paladin Bards, right? Because Barb Bards are possible.

Edit: Nm. I missed the 137th page, and was beaten to it. With the very same class splits. :D

red_cardinal

01-21-2012, 02:52 AM

Different system kicks in at that point.

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

I don't like the sound of it at all. I know nothing about D&D, but I don't like the sound of this.

Call me a skeptic, but I really think that you guys are going to overcomplicate things and we'll see another round of things like 'Sniper shot breaks stealth'. You'll make a new forest, but trees will be of all kinds. Since in every tree every branch and every leaf on that branch needs a different treatment, I think there will be to much details to be able to balance/make them functional from level 1-25 and expect them to WAI.

This is for passive bonuses, like +1 to DEX stat or +1/+1/+1/+1 to search skill, as it is for active abilities that come from prestiges and classes and races. Also, you say that after level 20 different system kicks in. That's a lot of stuff. 2 different enhancement systems?

Guys, you barely made prestiges done in the current system from 2008. Aren't you overextending yourselves with this?
Won't you forget, for instance - bow damage on a regular archer - no bow str, manyshot or prestige AA, is weak after level 6 content on normal difficulty. What happens with bows in epic content? What builds can use them and what 'leaves' in which branch do go into account to take and which don't? Can a level 20 fighter kensei, not AA, with all the feats be a viable archer and how will this influence a level 20 fighter melee with a spear in epic chronoscope? Is their damage output on a single target going to be roughly the same? How will attack speed influence that? Buffs? Prestige class active abilities? Passive abilities?

Do you see where I'm pointing? To much to balance.

Dreamshifter

01-21-2012, 03:16 AM

*recovers from shock*

Ok, I have to wsay, that people picked up on the Barb/Bard thing, and no one commented on the fact that:

With thirteen classes coming

DDO will have 25 classes soon!

...except, not. I misread that, then went back, and realized I hadn't misread it. But it doesn't mean what it says. I might have made a very different post, too, if I hadn't hit the PrE part, and realized that we aren't getting word of 12 unknown classes coming, we are talking out thirteenth class coming. Which is good, while there are 12 more base classes out there, I don't think DDO needs all of them, and many of them wouldn't be different enough to warrant inclusion. Though, we do need two more at the least, so that all three categories have 5 classes...

slimkj

01-21-2012, 03:29 AM

Obviously this isn't everything that matters
Yes, this is important. Sometimes the type of choices and the perception of control is just as important as the availability of options. This is one of those times, in my view - you will be opening up avenues with a new system but also closing off other avenues to which players are accustomed if you impose a tree limit.

I don't envy the decision making you have to do on this - balancing, well... balance, with player satisfaction. The length of the thread suggests the wrong choice is going to be explosive.

In an ideal world...

take the appropriate amount of time to work through how you could balance through AP prereqs, etc. so the system doesn't appear to have arbitrary limits,
release the theoretical system openly, preferably with a character planner,
wait a month to see what our renowned min-max builders come up with in theory,
rebalance system.
I can see how that's a much longer process and a lot more work though.

It's going to be interesting to see which way this goes, looking forward to more info.

red_cardinal

01-21-2012, 03:53 AM

Yes, this is important.
In an ideal world...

take the appropriate amount of time to work through how you could balance through AP prereqs, etc. so the system doesn't appear to have arbitrary limits,
release the theoretical system openly, preferably with a character planner,
wait a month to see what our renowned min-max builders come up with in theory,
rebalance system.
I can see how that's a much longer process and a lot more work though.

It's going to be interesting to see which way this goes, looking forward to more info.

I'm looking forward to more info as well. But, we don't live in an ideal world. Devs are limited with time and resources. I guess they are in some matrix organizational structure so you can't have an icon artist for your tree forever employed. If that icon artist works on Lotro as well, we may not see all the options in trees get unique icons.

And I guess I'd hate to see new trees with overly used old icons.

Wow folks are pruning their talent trees making their game utterly simple for a grandmother, who didn't touch a computer ever, to play. You guys are extending possibilities far more than Wow or any other game has in character modelling. And we players know that from 2008 you didn't care much to release prestiges and to balance them according to new content. Most were undone, some were left behind in 2006/2007 state.

Wow had complete talent trees and from patch to patch they were changed - somewhere more, somewhere less. But the main point is - THEY WERE BALANCING, YOU WEREN'T. And Blizz has/had more folks, more money, more players, more time, more feedback to do that. But, that's not the excuse.

What you're doing now, as I see it, it's a complete radical innovation, a french revolution - heads will roll. It's not just balancing the costs of passive bonuses. You're breaking everything apart and putting it back together. And most prestiges you just didn't have done till the end so you didn't know if it worked and how it worked and was it viable or not.

