What do u guys think of MRR removal from Heavy Armors?

[Kuttamia]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

[Nestroy]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

What I said in the corresponding threads even before the nerf was out: Welcome back to the world of Pyjama Builds.

Actually, perhaps this did save monk - otherwise that class is still in the dev doghouse for sure ^^.

[Rawrargh]

I prefer the removal of mrr from heavy armor.
This way you as a player must make a choice, do you want the best defense against physical attacks? Put on that heavy armor, or do you want to invest into your saves, splash a class with evasion and loose the defense from the armor to reduce incoming damage from casters?

Choices are good, cookie-cutters are bad.

[AzureDragonas]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

This looks so fun i forgot to lough, i run heroics of those and i never had issues with them even without evasion, so maybe get saves resistance etc what you supposed to do while you running elite at level? specialy where most mobs can cast "ELEMENTAL" damage, also evasion builds have benefit against casters and also they get more hits than heavy armor users who gets less damage against melee, it's your issue if you have hard time in newest quest at elite on level against spellcaster monsters, while others might have harder time with evasion in others where less casters found. Thats is WAI you can't solo it, and even if you get hits like that mostly it's champs as a melee you should anyway have way to deal, unless you glasscannon with no cc at all then heres your answer why you have "hard time" there.

[Kuttamia]

I prefer the removal of mrr from heavy armor.
This way you as a player must make a choice, do you want the best defense against physical attacks? Put on that heavy armor, or do you want to invest into your saves, splash a class with evasion and loose the defense from the armor to reduce incoming damage from casters?

Choices are good, cookie-cutters are bad.

Thats not a fair comparison because there are many ways to close the gap of PRR between heavy armor users and light/pajama users. However, there is a big gap, when lightarmor/pajama users can completely avoid all reflex based damage, while heavy armor users will still get smacked with 50% of the damage even with uber saves. Add that to the diff between dodge possibility with heavy armor users vs light/pajama users and it because even out of proportion.

[Marshal_Lannes]

The change was needed. You can't just slap on heavy armor and say hey I can block any type of attack. There is now actually a choice to be made between evasion and heavy armors. Do you want defense against physical damage or magical damage? All choices should have benefits and drawbacks. Nothing should be clear and away the best choice available. I will concede that some players may return to evasion because the game rewards past lives far too much and a player can get 27% PRR from epic past lives. This should be reduced to 9%(only 3 epic past lives stack, not 9 passively) so that epic past lives don't remove this choice characters have to make.

[slarden]

There is now actually a choice to be made between evasion and heavy armors.

I agree with this. Heavy armor was the biggest easy button in the game - now it's less so. Fighters and paladins still have an easy 25 MRR available through the defender tree and more available at higher levels for true tanks.

[bartharok]

Havent noticed much difference so far. Maybe i get hit for a bit more, but not enough that it worries me much

[AzureDragonas]

I agree with this. Heavy armor was the biggest easy button in the game - now it's less so. Fighters and paladins still have an easy 25 MRR available through the defender tree and more available at higher levels for true tanks.

Yep everyone even casters blindly was runing heavy in some cases even those who can use evasion was, its more simple, that way you have massive resistance to everything, now we have choices and even if they can be ugly, i rather have players who are better against casters and those who are better against melee and not everyone just zerg pass both categories as result of heavy armors and high prr mrr at same time

[Qhualor]

i actually haven't noticed a difference and ive been taking mithral body on all 4 characters doing BF warlock past lives.

[Blastyswa]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

http://i.imgur.com/4jYylen.jpg

Can still get plenty of MRR, just requires different building decisions. My build was sitting at around 200 MRR before they made the changes, but in my experience anything over 100 assuming you have decent health works just fine. My build's DPS is just fine with this level of MRR as well.

[Kuttamia]

http://i.imgur.com/4jYylen.jpg

Can still get plenty of MRR, just requires different building decisions. My build was sitting at around 200 MRR before they made the changes, but in my experience anything over 100 assuming you have decent health works just fine. My build's DPS is just fine with this level of MRR as well.

U are obviously a tank and high mrr as a tank is fine. But my pt is ppl need to splash a pally/fighter for the extra mrr which reduces build variation. Also you dont get that mrr for heroic content and there are some monsters with pretty dam high spell damage even with good saves. The whole point of heavy armor pass was to give an option of either going for a build where you will take damage but at reduced rate so ur hp will not spike much vs light/pajama where you can completely avoid damage but will have hp spikes. Instead of fixing the problem with a chisel, the devs just took an axe and cut off mrr altogether.

[AzureDragonas]

http://i.imgur.com/4jYylen.jpg

Can still get plenty of MRR, just requires different building decisions. My build was sitting at around 200 MRR before they made the changes, but in my experience anything over 100 assuming you have decent health works just fine. My build's DPS is just fine with this level of MRR as well.

can u give image of items you use, looks interesting

[morkahn82]

I do not care actually. I trust turbine to make the right balance decisions. Most of the time they did a good job.

[AzureDragonas]

U are obviously a tank and high mrr as a tank is fine. But my pt is ppl need to splash a pally/fighter for the extra mrr which reduces build variation. Also you dont get that mrr for heroic content and there are some monsters with pretty dam high spell damage even with good saves. The whole point of heavy armor pass was to give an option of either going for a build where you will take damage but at reduced rate so ur hp will not spike much vs light/pajama where you can completely avoid damage but will have hp spikes. Instead of fixing the problem with a chisel, the devs just took an axe and cut off mrr altogether.

4 ranger levels for tank looks strange mostly hes a tempest or something like that. monsters in heroics dont do that much damage as you try to paint, and devs made right decision to kill rampage of heavy fort when any other armors choice was jsut in case you wanted monk stances or evasion like in old school

[the_one_dwarfforged]

I do not care actually. I trust turbine to make the right balance decisions. Most of the time they did a good job.

bahahaahahhaaa...*wipes tears away*...

nice one.

[Kadrios]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

To be fair, evasion is not as simple as "I have it, I'm all good" you do actually have to work on your reflex in order to benefit from it (which is good in my eyes), rather than simply slapping on some heavy armour and getting a stack of MRR. Now the two options are both balanced by the fact they require a decent amount of investment in order to benefit from them (albeit investment in different things).

[the_one_dwarfforged]

4 ranger levels for tank looks strange mostly hes a tempest or something like that.

if you just look at the class split, it looks like a dps build, but then you look at the stats and realize the majority of that persons focus was clearly defense. case in point: wearing dr shadowscale instead of dstrike.

and there is no "mostly tempest" build in the game (by which im assuming you mean twf melee dps build primarily using the tempest tree, which doesnt even make that much sense here because hes only got 4 levels of ranger and thus cant access the t5s) that is going to have 2k hp.

if this guy isnt in unyielding sentinel in that screen shot im very surprised. and sentinel isnt a standard destiny for most questing, nor for raiding as a dps character. so unless this guy is posting this as an example of a tank not suffering much from the nerf of mrr removal from armor, which he does not explicitly state and in fact mentions how his dps "is fine" leading me to conclude that he at least feels its a dps build and not a tank build, then i dont think the example proves anything. and given the hp/sp percentages, i suspect that they even went so far as to swap into sentinel just for the forums benefit, which is extremely disingenuous and adds to the fact that a screen shot of a character in unyielding sentinel doesnt prove anything useful.

[Pnumbra]

I do not care actually. I trust turbine to make the right balance decisions. Most of the time they did a good job.

ROFL!!! Make it stop, make it stop. You are killing me...LOL....Oh, my stomach hurts....I can't take it anymore!!! ROFL!

edit:
Ok, I had to add my view. I think the removal of MRR from heavy armor was a good thing only because it made choices viable again. We can now makes reasonable choices understanding the consequences of those choices are not character breaking but add challenge.

[changelingamuck]

I would have preferred a very large reduction in the amount of MRR given for every armor type instead of its complete removal from armor.

However, if I had to choose between the complete removal of MRR and the amounts that were granted before, I'd definitely choose to completely remove it. And if you're wringing your hands and fretting over the survivability of your heavier armor characters after this change... I think that you're way too inflexible and overly sensitize to system changes and need to take a deep breath and screw your head on straight because the heavier armor types still provide significant benefits that are comparable to those of the lighter armor types.

And the suggestion that has kept popping up that the PRR and MRR revisions to armor would reduce build diversity and turn everybody into evasion characters is ridiculous. From what I'm seeing, it's actually put lighter and heavier armor users on more even footing with different advantages/disadvantages and, consequently, increased build diversity.

[MaeveTuohy]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.


No.

Not just because of the armour easy button, though that is an excellent argument in itself.

If anything, heavy armour should enhance most elemental attack damage.

Metal armour. Conducts heat, doesn't protect against it. Maybe +30% fire and cold damage? Also conducts electricity. Maybe +50% electrical damage? Should offer no protection against acidic air spells, but sure some protection against acidic liquid - at the expense of the armour itself. Sonic - metal would create a nice resonance chamber. Maybe +20% damage from sonic?

[bartharok]

No.

Not just because of the armour easy button, though that is an excellent argument in itself.

If anything, heavy armour should enhance most elemental attack damage.

Metal armour. Conducts heat, doesn't protect against it. Maybe +30% fire and cold damage? Also conducts electricity. Maybe +50% electrical damage? Should offer no protection against acidic air spells, but sure some protection against acidic liquid - at the expense of the armour itself. Sonic - metal would create a nice resonance chamber. Maybe +20% damage from sonic?

Metal armour is not superconductive. It will conduct heat cold and electricity, but not instantenously (except electricity, of course) in addition, armour usually has heavy padding underneath it. In the case of electricity, it is likely to conduct the electricity into the ground, where it is headed anyways, armor or no armor.

[hit_fido]

I would have rather seen them correct the issue of non-proficiency still granting the prr/mrr first. Most complaints I read boiled down to angst over arcane types wearing medium/heavy and getting the benefit without the cost in feats. To me spending the feats and the AP on ASF mitigation would be a reasonable tradeoff. Next step should have been applying the same BAB scaling as with PRR.

But what is done is done, and now I don't see why shields still have any MRR benefit if armor doesn't. But I guess not enough people complained yet about casting master's touch and getting free MRR that way for Turbine to react, so...

[IronClan]

I went back to Pajama's on every melee build that I play any more... I lose ~10-12% physical mitigation and gain: Evasion much better than MRR, 9 to 19 Dodge miss chance which by itself is better than the 10-ish physical I lost. And as a bonus my DPS is increased because most of the choices that add MRR asnd PRR have massive DPS consequences. While most of the Pajama choices add free DPS or don't subtract DPS.