Even if you take 9 months to do this, I don't think you will do a good job. I am excited, but I'm also scared.

Sure, Mournlands and Lamania programs, forum feedback will give you info, but I doubt that you can playtest well everything you do with this new system.

From my point of view - reform UI, if you hate it and you do hate it, keep old rules and finish prestiges which are missing and balance them from level 1 to level 25.

Angelus_dead

01-21-2012, 04:00 AM

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Bards the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37).
Unless something very surprising is going to happen to how enhancement power scales, then that kind of arithmetic is misleading (to the point not validly measuring which combinations are reasonable choices).

To come up with 39*38*37 = 54,834 combinations for triple-class characters, you're including lots of things like Radiant1/Kensei1/Savant1 and Assassin1/Berserker1/Tempest1. Naturally the examples of Cleric/Fighter/Wizard stuff will be excluded for being woefully underpowered characters and not reasonable choices to play, but something like Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger does make theoretical sense as all three classes give melee features.

But would someone with tier 1 in Assassin, Berserker, and Tempest be a reasonable choice of character? Whether that's a meaningful option or not depends on how the class enhancements scale with level. Is Assassin backloaded so that tier 3 is strong and tier 1 is weak (like it is today)? If it's the case that many enhancements are backloaded with the higher-level choices being much stronger than the earlier ones, then the majority of multiclass builds will be unreasonably weak to play.

There's the possibility that the designers of the new enhancement system will decide to intentionally avoid backloaded power on the enhancements for the explicit purpose of making more multiclasses viable, but I think that would cause serious problems in other ways. If they didn't backload the power of stuff like Kensei, Ravager, and KOTC, then there wouldn't be enough of a reason to stick with Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin classes up towards level 20, and those kinds of characters would miss out on power they'll need for level 20+ combat.

So I'll do some counting of viable build choices, by using educated guesses to exclude combos that are much too weak. For example, anything Wiz/Sor or Wiz/Barb is right out of there. Because I'm looking at combinations of prestige specialties, something like Wiz19/Rog1 doesn't count as distinct from Wiz20 because there isn't enough Rogue to reach a specialty. And of course I'm including the 3 tree limit:
Caster specialty combos: 63
Weapon specialty combos: 948
Total combinations of prestige specialties: 1011

Failedlegend

01-21-2012, 04:29 AM

Problem with the current system is that it is clunky and confusing to operate.

For example my wife has played casually almost as long as I have played, yet trying to sort what is needed for what PRE turns into several minutes of frustrated scrolling for her that ends in calling me to come do the massive scrolling to help her. She is not stupid and she knows the system well enough, however the layout needs a facelift for sure to give it more ease of use.

The other thing I hate is the large amount of "useless" enhancements you have on the current skill tree. It does need to be looked at and fixed.

My only worry is how it will be handled. I am hoping to maintain the flexibility while cleaning up the system.

Agreed on all fronts It's REALLY hard for me to get people to play this game because there's a HUGE barrier of entry but on the other hand alot of what what makes it complicated is also what makes it unique so its going to be a balancing act to keep that uniqueness/flexibility while cleaning up the confusion.

SNIP - Good Stuff

This is what I was hoping for...not necessarily any actual information but you mentioned specifics of what your looking into :D

You didn't mention my Multi-class PrEs though Meanie :P

DOMAINS!!!

I don't even play Clerics and I know they need this

I'll up you one and suggest boosting up dragonmarks again. Dragonmarks are unique to Eberron, and should be incredibly powerful. It would offer even more options than what is being proposed this summer. With all the crawling we are going to be doing in the Forgotten Realms, Dragonmarks would allow us to stand out in the Forgotten Realms, and allow us to represent some of the uniqueness of Eberron. I can see it being worked into the storyline.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure they mentioned that they might be reducing the DM feat requirements to one feat than having a series of enhancements to improve them.

You mean Barbarian Monks, and Paladin Bards, right? Because Barb Bards are possible.

Edit: Nm. I missed the 137th page, and was beaten to it. With the very same class splits. :D

Hey Half-Elf Bards can sort of be Paladin/Bards if they take Pally Dilly

On the other hand It might be fun to start the rumour that BardBarians won't be possible under the new system :P Vargouille (Lol spell check thinks you name is spelled Ratatouille) said so (<<<Just Kidding)

Aldured

01-21-2012, 04:49 AM

The other thing I hate is the large amount of "useless" enhancements you have on the current skill tree. It does need to be looked at and fixed.