Even before they removed this the Layered defensive strategy was actually superior to Armored strategy for DPS oriented melee's it's just that Armor is simple and requires no build strategy.

Too me the removal of MRR from armor returned it to almost exactly (practically speaking) where it was before armor up... With Pajama's being the clear cut superior mitigation for Melee's.


No.

Not just because of the armour easy button, though that is an excellent argument in itself.

If anything, heavy armour should enhance most elemental attack damage.

Metal armour. Conducts heat, doesn't protect against it. Maybe +30% fire and cold damage? Also conducts electricity. Maybe +50% electrical damage? Should offer no protection against acidic air spells, but sure some protection against acidic liquid - at the expense of the armour itself. Sonic - metal would create a nice resonance chamber. Maybe +20% damage from sonic?

Take a physics class... Armor is almost textbook insulation, leather and padding under metal, shiny metal is ablative. despite being thermally conductive. Some of the energy it blocks is radiated back, and some of it is thermally conducted to the boiled leather which is much less thermally conductive and then the nice thick padding underneath that which is less again.

To say what reaches your skin is reduced would be a logical statement. even if the games armor wasn't almost all magically enhanced. and not all of it even metal... such as Oh I don't know Dragon scales... which last I checked are mostly the armors people are wearing.

Ask yourself why many forms of insulation have shiny metal foil facing with less thermally conductive material under it? BTW foil is actually MORE thermally conductive than thick metals (and possibly less shiny as well), but that doesn't matter, the metal is there because it bounces energy back away in such useful quantities that it is worth having the conductance there because there's a large net gain in efficiency.

On the other hand we have the even stupider example of someone wearing wispy comfortable clothes getting 35 MRR, about the same MRR as a Heavy armored DPS toon. Needless to say a conterintuitive scenario if we're trying to bring "realism" into it. Not that is matters much, he's got evasion and gets missed a lot more often...

BTW please no more people with tanky tanks posting screen shots, if you don't think you gave up VERY large chunks of DPS then you simply don't know what you don't know.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

No.

Not just because of the armour easy button, though that is an excellent argument in itself.

If anything, heavy armour should enhance most elemental attack damage.

Metal armour. Conducts heat, doesn't protect against it. Maybe +30% fire and cold damage? Also conducts electricity. Maybe +50% electrical damage? Should offer no protection against acidic air spells, but sure some protection against acidic liquid - at the expense of the armour itself. Sonic - metal would create a nice resonance chamber. Maybe +20% damage from sonic?

and instead of a reflex save, you should have to actually move your character physically out of the way of incoming lightning bolts. upon failure to do so, you dead, fool.

realism is good, but this is a fantasy game, putting penalties like that on armor will take us right back to wear we were for years when it was pajamas all day. this is the closest things have ever been to "balanced" and "meaningful choices" as its ever been.

that said i personally dont like the fact that mrr has become 100% build and mrr gear dependent. people not using evasion do have a strong case for needing more magical protection, so i think a token amount of mrr added back into armors would be fitting. that said, i really like how this nerf was a proxy buff to tanks specifically, because iirc shields are still granting mrr and applying their mrr doubling bonus thingies. tanks should be more survivable than melees.

what the crying about this nerf really is, is people being spoiled with somewhat op mechanics. and thats just embarrassing.

[dunklezhan]

I think MMR should be on heavy armours. But it should be a prefix or a suffix, like deathblock.

[count_spicoli]

I prefer the removal of mrr from heavy armor.
This way you as a player must make a choice, do you want the best defense against physical attacks? Put on that heavy armor, or do you want to invest into your saves, splash a class with evasion and loose the defense from the armor to reduce incoming damage from casters?

Choices are good, cookie-cutters are bad.

absolutelly this!!

[the_one_dwarfforged]

I went back to Pajama's on every melee build that I play any more... I lose ~10-12% physical mitigation and gain: Evasion much better than MRR, 9 to 19 Dodge miss chance which by itself is better than the 10-ish physical I lost. And as a bonus my DPS is increased because most of the choices that add MRR asnd PRR have massive DPS consequences. While most of the Pajama choices add free DPS or don't subtract DPS.

Even before they removed this the Layered defensive strategy was actually superior to Armored strategy for DPS oriented melee's it's just that Armor is simple and requires no build strategy.

Too me the removal of MRR from armor returned it to almost exactly (practically speaking) where it was before armor up... With Pajama's being the clear cut superior mitigation for Melee's.


splashing evasion into an otherwise pure paladin or pure barb most definitely do cost dps. frenzy and kotc capstones both provide 10 mp among other things, thats a considerable amount of dps.

for physical damage, i largely agree that you will take less actual damage in pajamas, but having played it both ways, i know that there is more to the armor alternative than you are giving it credit for. it may not reduce the actual damage taken by as much as a higher avoidance defense, but it reduces the profile of the damage taken to more manageable amounts, meaning you likely require less heals at any given time, meaning less investment into healing, specifically burst heals, is necessary allowing more investment into dps. so from a physical damage only perspective, i dont think armor has lost its appeal at all.

for magical damage, i personally dont view evasion as necessary whatsoever. take a pure paladin in heavy armor. they probably have a +30-35 mrr item, +25 stance, and possibly lock past lives or mrr tomes. thats probably already enough to prevent getting 1 hit ko d by most things with the obvious notable exceptions which were killing people anyway, and additionally its usually not hard to simply avoid evadable magic damage sources (you can side step lightning bolts, not stand in front of the dragon or near the tank or kiter, bust out that t3 throwing dagger for miior). if its not so op as it was prmoting the choice of evasion again, then good. and its definitely no longer a "no strategy" build choice. what i find mrr to be much more useful for that evasion doesnt help with is dots. i ****ing absolutely hate getting stacks of niacs, eladars, dp, burning blood... mrr appeals to me much more for that reason.

[count_spicoli]

I went back to Pajama's on every melee build that I play any more... I lose ~10-12% physical mitigation and gain: Evasion much better than MRR, 9 to 19 Dodge miss chance which by itself is better than the 10-ish physical I lost. And as a bonus my DPS is increased because most of the choices that add MRR asnd PRR have massive DPS consequences. While most of the Pajama choices add free DPS or don't subtract DPS.

Even before they removed this the Layered defensive strategy was actually superior to Armored strategy for DPS oriented melee's it's just that Armor is simple and requires no build strategy.

Too me the removal of MRR from armor returned it to almost exactly (practically speaking) where it was before armor up... With Pajama's being the clear cut superior mitigation for Melee's.



Take a physics class... Armor is almost textbook insulation, leather and padding under metal, shiny metal is ablative. despite being thermally conductive. Some of the energy it blocks is radiated back, and some of it is thermally conducted to the boiled leather which is much less thermally conductive and then the nice thick padding underneath that which is less again.

To say what reaches your skin is reduced would be a logical statement. even if the games armor wasn't almost all magically enhanced. and not all of it even metal... such as Oh I don't know Dragon scales... which last I checked are mostly the armors people are wearing.

Ask yourself why many forms of insulation have shiny metal foil facing with less thermally conductive material under it? BTW foil is actually MORE thermally conductive than thick metals (and possibly less shiny as well), but that doesn't matter, the metal is there because it bounces energy back away in such useful quantities that it is worth having the conductance there because there's a large net gain in efficiency.

On the other hand we have the even stupider example of someone wearing wispy comfortable clothes getting 35 MRR, about the same MRR as a Heavy armored DPS toon. Needless to say a conterintuitive scenario if we're trying to bring "realism" into it. Not that is matters much, he's got evasion and gets missed a lot more often...

BTW please no more people with tanky tanks posting screen shots, if you don't think you gave up VERY large chunks of DPS then you simply don't know what you don't know.


Your not taking into acoount shadowplate armor with 60 dr. No way im giving that up for evasion. With the saves you get from pally half dmg removes everything to minimal. You might be stuck in the pre armor up way of the thinking.

[HernandoCortez]

/signed.
'Nuff said.

[IronClan]

splashing evasion into an otherwise pure paladin or pure barb most definitely do cost dps. frenzy and kotc capstones both provide 10 mp among other things, thats a considerable amount of dps.

Depends on what splash you're using, Mountain stance is pretty good stuff. Ranger doesn't need to splash and Barb is so autonomous with it's auto healing proc and massive hamp and hp's who cares.


Your not taking into account shadowplate armor with 60 dr. No way im giving that up for evasion. With the saves you get from pally half dmg removes everything to minimal. You might be stuck in the pre armor up way of the thinking.

It is great armor, but it's hard to base build choices on one item that is only wearable at cap in a game that is currently about leveling from 20 to 28 over and over. It's a good consideration for after the next update though. Perhaps they will put that effect on a couple different heavy armors and we'll have some variety. Otherwise I guess it's more "this is the armor you wear if you're heavy" pigeonholing.

[Enderoc]

whatever applies to players should also apply to enemies...and from what I seen does.

[slarden]

Your not taking into acoount shadowplate armor with 60 dr. No way im giving that up for evasion. With the saves you get from pally half dmg removes everything to minimal. You might be stuck in the pre armor up way of the thinking.

Exactly and lets say all you have is an item for 24 and mysterious cloak for an additional 25. That is a very low-ball # achievable by anyone in any class. That is 33% dr just from those 2 items.

As you state a paladin has no reason to ever complain. They have 25 more MRR for a 6 AP investment. They should only fail their save on a 1 - and failing on a 1 can be negated with epic reflexes.

So now you have 50% reduction from awesome saves and on top of that another 42% reduction from very weak level 28 gear. So now you are taking 29% damage before your resists, absorb and other mitigation. I think physical damage in the level 30 EE quests is much tougher and in the case of really dangerous magic attacks like disintegrate - MRR does no good anyhow.

2 years ago the second layer of defense didn't exist at all. So we are still way ahead of where we used to be and NONE of the old content was ever adjusted for this massive player benefit. The mistake was to put MRR on armor in the first place - that was corrected so heavy armor isn't the obvious choice for all builds.

[Son_of_the_South]

Thats not a fair comparison because there are many ways to close the gap of PRR between heavy armor users and light/pajama users. However, there is a big gap, when lightarmor/pajama users can completely avoid all reflex based damage, while heavy armor users will still get smacked with 50% of the damage even with uber saves. Add that to the diff between dodge possibility with heavy armor users vs light/pajama users and it because even out of proportion.

Thematically, I'm afraid you're wrong. It makes perfect sense (logic) that someone wrapped in metal is not going to be able to mitigate damage from fire, acid and electricity (cold & sonic are mildly debatable, the later less so); while evasion allows one to dodge these effects, perhaps entirely.

I can empathise with your desire for HA to have MRR back but logically, it doesn't make sense in a D&D/DDO world.

[Son_of_the_South]

whatever applies to players should also apply to enemies...and from what I seen does.

I really don't think you want mobs casting 10-15k ruins or proccing mortal fear on you or any number of spells/abilities we have that they don't.

You might want to re-think that statement.

[FranOhmsford]

The change was needed. You can't just slap on heavy armor and say hey I can block any type of attack.

Let's look at the types of attacks shall we:

Fire - The Iconic Warrior facing a Dragon in Fantasy and Mythology HAS ALWAYS used his Shield to completely block the Breath!
Armour shouldn't give any MRR against Fire but Heavy and Tower Shields should give a Large Amount! {And not just while actively blocking! - DDO is far too fast for active blocking to be a requirement!}.

Electricity - Metal is a conductor - Anyone wearing Metal Armour {Most Heavy Armour} should gain a penalty to MRR/Elec Res!

Acid - Heavy Armour should give large amounts of MRR versus this as it has to get through the Armour to damage you!

Cold - Similar to Elec Metal is not a good idea against Cold - Anyone wearing Metal Armour should gain a penalty to MRR/Cold Res!

Sonic - Ignores Armour entirely - No MRR, No Penalty either!

Force - Not counting Magic Missiles which are actually coded to always hit and therefore completely ignore armour! Should be treated like Acid and ALL Armour should give MRR vs it with Heavy giving the most!

[MaeveTuohy]

Take a physics class...

Will they be conducted in your arrogant tone? Hmmm, I'll pass then.


Armor is almost textbook insulation, leather and padding under metal, shiny metal is ablative. despite being thermally conductive. Some of the energy it blocks is radiated back, and some of it is thermally conducted to the boiled leather which is much less thermally conductive and then the nice thick padding underneath that which is less again.

To say what reaches your skin is reduced would be a logical statement. even if the games armor wasn't almost all magically enhanced. and not all of it even metal... such as Oh I don't know Dragon scales... which last I checked are mostly the armors people are wearing.

Ask yourself why many forms of insulation have shiny metal foil facing with less thermally conductive material under it? BTW foil is actually MORE thermally conductive than thick metals (and possibly less shiny as well), but that doesn't matter, the metal is there because it bounces energy back away in such useful quantities that it is worth having the conductance there because there's a large net gain in efficiency.

Fair enough on many of your points.


On the other hand we have the even stupider example of someone wearing wispy comfortable clothes getting 35 MRR, about the same MRR as a Heavy armored DPS toon. Needless to say a conterintuitive scenario if we're trying to bring "realism" into it. Not that is matters much, he's got evasion and gets missed a lot more often...

"It's magic" is the excuse always rolled out by players to justify any buff they have or want. The game arbitrarily uses and abuses actual physical laws and properties. Mostly this is fun. Sometimes it's an abomination.

Heavy armour wearers get away with a lot: movement speed and agility are largely unaffected, as is vision for anyone wearing a helmet. Of you've ever worn armour and a helmet, you'd know this was bollocks.

And don't even get me started on swimming.

I think if we are going to give armour all of it's magical and physical defence properties, it should be balanced by the realities of heavy armour use.

[RD2play]

What if MRR depended on the enchantment value of your armor? lets say 0.5* light, 1* med, 1.5* heavy and capped by BaB?!
This way it is not frontloaded thus not just slap on and profit. Also non full BaB classes like arcanes will have less profit at higher level thus making it a harder choice. And for the final thing it would make Pre enhancements and spells (arti) that increase the enchantment value more desirable.

[mole7777]

I prefer the removal of mrr from heavy armor.
This way you as a player must make a choice, do you want the best defense against physical attacks? Put on that heavy armor, or do you want to invest into your saves, splash a class with evasion and loose the defense from the armor to reduce incoming damage from casters?

Choices are good, cookie-cutters are bad.

That isn't true though. There is no way your heavy armour is going to compete with 30 dodge. The evasion build is going to take less magic damage and less physical damage, there is no choice one is plainly better then the other.

[PsychoBlonde]

No.

Not just because of the armour easy button, though that is an excellent argument in itself.

If anything, heavy armour should enhance most elemental attack damage.

Metal armour. Conducts heat, doesn't protect against it. Maybe +30% fire and cold damage? Also conducts electricity. Maybe +50% electrical damage? Should offer no protection against acidic air spells, but sure some protection against acidic liquid - at the expense of the armour itself. Sonic - metal would create a nice resonance chamber. Maybe +20% damage from sonic?

Metal armor is not a big hollow tin can, nor does the metal rest directly on your skin. Being inside of a car protects pretty well from lightning strikes because the electricity can ground through the car instead of, you know, through your BODY, which doesn't conduct electricity so well and so tends to do stuff like, you know, heat up and cook. Fire proximity suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_proximity_suit) are made from aluminized materials because the shiny metal REFLECTS the RADIANT heat. It's to be assumed that armor makers in a fantasy setting have some clue what the wearer is liable to go up against.

By this "logic" it would make sense to grab hot pans out of the oven with your bare hands instead of putting on an oven mitt first.

As for the change--I think they did deprecate evasion a little too much at first with MRR. It seems to be working reasonably well now.

[BigErkyKid]

That isn't true though. There is no way your heavy armour is going to compete with 30 dodge. The evasion build is going to take less magic damage and less physical damage, there is no choice one is plainly better then the other.

This has already been debated. Yes, against a single enemy good to-miss via dodge and say incorporeality helps a lot. It is not until shadow guardian that heavy armor catches up.

HOWEVER, there are three reasons why this point falls flat in actual gameplay.

1. to-miss chances do not mitigate damage when it hits you, so those toons are more subject to spike damage since they pack less PRR.

2. precisely toons with more dodge tend to be toons with way worse self healing.

3. against very many enemies (most of the game is that) that double and even triple strike the chances of "bad rolls" compound

The combination of 1,2 and 3 kill any advantage that dodge classes have. People massively moved to heavy armor because it comes in better classes anyway (monk vs paladin? ugh) and it gives reliable defenses that reduce incoming damage to not risky levels. The problem you face IG is whether you can heal for more than the incoming damage reliably. Heavy armor on a paladin gives you that. Dodge on a monk means that at some point you'll have a bad roll and PING.

[Robai]

It was definitely a good thing since I'm no longer thinking to switch to heavy armors on my Rogue/Ranger/etc (they have couple fighter lvls).
I mean Heavy armor shouldn't be the only logical solution (it is still better option since PRR is more important than MRR or evasion in most cases).
MRR removal from Heavy armor slowed down power creep slightly, which is always a good thing for the game.
Before PRR and MRR introduction (which was a huge bump to power creep) we had no problems to play the game so why would anyone complain now?


EDIT. I wouldn't mind if some named heavy armors would grant some MRR though.

[FranOhmsford]

This has already been debated. Yes, against a single enemy good to-miss via dodge and say incorporeality helps a lot. It is not until shadow guardian that heavy armor catches up.

HOWEVER, there are three reasons why this point falls flat in actual gameplay.

1. to-miss chances do not mitigate damage when it hits you, so those toons are more subject to spike damage since they pack less PRR.

2. precisely toons with more dodge tend to be toons with way worse self healing.

3. against very many enemies (most of the game is that) that double and even triple strike the chances of "bad rolls" compound

The combination of 1,2 and 3 kill any advantage that dodge classes have. People massively moved to heavy armor because it comes in better classes anyway (monk vs paladin? ugh) and it gives reliable defenses that reduce incoming damage to not risky levels. The problem you face IG is whether you can heal for more than the incoming damage reliably. Heavy armor on a paladin gives you that. Dodge on a monk means that at some point you'll have a bad roll and PING.

You missed that Evasion toons will have far less HP than Hvy Armour toons as a whole too {And no....Your 18/2 Elf Wizard/Monk having more HP in Magister than my Pure Paladin in US isn't the answer!}.

That Spike Damage is far more likely to kill the Evasion toon {especially in newer quests with mobs spawning in groups of 6-10 and all attacking at the same time!} than the Heavy Armour wearer.
If Dodge gave a glancing blow bonus then maybe it would be different - Say...For every 1 point of Dodge you get 2 or 3 percentage points of Glancing Blow which reduces the incoming dmg by 30,50 or even 75% depending on what the Devs feel is right?

[Ayseifn]

Mostly ok with the change, physical damage is still the lions share of damage for melee so heavy should still have a place, most of those in heavy also get massive HP boosts to help them deal with the spiky damage. Only possible problem will be for splashing classes, strong 18 cores lock out 3 paladin/fighter so heavy takes a big hit there.

Only real issue I had with it though was how easy it was to get and that it worked on more things than evasion, if it cost you more build wise and didn't work on so many different spells it'd have been fine.

[Qezuzu]

I get that heavy armor used to be gimpy as all hell, but the first time they buffed it, they COMPLETELY over-did it. Heavy armor was the #1 choice for EVERYONE, including rogues. Rogues in heavy armor is completely silly, from a DnD stand-point. Actually, just from a general RPG standpoint.

Now, I feel there's a good balance. If you're a Rogue or Ranger, using light armor is the best choice. If you're not a Rogue or Ranger, and want to use light armor, you have the option to splash rogue or monk. If you're Paladin or Fighter, heavy armor is the best choice, and if you want to use heavy armor, you can splash those classes to get more benefits. And Monks just get proxy buffed.

It's already possible to get 85 MRR through Stance, Mysterious Cloak and Sightless... assuming you make your save (cause Evasion toons have to, also) and after resists and possible absorption, what quests are there where you're taking too much spell damage?

[FranOhmsford]

I get that heavy armor used to be gimpy as all hell, but the first time they buffed it, they COMPLETELY over-did it. Heavy armor was the #1 choice for EVERYONE, including rogues. Rogues in heavy armor is completely silly, from a DnD stand-point. Actually, just from a general RPG standpoint.

With you on the roleplay aspect.

Where I feel the problem lies though is not in the "OPness" of Heavy Armour but in the "weakness" of Dodge/Evasion when not maxed!


Now, I feel there's a good balance. If you're a Rogue or Ranger, using light armor is the best choice. If you're not a Rogue or Ranger, and want to use light armor, you have the option to splash rogue or monk. If you're Paladin or Fighter, heavy armor is the best choice, and if you want to use heavy armor, you can splash those classes to get more benefits. And Monks just get proxy buffed.