If enhancements are getting reviewed and many enhancements boost skills, and more importantly many skills boosted are useless enhancements, a review of skills could have a huge impact on making sure there are no useless enhancements or ... a future Bastion of the Outlands equivalent for Druids :O (also please fix/delete that line for Barbs)

So maybe some skills could use their own thread (or worst case scenario this one) to be reviewed for example:

Swim
Heal
Repair
Listen
... The speed of searching (considering door detection is a clickie away, which is enough for non rogues/arties)

That said, I find the proposed UI very clear and elegant. My mother has recently begun gaming, shes an oceanologist (shes smart) and seems to have the same problems quickgrif described: when its enhancement time, I let her try it for a few minutes then go in and save the day (or at least the keyboard).

So I really really believe a clearer interface will help keep newcomers that fall in love with the graphics and action but give up when faced with character design (Ive known quite a few of them, which are basically all the guys I partied with when I started playing).

As a long time roleplaying game fan I understand some people are very concerned, they want a custom made character that adjusts to their needs. Still Id say that the "3 trees is not enough" / "your wrong it is" argument is extensive enough as is...

...Anyway, I can imagine having a lot of fun with the changes proposed. So really looking forward to U13 and (hopefully) an open channel of communication

Yan_PL

01-21-2012, 05:20 AM

Issues raising my concern:
enhancement lines that would fit more than 1 tree, or would be rather "class related" or "character type-related" or "faith related", than "prestige related".
example: Cleric/FvS/Bard/Paladin get healing spells improving enhancements.
artificer/sorc/wiz get repair/force damage spell enhancements
barbarians/fighters/paladins/fvs get toughness enhancements

for such, i believe it would be good if class level requirements took combined level into account: like, for AC boost or toughness counted sum of fighter and paladin (and barbarian in case of toughness) levels (as it is with BAB for feat requirements)

sorcerer prestige split (4 savants, and acolyte of the skin as promised)

LeslieWest_GuitarGod

01-21-2012, 05:40 AM

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure they mentioned that they might be reducing the DM feat requirements to one feat than having a series of enhancements to improve them.

They made two mentions that I could count, to little fanfare (Ash , myself, and a few others talked about it).

In post 277 Eladrin responded:

We've been discussing some possible changes to Dragonmarks as well. The Extra Dragonmark enhancement is likely to change into an "Improved Dragonmark" enhancement that grants both additional uses and other perks. We've also been debating turning the Lesser and Greater marks into enhancements that have the Least mark as a prerequisite, freeing up some feats on Dragonmark builds.

In post 289 Eladrin responded:

One of the stretch goals is to have additional acquirable abilities for the Dragonmarks. These may not make it in the initial release. (Improved Dragonmark of Healing -> Jorasco Jadehand)

In my opening suggestion, I mentioned Dragonmarks in post 297:

I would hope that Dragonmarks becomes a project in 2012. I can see it really sweetening the deal.

In later posts I suggested they package it with the UI/enhancement shuffle. Alternately, telling us that Dragonmarks will be their very next project would work for me, as well. Either way, Dragonmarks meant too much in Eberron to be left the way they are now (and the way they've always been in DDO), sickeningly underpowered. They would add a lot of ingenuity to an already robust variety of new build options that we'll be getting this summer (hopefully).

Chai

01-21-2012, 06:14 AM

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit, but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Bards the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come.

The issue Ive seen historically with MMOs that use tree limitations is that out of the potential number of combinations, there arises a very small number of optimized builds most of the players end up playing due to the severe restriction placing one enhancement into the third tree resulting in all other trees closing down. Once this happens, the number of possible FURTHER combinations for that toon just decreased dramatically.

With the combinations already being limited by class split, and capped by the number of possible points total that can be taken, the three tree limit isnt necessary, and even players who have spent half their points and in 3 or more trees experience a dilema for what they can still take, which is a good thing.

I know when game designers did their game correctly when Ive chosen half of my options and its still a huge internal debate as for which to pick using the rest of myu points. It becomes a non debate when there are further unnecessary limitations present in the system. Example: You already put points into Arcane Archer, Tempest, and Half Elf Racial, At this point, the only real decision left is to allocate more points up the same trees, because you just boxed yourself in. This creates a situation where because of that limitation, there is a small number of 3 tree combinations that are more powerful than the rest for specific roles. Once the optimizers hammer out what those combinations are, plan on seeing alot of them, with small veriations.

Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

I am interested in hearing how the team plans to solve what I stated above if you choose to stick with the three tree limitation, or if that limitation will be relaxed.

Taimasan

01-21-2012, 06:31 AM

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38).

Hey, I am a little confused on what would constitute a pure class character that would make it on par with a 2 class character regarding choices, and why would it be that way?

twiliteslayer02

01-21-2012, 07:06 AM

This awesome can not be surpassed.