Funny - I see multiple Rogue builds that insist on using Heavy Armour!

There's a thread right now where an Acrobat build has been posted that uses Heavy Armour because Dodge/Evasion is THAT WEAK!


It's already possible to get 85 MRR through Stance, Mysterious Cloak and Sightless... assuming you make your save (cause Evasion toons have to, also) and after resists and possible absorption, what quests are there where you're taking too much spell damage?

Sigh!

Can people please stop equating absolute max numbers with what is "possible for the majority"!

Many players don't have the perfect gear set up with perfect Augments in every slot to fill out what's missing and that 1st Lifer using Sightless and Mysterious Cloak to get his MRR may very well have difficulties elsewhere due to missing gear {no Deathblock, no Heavy Fort, no Deadly, no Seeker, no Con, No Main Stat - And if he's got all of that no something else!}.

[Blastyswa]

U are obviously a tank and high mrr as a tank is fine. But my pt is ppl need to splash a pally/fighter for the extra mrr which reduces build variation. Also you dont get that mrr for heroic content and there are some monsters with pretty dam high spell damage even with good saves. The whole point of heavy armor pass was to give an option of either going for a build where you will take damage but at reduced rate so ur hp will not spike much vs light/pajama where you can completely avoid damage but will have hp spikes. Instead of fixing the problem with a chisel, the devs just took an axe and cut off mrr altogether.

Can easily achieve near this much MRR without DPS loss. My calculated DPS averages at around 5500 on this build, which is similar to other less defensive builds that I have played on. But just to prove my point, looking at a few MRR sources:

1. Heavy Armor without Fighter/Paladin Levels or Tempest cores (If you're in this situation, reincarnate and consider your build choices)
35 MRR Sheltering
25 MRR Cloak
5 MRR Insightful Sheltering (Circle of Malevolence would be my recommendation)
65 MRR (39.4% damage reduction)

2. Heavy Armor with Fighter/Paladin levels in KoTC or Kensei (Typical Heavy Armor user)
35 MRR Sheltering
25 MRR Cloak
5 MRR Insightful Sheltering
25 MRR Defense Stance
90 MRR (47.4% damage reduction)

3. My build (Highest defense possible without damage sacrifices)
35 MRR Sheltering
25 MRR Cloak
5 MRR Insightful Sheltering
25 MRR Defense Stance
25 MRR Harbored by Light
5 MRR ScD Core 4
9 MRR Warlock PL's
2 MRR Mythic Bonuses
131 Standing MRR (56.7% damage reduction)
My screenshot is 141, that was my picture in Sentinel. The above can be achieved in LD/DC.

As to heroics, I can not think of a single time in the past year where I have died in heroics without doing something to deserve it (Not bringing deathblock/deathward, not bringing a resistance item, typing /dance when I know there's a beholder in the area).

Regardless, I wouldn't really care if they brought back the MRR bonuses if actual newbies are struggling without it. A decently built heavy armor character is practically invincible without another 50 MRR though.

[Blastyswa]

can u give image of items you use, looks interesting

My actual build is here https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/466870-The-Dazling
I wouldn't actually recommend that specific gearset though, I've come up with a better setup since then that I will be updating with at some point.

[janave]

Some MRR on armor is okay, but mostly for newer players who dont have the twinks yet.

Could be a Feat i guess:
While wearing any armor, you gain +1MRR per Enhancement Bonus it has. eg: +5 Plate = +5MRR

It also takes about 1s to equip a shield, when you know you'll need one. ;)

[Enderoc]

How about MRR be simply the magical enhancement bonus? It's still very low. Meaning armor that has a crafter level 10 with a plus 4 enhancement, would provide a base of 14 MRR. Yeah not much but this will allow a whole new range of enhancements and equipment to seek after. Which is going to take some work.

[Oxarhamar]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

MRR for heavy armor never should have existed a welcomed correction.

[FifthTime]

Definitely needed to be removed. Having everyone wearing heavy armor was ridiculous.

Once again, Turbine over shot a re-balancing attempt and had to back peddle. The only thing they accomplish by repeatedly doing this is to create a whole group of complaining people who cry and whine when their special toy gets taken away.

Melee classes are still by far the superior classes in DDO.

[Kompera_Oberon]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.
I don't recall the devs ever making any attempt to justify or explain the MRR change. If this is something I simply missed then please point me to the dev posts explaining their thought processes.

The reduction in PRR corresponding with BAB I can see as it prevents a low BAB class from getting the full benefit of armor PRR unless they also invest in ways to improve their BAB such as multi-classing with a full-BAB class, or taking the T5 abilities in one of the the few Enhancement trees which have that as an option.

But MRR? No real justification. No complaints as far as I am aware about some class or some build having so much MRR that they were 'overperforming.' Barbarians probably had the best MRR, but that was mostly from their Enhancements and very little from their armor since they are a medium armor using class. So reducing armor MRR didn't hurt them much at all, and they might have been the target of the change.

It's really just what seems to be the standard operating procedure from Turbine. A crew of developers who don't understand the game mechanics very well at all making changes which they believe are aimed at one goal but actually failing at that goal and 'succeeding' at a different goal altogether. And this all the while engaging a group of players in a 'players council' and also getting a vast amount of feedback from players who do understand the game mechanics. And yet still managing to fail over and over again in a basic grasp of how the game they are developing for actually works.

And really, if this was some kind of attempt at bringing back the Monk, there are a lot of things which need to be done first. Fixing handwraps and unarmed combat in general, for one. That is a mess of bugs and errors which should have been fixed years ago, and yet has been allowed to remain unaddressed for far too long.

Here is what the Known Issues list has to say about Handwraps:

* The Deepwood Stalker enhancement "Improved Weapon Finesse" is not applying to Unarmed attacks or Handwraps.
* Artificer Iron Defender Modules appear under the Handwraps section of the Auction House.
That's the entire list. Which completely excludes a good dozen well known bugs and errors surrounding Handwraps. This rampant failure to even acknowledge bugs does not instill any kind of confidence that those bugs will ever be fixed.

Fixing the damage done to all staff builds in the U28.1 patch is another thing which remains to be done (undone?), and it is a recently created issue due to the failure of the U28.1 patch to manage to hit the target it was aimed at. Instead it managed to nerf builds which were in no way 'overperforming' and in no way overpowered. There was solid player feedback which described in detail how the U28.1 changes would adversely impact builds which were not even any part of the target audience for those changes. And yet those changes still went through without any modifications to prevent those unintended consequences from occurring.


I prefer the removal of mrr from heavy armor.
This way you as a player must make a choice, do you want the best defense against physical attacks? Put on that heavy armor, or do you want to invest into your saves, splash a class with evasion and loose the defense from the armor to reduce incoming damage from casters?

Choices are good, cookie-cutters are bad.
The problem here is that the player base will crunch the numbers and will decide which is best: Heavy armor or Evasion. The player base wants cookie-cutters.

Even if it could possibly be decided as simply as "Heavy Armor is best in 40% of content and Evasion is best in 60% of content," you will have players decrying the difference, if it goes against the way they choose to play, as being a poor mechanic or being a decision in favor of one build as opposed to another.

There is very little 'win' for the developers here. I can criticize them all day long for their very many failings, but I also see that they have a very tough goal to shoot for.


whatever applies to players should also apply to enemies...and from what I seen does.
Tell me then why enemy casters have unlimited mana and player casters do not? From what I see, the rules are very different between players and NPCs.

[PermaBanned]

Once again, Turbine over shot a re-balancing attempt and had to back peddle. The only thing they accomplish by repeatedly doing this is to create a whole group of complaining people who cry and whine when their special toy gets taken away.Nah, Turbine didn't create them. Much like the P2Winners, the Elitests, the permanoobs, the entitled, and pretty much every other non-DDO specific (ie "stay true to PnP" vs "eff PnP") forum faction their existence predates the game. They're like semi-dormant volcanos just waiting for a trigger event so they can erupt ;)

[Ykt]

What do u guys think of MRR removal from Heavy Armors?

What's a "u guy"?

[dunklezhan]

I know I said it once, but I wanted to refine it: I think MRR should be a prefix or suffix on armours.

I said heavy armours originally but really if it was a magical property of the armour it could appear on anything the devs wanted to any degree they wanted. But you'd be choosing it instead of something else like flurry or deathblock. It could appear on named items similarly as a property.

I'm pretty sure they can do this already, so I reckon rather than blanket adding it to certain things, just add it in to the lootgen tables and start designing it on new named armours (and consider adding it for any reviews of older items). Since they're looking at lootgen anyway is probably the simplest answer here.

Different values could apply (Magical Absorption I through X) which could apply differing amounts depending on armour type (so maybe Light Magical Absorption I through X, Medium Magical Absorption I through X etc).

If its got the 'Magical absorption' property, it isn't going to have something else. Tradeoffs are good and surely in this instance would promote gear and build diversity? Or would it become the defacto automatic best option if you saw it against Flurry/Deathblock/Your Current Effect Of Choice?

As for specific values, I'm not sure. I wondered whether it should just add straight fixed value MRR, or whether to look at something clever like 'provides 10% of your current PRR as MRR', and adjust the percentage based on light/heavy/medium/effect level. I don't know which would be easiest, I dont' know which would be best or whether either would be OP - I do not follow the maths of PRR/MRR type mechanics at all. They're just two options I thought of which might work.

[bartharok]

What's a "u guy"?

A really bent guy?

[Talon_Moonshadow]

If it was too high, they should have just reduced it.


Seems to me that magic armor should offer protection from magic...

(there may be other ways they can make magic armor useful against magical attacks though....)

[Pnumbra]

This was a good move.

Heavy Armor Training: Requires fighter class level 2. While in heavy armor, get +3 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Combatant: Requires fighter class level 6. While in heavy armor, get +6 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Master: Requires fighter class level 10. While in heavy armor, get +9 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Champion: Requires fighter class level 14. While in heavy armor, get +12 PRR and MRR.

NOTE: These feats are independently obtainable, so a fighter does not need a lower-level feat in order to take a higher-level feat. All of these feats stack with each other.

Not sure why people are saying there is no MRR in heavy armor. You just have to make a choice and invest accordingly. Good to see a move to class separation, even if it is passively implemented.

[MaeveTuohy]

I know I said it once, but I wanted to refine it: I think MRR should be a prefix or suffix on armours.

I said heavy armours originally but really if it was a magical property of the armour it could appear on anything the devs wanted to any degree they wanted. But you'd be choosing it instead of something else like flurry or deathblock. It could appear on named items similarly as a property.

This has merit.

[IronClan]

I don't recall the devs ever making any attempt to justify or explain the MRR change. If this is something I simply missed then please point me to the dev posts explaining their thought processes.

They clearly explained them multiple times in the Official thread, the reason was that Pajama's were (and are again) the best defensive strategy, because they allow Evasion and far higher effective miss chance than armor does, while at the same time RETURNING DPS, not costing it. So they boosted PRR's curve a little and added MRR which allowed a tanky character to get near the mitigation of Evasion. They talked about the reasons on Lam and post facto several times, now is where you ask me to search those posts out and present them to you on a platter.



It's really just what seems to be the standard operating procedure from Turbine. A crew of developers who don't understand the game mechanics very well at all making changes which they believe are aimed at one goal but actually failing at that goal and 'succeeding' at a different goal altogether. And this all the while engaging a group of players in a 'players council' and also getting a vast amount of feedback from players who do understand the game mechanics. And yet still managing to fail over and over again in a basic grasp of how the game they are developing for actually works.

There are absolutely things the Dev team is behind the meta on, and there's things they consider interesting mechanics that the playerbase ignores and there's things they downplay that the playbase uses the hell out of, I play a hell of a lot, 16-17 alts, at least 8 of which are capped right now most of which have TR/ETR/ITR's one Heroic and Epic 37 PL completionist, every single major playstyle played extensively. Yet there's stuff I forget and have to reference the wiki for over and over, there's also stuff I get wrong and piled onto on the forums over because people love to nit pick, but also because of my self assured and abrasive posting style. Yet how many people here would call me clueless in a heartbeat and already have in many instances (much of this is THEIR failure to realize the most current meta but I digress). The truth is where ANYONE values something more than you or I do, or less than you or I do, there will ALWAYS be the assumption that "Ironclan is just a 5 year newb" or "so and so doesn't know what I know". Sometimes it's just people putting a different price tag on an ability, or 22 ap's of spending, sometimes OPTIMAL means your character does more DPS but sucks to play because they are missing something YOU value.

SO the reality is that there's a ess storm of selection bias going on here, EVERYTHING the Dev's do there's at least SOME people saying it was a mistake, everything they fail to do there's someone else saying it's a mistake. The Appearance is self reinforcing. Even when you DON'T care about an issue the Dev's appear to "be wrong again" when someone else says "you screwed this up". Even when you disagree with what the players say, the Dev's appear to "not understand"... And then they nerf something they put in and they seem to be contradicting themselves, when in reality they are responding to all the loud vocal complaining.

It all leads to "the Dev's can't do anything right" an effect that is simple Dunning Krugar effect reinforced by selection bias. I can assure you having seen how the sausage is made they are far more competent than anyone around here wants to think (or anyone around here perior). They know and can do more than anyone on this forum, or that forum, you'll call this brown nosing, because that's how Dunning kruger works. the illusion of competence from people who've not got a single resume point, is endemic on the internet... no different here.

IMO here's whats really going on:

the Dev's are behind the meta in general because yes they can't play 8 hours a night and still do their jobs, ANYONE who doesn't play more than 6 or 8 hours a night is probably behind the meta somewhere unless they have guildies informing them of whats going on. In fact everyone who plays this game DOESN'T KNOW SOMETHING. I can guarantee I could PM you things you don't know and you could do likewise. If I post proof right here then I have to LR builds... so Let the people who don't know what they don't know accuse me of blustering.
The perception on the forum is also often wrong, some of these are just harmless (Like ES Warlock over ranged Warlock) sometimes the forums are deliberately mislead by people for various reasons, including protecting "unintended synergies", sometimes it's because the person wants to become a "rockstar" "elsewhere", sometimes it's just someone being a troll.
The dev's are sometimes 100% correct about stuff the forum thinks is wrong (due to popular perception being wrong) but the forum doesn't have the math or internal view of the code and dataset needed to understand this.

[Blastyswa]

This was a good move.

Heavy Armor Training: Requires fighter class level 2. While in heavy armor, get +3 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Combatant: Requires fighter class level 6. While in heavy armor, get +6 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Master: Requires fighter class level 10. While in heavy armor, get +9 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Champion: Requires fighter class level 14. While in heavy armor, get +12 PRR and MRR.

NOTE: These feats are independently obtainable, so a fighter does not need a lower-level feat in order to take a higher-level feat. All of these feats stack with each other.

Not sure why people are saying there is no MRR in heavy armor. You just have to make a choice and invest accordingly. Good to see a move to class separation, even if it is passively implemented.

Agreed to some degree that this was a decent place for MRR. Helps a lot to make fighters and paladins closer to even, since healing is much better on a paladin.

[Kompera_Oberon]

They clearly explained them multiple times in the Official thread, the reason was that Pajama's were (and are again) the best defensive strategy, because they allow Evasion and far higher effective miss chance than armor does, while at the same time RETURNING DPS, not costing it. So they boosted PRR's curve a little and added MRR which allowed a tanky character to get near the mitigation of Evasion. They talked about the reasons on Lam and post facto several times, now is where you ask me to search those posts out and present them to you on a platter.
No, I won't ask you to search anything out. But what you're describing sounds an awful lot like the rationale for Armor Up!, and not the rational for, um, armor down I guess. The changes to how armor works in U28.1. The rationale for that is what I was talking about, specifically the rationale for the removal of MRR entirely from armor, and that is what I would like to see, or even have someone tell me it actually exists.


SO the reality is that there's a ess storm of selection bias going on here, EVERYTHING the Dev's do there's at least SOME people saying it was a mistake, everything they fail to do there's someone else saying it's a mistake. The Appearance is self reinforcing.Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes there is no "selection bias", because there is a clear line which can be drawn from what the devs claimed to be their goal and what actually happened when they implemented their changes.

For a part of the U28.1 changes they claimed that the Swashbuckler melee DPS was the yardstick they were using. And then they made a bunch of changes which didn't do a whole lot to pull Paladins and Barbarians down to that level, while at the same time negatively impacting the melee DPS of a good number of classes and builds which were never any part of the discussion about 'overperforming' DPS. There is no selection bias going on when that fact is recognized or when the devs are criticized for their failure to accomplish what they said was their intended goal.

There is no Dunning–Kruger effect going on here, except perhaps the case where you have decided that you are competent enough to determine where that effect is occurring. :p


Yet there's stuff I forget and have to reference the wiki for over and over, there's also stuff I get wrong and piled onto on the forums over because people love to nit pick, but also because of my self assured and abrasive posting style. Yet how many people here would call me clueless in a heartbeat and already have in many instances (much of this is THEIR failure to realize the most current meta but I digress).
There is a vast wealth of things I am not knowledgeable on regarding this game. Any search of my posts in the new player forum will show that readily, as that's where I post my "I have no clue how this works, please help me understand" posts.

But a person does not have to be a writer to critique a book. They don't have to be a world famous chef to critique a restaurant. I often see that kind of bias in play, as if a person needs to be an expert at something to point out an issue with it. If you disagree with what is being pointed out, that's fine. If I make a claim which can be refuted, feel free to do so. Do so using a logical argument and that can be respected. But don't try to tell me that because I am not a Turbine developer that I can't critique their product.

[Kompera_Oberon]

This was a good move.

Heavy Armor Training: Requires fighter class level 2. While in heavy armor, get +3 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Combatant: Requires fighter class level 6. While in heavy armor, get +6 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Master: Requires fighter class level 10. While in heavy armor, get +9 PRR and MRR.
Heavy Armor Champion: Requires fighter class level 14. While in heavy armor, get +12 PRR and MRR.

NOTE: These feats are independently obtainable, so a fighter does not need a lower-level feat in order to take a higher-level feat. All of these feats stack with each other.

Not sure why people are saying there is no MRR in heavy armor. You just have to make a choice and invest accordingly. Good to see a move to class separation, even if it is passively implemented.
This was a horrible move. It is limited to Fighters, and thus the thirteen other classes lost their PRR with no way to get it back. And it's horrible for Fighters, too. The Fighter has as their sole class feature a pile of Feats. Adding 8 Feats available only to Fighters in order to let them get back the PRR and MRR they lost and to be competent with other feats such as Improved Trip or Improved Sunder is just awful game design. It acknowledges that those Feats are failing to do what they were intended to do, and offers as a solution a Feat tax, where the Fighter can invest even more Feats to make something work which should have worked all along.

Tactical feats need to be fixed, no argument there. But charging more feats to make them viable is just compounding the error.

[MaeveTuohy]

This was a horrible move. It is limited to Fighters, and thus the thirteen other classes lost their PRR with no way to get it back. And it's horrible for Fighters, too. The Fighter has as their sole class feature a pile of Feats. Adding 8 Feats available only to Fighters in order to let them get back the PRR and MRR they lost and to be competent with other feats such as Improved Trip or Improved Sunder is just awful game design. It acknowledges that those Feats are failing to do what they were intended to do, and offers as a solution a Feat tax, where the Fighter can invest even more Feats to make something work which should have worked all along.

Tactical feats need to be fixed, no argument there. But charging more feats to make them viable is just compounding the error.

These should have been auto-granted feats.

[Qezuzu]

Funny - I see multiple Rogue builds that insist on using Heavy Armour!

There's a thread right now where an Acrobat build has been posted that uses Heavy Armour because Dodge/Evasion is THAT WEAK!

Now that the PRR benefit for heavy armor is just an additional +20 for Rogues (or whatever BaB is for Rogues at 28), I'd really like to see the math here. I doubt +20 PRR is going to close the gap when light armor will get you an additional +30 or so to your dodge cap. Furthermore, with the Acrobat enhancements, defensive roll activates at <50% health, meaning you have a chance equal to your reflex save to ignore half the damage; iirc defensive roll doesn't work with heavy armor. And of course, there's evasion and improved evasion.

Unless they're Ftr/Pal splash, I just don't see it.


Sigh!

Can people please stop equating absolute max numbers with what is "possible for the majority"!

If we're going this route, we also can't assume that evasion toons are making their saves in EE, since you need a lot of gear to get those saves up to no fail.

[nokowi]

It is a good move. There was too much gap between heavy armor and evasion. I would like to see named medium armor with some MRR to provide a middle option. If everyone switches to dodge, the change went too far. Until we see this happening, players should support the change. Choices are good, even if your particular build makes one of the two choices clearly better.

[Blastyswa]

Can people please stop equating absolute max numbers with what is "possible for the majority"!