Shure it could... if they were alll BACON!!!:D

Chai

01-21-2012, 07:20 AM

Hey, I am a little confused on what would constitute a pure class character that would make it on par with a 2 class character regarding choices, and why would it be that way?

Because they can only choose from three trees total.

EnjoyTheJourney

01-21-2012, 07:32 AM

...

So I'll do some counting of viable build choices, by using educated guesses to exclude combos that are much too weak. For example, anything Wiz/Sor or Wiz/Barb is right out of there. Because I'm looking at combinations of prestige specialties, something like Wiz19/Rog1 doesn't count as distinct from Wiz20 because there isn't enough Rogue to reach a specialty. And of course I'm including the 3 tree limit:
Caster specialty combos: 63
Weapon specialty combos: 948
Total combinations of prestige specialties: 1011

Picking class and prestige enhancement(s) is certainly a key part of building a character. There is a *lot* more choice than what you're presenting here, though, when building a character. When you add in (reasonable) stat, skill, feat, race, and gear choices, you've moved far, far past 1000 choices, especially when TRs and epics are considered.

Plus, there isn't a green button you push to make your character "go" and do everything on his or her own; you make choices constantly when playing, from which arcs and missions to do to what skill / weapon combination / spell / feat to use next. The game provides a plethora, a panopoly, a veritable palooza of choice already. It's already a "more choices than you can make in 10 lifetimes" panorama of choice.

We don't need "Buzz Lightyear" (To Infinite And Beyond!) levels of choice, especially when the problems associated with continually adding more complexity are so predictable and when those problems will tend to increase at an increasing rate, as more variables are added.

On another subject, there isn't going to be any getting around cookie cutter builds. Cite an example of a game that doesn't have them. Cookie cutters are particularly likely here because PnP-to-DDO conversions by newer players work out so poorly, so often, and because it's so common for a player's first character to hit a brick wall in the leveling process; after having seen their own planning and intuition work out poorly, many newer players will find ways to copy builds that seem to perform far better than their own builds.

On that note, one key to achieving greater build variety is to create a sense of trust in players that there aren't many truly bad choices; a large number of players will feel less need to copy others' idea if they have a sense that following their own intuition will tend to lead to a functional and fun result. Copying others' ideas takes time and effort, after all, and following one's intuition takes much less of both. DDO isn't at that point yet, though, and in fact it's a long way from it; one key to getting there would be to find ways to trim down the number of truly awful mistakes one can make in the character design process (whether the "awful" happens because of function limitations or bugs); limiting really bad choices one can make requires limiting choice in the aggregate, rather than providing more of it.

twiliteslayer02

01-21-2012, 07:42 AM

I dont realy think that the tree limit at three or fifty three is going to matter.

It seems to me that we are heading into a more limitless form of creation than actually limiting anything.
We are all used to making the toons from the current system, and have ben told that we are going to have to respec all of the toons we already have, so its fair to assume we will be rearranging not only the way we make them, but, the options within as well, and THAT is where the new comes in.

With ,say pure classing, it would sorta make sense that there would only be as many trees available as there were options for that class to explore, starting out unlimited(hypothetically) then reduced by how, and where you spend your A P., some things like ftr str, well, if you have 4 tiers normally, and go pure with no pre, then you'd be limited to 4 str enhancements. BUT, say you used an extra tree or spent your AP in a way that unlocked your pre, then, you'd get the aability to use AP in the pre tree to add or enhance more points of str .

With clerics, and casters in general, it would make sense that they have more trees available, mainly because of schools/domains.

Am just saying, I really dont see limitations, at all in fact, I see it as what you make of it, and learning how to use the tools effectively is going to be the fun part.

TYVVVM @MadFloyd,Var,Maj, and co. for the strait answers, and genuine feeling interactions.

Phemt81

01-21-2012, 08:41 AM

With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37).

http://youtu.be/M7ZDgmYAlZ4

Yaga_Nub

01-21-2012, 09:32 AM

Silverleafeon

01-21-2012, 09:33 AM

Havok.cry

01-21-2012, 11:25 AM

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit, but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come.

Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

That math seems deceptive to me. Any multiclass character would not have access to a full tree and would be giving up 2/3 of the enhancements his level split would currently allow him to access from those classes. This might be beating a dead horse, but can you tell us weather or not the stuff in each individual tree will make up for not being able to access 2/3 of the trees from your multiclass? Will there be anything to compensate for not being able to throw a point or two into the enhancements of a splashed class due to it being insane to lock in a 2 level tree? example of this might be 2 lvl splash of rogue that currently a person would toss a point into sneak attack damage increasing the additional sneak attack damage from an average of ~3.5 to ~6.5, with the currently proposed system, no one would do this dropping the the DPS of every character that splashed rogue.

Yes there are lots of combinations we could do, but we are still losing options.