Many players don't have the perfect gear set up with perfect Augments in every slot to fill out what's missing and that 1st Lifer using Sightless and Mysterious Cloak to get his MRR may very well have difficulties elsewhere due to missing gear {no Deathblock, no Heavy Fort, no Deadly, no Seeker, no Con, No Main Stat - And if he's got all of that no something else!}.

Wait what?
The questioned numbers don't even include shields, much less max numbers. Not to mention Sightless contains Deathblock, Constitution, and True Seeing in addition to sheltering and melee power. The only things on your list a player wouldn't have then is Heavy Fort, Deadly, Seeker, and their main stat, although I was under the impression there was 12 gear slots without including mainhand/offhand and quiver (and cosmetics/ammo I guess).
Absolute max numbers for MRR would be closer to 200. It is not difficult at all for a heavy armor paladin/fighter to get 100+ MRR without using a shield or other MRR boosting effects that might not be the best choices.

[Kuttamia]

Now that the PRR benefit for heavy armor is just an additional +20 for Rogues (or whatever BaB is for Rogues at 28), I'd really like to see the math here. I doubt +20 PRR is going to close the gap when light armor will get you an additional +30 or so to your dodge cap. Furthermore, with the Acrobat enhancements, defensive roll activates at <50% health, meaning you have a chance equal to your reflex save to ignore half the damage; iirc defensive roll doesn't work with heavy armor. And of course, there's evasion and improved evasion.

Unless they're Ftr/Pal splash, I just don't see it.



If we're going this route, we also can't assume that evasion toons are making their saves in EE, since you need a lot of gear to get those saves up to no fail.

Exactly, to compare heavy armor vs light armor/no armor and say heavy armor is still good is ridiculous. Heavy armors are pretty much useless atm, other then the one armor which you only get access to at lv 28. So from lv 1-27, light/no armor wins, but from lv 28 heavy armor wins. So much for having a choice.

Secondly, all claims that heavy armor is still good and then posting a paladine/fighter screen shots on their build is complete bs as well. People should not be forced into taking pally and fighter levels to hit a desirable amount of mrr to avoid too much spiking in hit points.

[slarden]

Exactly, to compare heavy armor vs light armor/no armor and say heavy armor is still good is ridiculous. Heavy armors are pretty much useless atm, other then the one armor which you only get access to at lv 28. So from lv 1-27, light/no armor wins, but from lv 28 heavy armor wins. So much for having a choice.

Secondly, all claims that heavy armor is still good and then posting a paladine/fighter screen shots on their build is complete bs as well. People should not be forced into taking pally and fighter levels to hit a desirable amount of mrr to avoid too much spiking in hit points.

The only classes proficient in heavy armor without additional feat(s) are fighter, paladin and cleric.

So if you are ruling out fighter and paladin as examples then it leaves only cleric you can be talking about. I rarely see a cleric running around in light armor or a robe, although there are a few. It's hard to conclude heavy armor is useless when you already conceded it works well for fighters/paladins. The only other class that has heavy armor proficiency is Cleric and almost all I see on Sarlona are using heavy armor rather than splashing for evasion.

If you are referring to classes not proficient in heavy armor by default - that kind of proves the point that heavy armor was over-rewarded previously since classes not proficient in the armor were choosing it in huge numbers.

[Qezuzu]

Exactly, to compare heavy armor vs light armor/no armor and say heavy armor is still good is ridiculous. Heavy armors are pretty much useless atm, other then the one armor which you only get access to at lv 28. So from lv 1-27, light/no armor wins, but from lv 28 heavy armor wins. So much for having a choice.

Secondly, all claims that heavy armor is still good and then posting a paladine/fighter screen shots on their build is complete bs as well. People should not be forced into taking pally and fighter levels to hit a desirable amount of mrr to avoid too much spiking in hit points.

...so I guess Heavy armor is effective on the classes you would expect it to be effective on? And classes like Cleric, FvS, and Barbarian don't really have a reason to not use heavy armor, unless they just value evasion that much.

I still don't buy the "too much magic damage for heavy armor" thing. If you're expecting the evasion user to always make their saves, which takes a bunch of gear, we can also expect the heavy armor user to have a high enough reflex save and to also have ~60 MRR from items.

[Kompera_Oberon]

These [Fighter Heavy Armor and Tactical feats] should have been auto-granted feats.
Agreed. At the very least the tactical feats should be auto-granted, since the Fighter has already spent one or more feats on supposedly making their tactical maneuvers useful. Requiring 1-4 additional feats to make the first feat or feats useful is extremely poor game design.

The Heavy Armor feats don't work in quite the same way. The allow a Fighter to get back their lost PRR/MRR at a cost of 1-4 feats. At least this isn't a requirement for an earlier feat choice to remain useful. But it is still a feat tax on the class which has a pile of feats as their sole class feature. It will only serve to reduce diversity in Fighter builds since more PRR/MRR is always going to be taken over the very many sub-optimal feats in the feat chart.

A good look at the feat list itself should be or become a 'to do' on the part of the developers. The list was imported directly from PnP D&D but a few items were changed while others remained untouched. And the difference between the useful feats and the useless feats is very clear. A few changes to the less useful feats would be welcome.

[Kuttamia]

.
...so I guess Heavy armor is effective on the classes you would expect it to be effective on? And classes like Cleric, FvS, and Barbarian don't really have a reason to not use heavy armor, unless they just value evasion that much.

I still don't buy the "too much magic damage for heavy armor" thing. If you're expecting the evasion user to always make their saves, which takes a bunch of gear, we can also expect the heavy armor user to have a high enough reflex save and to also have ~60 MRR from items.

The whole concept of introducing heavy armor changes as mentioned by the devs when it was out in their devstream was to give players the option of going in a path where you "will" take damage but at a reduced rate so that your hp will not spike, or go a light armor/ no armor path, where you take 0 damage or spike damage. Now, after they reduced the total prr you gain from heavy armor and also completely removed the mrr from heavy armor, there really is no reason to go heavy armor anymore, other then paladin/fighter splash builds. It just does not make any sense that the prr difference between a heavy armor and a non heavy armor user is so little and in terms of mrr, there is no gap at all. Why will someone go for heavy armor anymore, when you can easily come close to that amount with light/no armor and on top of that gain massive dodge ratings + evasion. There is just no point in heavy armor anymore for lvling purpose all the way to lv 28, where there is a nice dr heavy armor.

[PermaBanned]

Secondly, all claims that heavy armor is still good and then posting a paladine/fighter screen shots on their build is complete bs as well. People should not be forced into taking pally and fighter levels to hit a desirable amount of mrr to avoid too much spiking in hit points.If you're going to rule out Pally/Ftr splashes for Heavy armor, then you have to rule out Rog/Monk* splashes for Evasion - after all, if you want Evasion you're "forced" to splash for that too, right?

*I don't consider 9 Ranger a splash.

[Thrudh]

Exactly, to compare heavy armor vs light armor/no armor and say heavy armor is still good is ridiculous. Heavy armors are pretty much useless atm, other then the one armor which you only get access to at lv 28. So from lv 1-27, light/no armor wins, but from lv 28 heavy armor wins. So much for having a choice.

Secondly, all claims that heavy armor is still good and then posting a paladine/fighter screen shots on their build is complete bs as well. People should not be forced into taking pally and fighter levels to hit a desirable amount of mrr to avoid too much spiking in hit points.

Did you even read what you just posted?

So what you meant to say was, Heavy armor is pretty much useless except for paladins and fighters, where it's pretty good. So heavy armor is good for mainline fighters and paladins, but not good for rogues and rangers and casters anymore.

So, success for the devs, I'd say.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

Exactly, to compare heavy armor vs light armor/no armor and say heavy armor is still good is ridiculous. Heavy armors are pretty much useless atm, other then the one armor which you only get access to at lv 28. So from lv 1-27, light/no armor wins, but from lv 28 heavy armor wins. So much for having a choice.

Secondly, all claims that heavy armor is still good and then posting a paladine/fighter screen shots on their build is complete bs as well. People should not be forced into taking pally and fighter levels to hit a desirable amount of mrr to avoid too much spiking in hit points.

im starting to question whether this thread is a troll, or if you are handicapped.

[slarden]

No, it just shows caster feats in general are mostly worthless. 1 DC to one of three or four schools used out of 80 necessary? Worthless. 1% Crit from MT. Worthless. Casters take armor/shield feats because they are slightly better than stacking toughness, which is the next best thing to take.

3 DC is a 15% increase in chance to land a spell if you aren't auto-fail or auto-success. 3 Mental toughness feats comes with 3% chance to crit and 400 spell points before bonuses.

I think the fact that people say these aren't any good compared to shield and armor feats kind of proves the point that adjustments were needed.

[Erdrique]

I have to admit, I haven't really noticed that much of a difference quite yet with the removal of MRR from heavy armors. Although, I do believe they made a good move here. Seeing a bunch of casters wearing heavy armor just seemed strange...

[redoubt]

MRR experience on a paladin tank with lots of gear and past lives:
I just finished a 1-28, ER 20-28 on a human paladin Vanguard. All of this was done post MRR reduction to armor.

I used crafted armor in heroics and the PDK armor from eveningstar from 20-26. Then I put on the heavy armor from necro at 27 (emerald guard).

I ran elite to 28 the first life. We got as far as running the storm horns on EE. We did not get to the new Amrath stuff on ee, just on heroic elite.

During this time I had no problems with magical damage. What I found I got hit with the most was negative levels. It was so bad it became a joke that we could not complete a quest until I got a neg level. (Yes, I have deathward, I just like the other item in slot and would forget or decide not to swap right away.)

I only found two mobs that hurt me in a significant way via magic dps. The doppleganger and Miior from Haunted Halls. Even with a 65+ reflex save those stacks would add up so fast that I could not melee Miior and had to back off from the doppleganger a couple times. Through the rest of my questing I was able to heal fine with a few potions, cure serious and then cocoon. I finished most quests without even using LOH.

So, I'd like to say that the loss of MRR was a big hit, but I did fine without it. Someone with less gear or past lives may have more difficulty.

[Kompera_Oberon]

I just finished a 1-28, ER 20-28 on a human paladin Vanguard. All of this was done post MRR reduction to armor.
[...]
I ran elite to 28 the first life.
[...]
During this time I had no problems with magical damage.
Cool story, bro. So, you managed to run elites on what is arguably the single most potent class in the game on a first life. And before MRR was stripped away from heavy armor you, personally, had no problems with magic damage. Wow, I'm impressed? I'm not sure if you had a point you were trying to make, or you were just bragging about how easy the game is when you're playing the game as one of the classes which has had their class pass.

Next, tell us how you did the same thing as a Barbarian. We're all ears!

[redoubt]

Cool story, bro. So, you managed to run elites on what is arguably the single most potent class in the game on a first life. And before MRR was stripped away from heavy armor you, personally, had no problems with magic damage. Wow, I'm impressed? I'm not sure if you had a point you were trying to make, or you were just bragging about how easy the game is when you're playing the game as one of the classes which has had their class pass.

Next, tell us how you did the same thing as a Barbarian. We're all ears!

Why be an ***?

The OP asked about MRR and heavy armor. I posted how it went for me. I even put in the caveats that I have good gear and lives. My last line even states that newer character may have a harder time. It is a data point. I did not post analysis of it because I'm not pushing an agenda. (Though, it appears that my data point is contrary to the agenda you must be pushing, otherwise you would not feel the need to lash out for no reason.)

Second, why a barb? Barbs don't naturally wear heavy?

Third, every other thread on the forums says warlocks are the most powerful.

Finally, instead of being a jack***, just post your experiences to show another data point.

edit: I looked at your post again. Did you even read what I wrote?

1. I said POST-MRR reduction. Not before.
2. I said I have lots of gear and past lives. I ran from 1-28 and then did an ER and ran again from 20-28. Non of it was a "first" life. It was the first life in heavy armor since the MRR reduction. It was the life relevant to the MRR and heavy armor discussion.

Please try to be constructive. You've only been posting under than name for a year, but most of what you post is vindictive trash and you're getting a bad rep.

[AzureDragonas]

.

The whole concept of introducing heavy armor changes as mentioned by the devs when it was out in their devstream was to give players the option of going in a path where you "will" take damage but at a reduced rate so that your hp will not spike, or go a light armor/ no armor path, where you take 0 damage or spike damage. Now, after they reduced the total prr you gain from heavy armor and also completely removed the mrr from heavy armor, there really is no reason to go heavy armor anymore, other then paladin/fighter splash builds. It just does not make any sense that the prr difference between a heavy armor and a non heavy armor user is so little and in terms of mrr, there is no gap at all. Why will someone go for heavy armor anymore, when you can easily come close to that amount with light/no armor and on top of that gain massive dodge ratings + evasion. There is just no point in heavy armor anymore for lvling purpose all the way to lv 28, where there is a nice dr heavy armor.

As most i think you are talking nonsense, to say that heavy armors are useless now till 28 shows how little you understand.
How armors worked before update made exactly that only heavy armors was worth to use, for simple reason:
*light/robes required so much investment for saves to even matter to avoid fully damage, and most builds was not able to reach that without splashing paladin etc.
*Heavy armors helped easily to reach ~100 each prr mrr with only armors and some items like sheltering, resulting to everyone having 50% damage reduction after save rolles.

Most ppl before was splashing even wiz 18 rog 2 to get insightfull reflexes and evasion, and before this pass those who did that was loughable, even each good caster was getting heavy armors and spell failure reduction.

Now we have more freedom to choose even barbarians rangers etc are not forced to pick heavy armors even in enchantments they get options, to get more prr with light armors etc.
Right now on armors we have balance we havent got for a while and if you are upset not being OP in heavy armors against casters, well IT'S A GOOD THING, finally heavy armors don't make you imune to any kind of damage.

For end word, those who have used heavy armors part of them abadoned them, there is no more such insane powercreap to use heavy armors anymore, and those who were using heavy armors, like paladins clerics, fighters still use them.

[Ellihor]

I like it. Make you think about going with armor or not. And, despise the claims that it would start a new pijama era, it didnt and most people still use the heaviest armor they can. Just proofs again that how many people here in the forums have no idea about whats going on in the game. I think DEVs should track and mark these posters who are wrong over and over again to not listen theyr feedback.

[mole7777]

I like it. Make you think about going with armor or not. And, despise the claims that it would start a new pijama era, it didnt and most people still use the heaviest armor they can. Just proofs again that how many people here in the forums have no idea about whats going on in the game. I think DEVs should track and mark these posters who are wrong over and over again to not listen theyr feedback.

Ok show heavy armour is better than light, it isn't. If you want to take more damage that's fine its your choice.

[Jetrule]

It is more harmful to some classes/builds than it is to others. I have seen a warforged arti with admantium body and a cleric with heavy armor and a two handed weapon get smoked by abashai acid blats that land for 200-400+ each in heroic elite devils gambit. Palis and fighters with out shields both have it harder than before. Characters with evasion and good reflex saves are mostly unaffected. characters with shields and shield mastery don't seem to take much more damage. Tank warlocks are unbothered. Non shield using not fighter or pali splashed bards in medium or heavy armor are much more vulnerable, as are wizards, artificers, clerics, favored souls, druids and sorcerers.

[AzureDragonas]

Ok show heavy armour is better than light, it isn't. If you want to take more damage that's fine its your choice.

You miss a point there buddy, Heavy armors are designed for front liners and tanks who have aggro of most melee monsters in other words FOR TANKS - Clerics, Fighters, Paladins
Medium for moderate defense, who benefit from more hp healing etc - Barbarians, Fvs, Bards
light - for those who wanna do more damage while avoiding hits not forcing them to use let's say shields while still giving some defense - rangers, bards, rogs, ...
cloth/robes for those who don't need defense couse they shouldn't get aggro in first place - Casters wiz/sorc
and specialy robes for monks who spec in stances, have higher dodge cap and better miss chance couse of armor class AC+DEX+WIS

Old system made issue where everyone except monks were using Heavy armors for a simple reason, They were better option in all cases, any good player would just go HA even without proficiency, most strange thing even was a Flat bonus insntaly. Any class with equiping heavy armors and shield at low lvls was invincible and taking like no damage not only frmo melee but from casters as well.

These changes was good decision by turbine ending era of heavy armors, and FINALLY giving more options than Highest possible defense | something between no one really care | no defense at all but evasion

Also HA gives 2x BAB prr further and know how to invest in defense to raise mrr enough anyway, and also it rewards dwarfs|Paladains|Fighters for going tanky.


.

Why will someone go for heavy armor anymore, when you can easily come close to that amount with light/no armor and on top of that gain massive dodge ratings + evasion. There is just no point in heavy armor anymore for lvling purpose all the way to lv 28, where there is a nice dr heavy armor.



P.S. no one really cares too much about dodge anyway it's a small chance to a void some damage while if you get hit you might not be able to even heal in time and die. To focus on dodge and say it's most important stat thats why HA are useless comapred to light is similiar on saying having evasion is more important than non getting 1 shooted by melee couse of lame Hp you didn't care (evasion most important right?)

[slarden]

Ok show heavy armour is better than light, it isn't. If you want to take more damage that's fine its your choice.

If you think light armor with evasion is better then go that direction. It's obvious not everyone agrees with your assessment.

MRR never used to exist. The fact that it's so easy to get 30% damage mitigation is a nice benefit and Turbine simply acknowledged they went to far with armor up and corrected the mistake.



P.S. no one really cares too much about dodge anyway it's a small chance to a void some damage while if you get hit you might not be able to even heal in time and die. To focus on dodge and say it's most important stat thats why HA are useless comapred to light is similiar on saying having evasion is more important than non getting 1 shooted by melee couse of lame Hp you didn't care (evasion most important right?)

This. While dodge is a great form of damage avoidance, it does nothing against that one big hit from the champion with complete fort bypass.

[Chai]

The fact that people are still debating this issue tells me it was the right thing to do. Theres more of a choice now than there was when MRR was raised just due to wearing heavier armor.

[Enoach]

For me one of the biggest issues with MRR was that it covered more than Reflex Save damage. Heavy Armor became less of an alternate and more of a standard affair.

Removing it from Heavy Armor in my opinion meant that it brought back a decision between Evasion (light/no armor), Medium Armor and Heavy Armor for Defensive purposes.

Leaving this protection on the shield was also in my opinion a good call as since I was 9 playing DnD the picture of the Shield blocking dragons breath has been iconic, it wasn't the Armor it was the Shield that provided the protection.

Now on my Paladin I make up for the lost MRR simply by employing the same tricks I have in the past - Buffs. Elemental resistances (most can get this from the ship in 1 hour increments or some can cast the needed ones), I'll even stop and help someone out. The problem is people think 30 or 35 resistance at epic levels is useless when they get hit for 300 points of elemental damage. However, it is usually not the 1st shot that kills them but the second. Taking 540 vs 600 points of damage could be the difference of a self heal or being unconscious. Now if it is an element that Fireshield (hot/cold) or Draconic's version can 1/2 I'm usually taking 1/4 damage or less on save or 1/2 or less on a failed save. Now combine this with Elemental Protection of 120 points, means the first hit is not so bad.

I honestly think that players/groups that utilize buffs will probably see very little difference with heavy armor not having MRR.

[GroundhogDay]

While dodge is a great form of damage avoidance, it does nothing against that one big hit from the champion with complete fort bypass.

Isn't that the exact definition of glass cannon? In my opinion the game is much more imbalanced when, with a little splash, light builds can get almost the same amount of prr/mrr as a 2hf/2wf pally plus evasion plus max dodge plus a higher dps/crit profile.

That doesn't strike me as balanced.

[Pnumbra]

Isn't that the exact definition of glass cannon? In my opinion the game is much more imbalanced when, with a little splash, light builds can get almost the same amount of prr/mrr as a 2hf/2wf pally plus evasion plus max dodge plus a higher dps/crit profile.

That doesn't strike me as balanced.

Exactly!!!

[Chai]

Isn't that the exact definition of glass cannon? In my opinion the game is much more imbalanced when, with a little splash, light builds can get almost the same amount of prr/mrr as a 2hf/2wf pally plus evasion plus max dodge plus a higher dps/crit profile.

That doesn't strike me as balanced.

Only after paladin DPS was nerfed three times. 2x directly and 1x by proxy. All using the justification that is has better survivability and recovery.....

The way these class revamps are going, that "little splash" is going to take away at least core 18 and 20 away, which will be a loss of DPS.

Melee rangers are the one current exception here. I notice how no one bats an eye when they are bottom of the barrel for years, but the minute they have their day in the sun for a month or two the sky is falling.

[GroundhogDay]

Only after paladin DPS was nerfed three times. 2x directly and 1x by proxy. All using the justification that is has better survivability and recovery.....

The way these class revamps are going, that "little splash" is going to take away at least core 18 and 20 away, which will be a loss of DPS.

Melee rangers are the one current exception here. I notice how no one bats an eye when they are bottom of the barrel for years, but the minute they have their day in the sun for a month or two the sky is falling.

Fact is, every nerf came under the banner of balance, but that's not balance. I could reverse your statement and say, when paladins do what they are designed to do, the sky is falling, but the minute we imbalance the game in favour of rangers, no one bats an eye.

Balance shouldn't be relative. That's like saying violence isn't the answer unless you're the one doing the punching.

[bartharok]

Fact is, every nerf came under the banner of balance, but that's not balance. I could reverse your statement and say, when paladins do what they are designed to do, the sky is falling, but the minute we imbalance the game in favour of rangers, no one bats an eye.

Balance shouldn't be relative. That's like saying violence isn't the answer unless you're the one doing the punching.

Balance is always relative, otherwise there wouldnt be any point to aim for.

[GroundhogDay]

Balance is always relative, otherwise there wouldnt be any point to aim for.

But relative to what? If i can make a light build with almost all the perks of a heavy build without giving away all the perks of a proper light build, is it really balance?

If prr/mrr from trees couldn't stack i'd be alright. I would consider that balanced.

[redoubt]

I thought this was about MRR...

Why are so many people yelling at each other here about PRR? Can we get back on topic?

[RaknarWolf]

Why not make MRR a function of the material the armour is made from? For example, people complain that mithral heavy armours have lesser PRR than other heavy armours since they end up counting as medium. Perhaps leave it this way, but counterbalance by giving mitral MRR as well. This way people can choose between a higher PRR from armour with no MRR, or a lower PRR with MRR as well. Steel could be the base, with the PRR set as it currently is, with no MRR. Other materials will have the ratio of PRR to MRR different. This will make the material of the armour actually mean something.

Under this system, I see adamantine having a significantly higher PRR than steel, but very minimal MRR. Mithral will have a lower PRR than steel, but have a higher MRR than other materials, plus having the benefit of counting as having a lower skill penalty, lower arcane spell failure, etc. Dragonscale can have a balanced approach, good PRR, fairly good MRR, lower PRR than adamantine but higher than steel, lower MRR than mithral. Ironwood would have the same PRR as steel, low MRR, but be usable by druids. Steel, being the most common material, has no real advantages.

[Chai]

Fact is, every nerf came under the banner of balance, but that's not balance. I could reverse your statement and say, when paladins do what they are designed to do, the sky is falling, but the minute we imbalance the game in favour of rangers, no one bats an eye.

Balance shouldn't be relative. That's like saying violence isn't the answer unless you're the one doing the punching.

That's just it. If you asked 10 forumites (note I didn't say players) what balance is they will give you 10 different answers. All of them would translate to "design the game around my abilities being the benchmark for elite" with a side order of "who gives a rip about anyone else" thrown in there.

That reverse claim is not true by the way, because the number of complaints that ranger is OP in the last few weeks dwarfs the number complaints regarding the state of rangers over the past few years.

Good balance is done relative to the content, not relative to other classes. Bad balance is done relative to other classes, and is in large part what is causing class homogenization.

[AbyssalMage]

Old system made issue where everyone except monks were using Heavy armors for a simple reason, They were better option in all cases, any good player would just go HA even without proficiency, most strange thing even was a Flat bonus insntaly. Any class with equiping heavy armors and shield at low lvls was invincible and taking like no damage not only frmo melee but from casters as well.
I think you, like most other posters miss the point that they took an axe to do a scalpels job.


These changes was good decision by turbine ending era of heavy armors, and FINALLY giving more options than Highest possible defense | something between no one really care | no defense at all but evasion
Actually the best decision is now evasion. Then again, watching people become soul-stones in EE content is now entertaining because people blame everything but the fact that they are wearing HA. The number one excuse in my personal PUG's is "lag" :)


Also HA gives 2x BAB prr further and know how to invest in defense to raise mrr enough anyway, and also it rewards dwarfs|Paladains|Fighters for going tanky.
I can go "tanky" with evasion and have just as much (or more) chance to live as you do. Granted, it's now best to run around in Chain so that is an improvement over PJ's for those who like some semblance of reality.


P.S. no one really cares too much about dodge anyway it's a small chance to a void some damage while if you get hit you might not be able to even heal in time and die. To focus on dodge and say it's most important stat thats why HA are useless comapred to light is similiar on saying having evasion is more important than non getting 1 shooted by melee couse of lame Hp you didn't care (evasion most important right?)
Really? Maybe I skipped a math class.
~25% (or more. Ok, slightly less for most classes, I rounded up) chance to avoid 100% melee damage. That is 1 out of ever 4 attacks negated. It becomes a second "lesser displacement" enhancement. PRR + your limited Dodge cap (thanks to HA) will not make up for this.

Then again, HA is still less investment than Evasion + Dodge gearing.

[GroundhogDay]

That's just it. If you asked 10 forumites (note I didn't say players) what balance is they will give you 10 different answers. All of them would translate to "design the game around my abilities being the benchmark for elite" with a side order of "who gives a rip about anyone else" thrown in there.

That reverse claim is not true by the way, because the number of complaints that ranger is OP in the last few weeks dwarfs the number complaints regarding the state of rangers over the past few years.

Good balance is done relative to the content, not relative to other classes. Bad balance is done relative to other classes, and is in large part what is causing class homogenization.

Only difference is, i'm not pushing any agenda, those other ten forumites do. And, apparently, you do too.

The reverse claim stands, the number of complaints about rangers and casters over the years dwarfs the complaints against pally (which has been the worst class of the game for years) and with this statement you prove your hypocrisy.

If good balance is not relative to classes then why push for nerfs at all? You contradict yourself and are literally clutching at straws, it must be difficult for you. Plus i like your definition of good balance, when it serves your agenda, and bad balance when it goes against it. Again, if you're doing the kicking violence is good, right? I didn't want to chime in into this tread because i knew i'd face the biases of people like you.

[mole7777]

Then again, HA is still less investment than Evasion + Dodge gearing.

Depends on the class, if your are dex based and get evasion auto granted its not exactly a lot of work.

[Grailhawk]

I think you, like most other posters miss the point that they took an axe to do a scalpels job.


Actually the best decision is now evasion. Then again, watching people become soul-stones in EE content is now entertaining because people blame everything but the fact that they are wearing HA. The number one excuse in my personal PUG's is "lag" :)


I can go "tanky" with evasion and have just as much (or more) chance to live as you do. Granted, it's now best to run around in Chain so that is an improvement over PJ's for those who like some semblance of reality.


Really? Maybe I skipped a math class.
~25% (or more. Ok, slightly less for most classes, I rounded up) chance to avoid 100% melee damage. That is 1 out of ever 4 attacks negated. It becomes a second "lesser displacement" enhancement. PRR + your limited Dodge cap (thanks to HA) will not make up for this.

Then again, HA is still less investment than Evasion + Dodge gearing.

Outside of paladin a 90 reflex and 100 MRR (no sheild) take about the same amount of investment IMO.

A 70 reflex score probably takes about as much investment as a 50 or 75 MRR not sure (no shield no paladin levels).

I'm not sure the evasion vs mrr debate is so clearly in the evasion's favor as some people like to think it is. I do think that people have many more years of working with Reflex save making it easier to think of. But Evasion has never been 2 levels of Rogue or Monk and you get 50% "magic" damage reduction like people want to make it out to be.

I agree with the axe vs scalpel metaphor though IMO heavy and medium armor should have retained some of there MRR even if only 5 and 10.

[Uska]

I think they should remove PRR and MRR altogether.

[Uska]

I agree with this. Heavy armor was the biggest easy button in the game - now it's less so. Fighters and paladins still have an easy 25 MRR available through the defender tree and more available at higher levels for true tanks.

exactly I have over 60 on my paladin without even really trying

[Chai]

Only difference is, i'm not pushing any agenda, those other ten forumites do. And, apparently, you do too.

The reverse claim stands, the number of complaints about rangers and casters over the years dwarfs the complaints against pally (which has been the worst class of the game for years) and with this statement you prove your hypocrisy.

If good balance is not relative to classes then why push for nerfs at all? You contradict yourself and are literally clutching at straws, it must be difficult for you. Plus i like your definition of good balance, when it serves your agenda, and bad balance when it goes against it. Again, if you're doing the kicking violence is good, right? I didn't want to chime in into this tread because i knew i'd face the biases of people like you.

The reverse claim does not stand due to the sheer difference in numbers.

Im not pushing any agenda here.

Good balance is not done by comparing class to class. If it is that results in all classes being similar/same to the point where all roles can be played by all classes. There is no contradiction here whatsoever. This is what is happening in DDO currently. People continue to demand balance based on class -vs- class, and the game is being homogenized to the point where you can throw a dart at a class dartboard to pick the class youll play today and be able to do everything well enough to get through the content.


If good balance is not relative to classes then why push for nerfs at all?

specifically addressing this, because this needs to be understood.

People demanded nerfs because someone elses paladin was outperforming their character (which was not already revamped) - a request made due to class -vs- class. Revamped class A outperforms non-revamped class B so nerf class A. This leaves no headroom for class B when it gets its pass, because now the nerfed version of revamped class A is the new benchmark, which is near the level of non-revamped class B. Poor game balance request - leaving no headroom for class B in the future by demanding anything which "overperforms" (the current buzzword) to be nerfed to its current level.

[nokowi]

Good balance is not done by comparing class to class. If it is that results in all classes being similar/same to the point where all roles can be played by all classes. There is no contradiction here whatsoever. This is what is happening in DDO currently. People continue to demand balance based on class -vs- class, and the game is being homogenized to the point where you can throw a dart at a class dartboard to pick the class youll play today and be able to do everything well enough to get through the content.


I have seen you talk about other classes in justification for the old Monk DC.

Class vs class comparison is appropriate. What you are referring to is player X has .... , so I deserve ...

Balance is different than equal.

Unfortunately, Dev's have chosen equal DPS as "balance", without considering any other character ability, and catered to the "I need ..." crowd for long enough to have a negative impact on the game.

[redoubt]

I'm not sure the evasion vs mrr debate is so clearly in the evasion's favor as some people like to think it is. I do think that people have many more years of working with Reflex save making it easier to think of. But Evasion has never been 2 levels of Rogue or Monk and you get 50% "magic" damage reduction like people want to make it out to be.



Agreed. I have a wolf build with 2 rogue for trap skills. It is a str build and it takes a lot of trap and magic damage even though it has evasion. Wearing light armor and no MRR items, its current MRR is under 10.

[AzureDragonas]

I think you, like most other posters miss the point that they took an axe to do a scalpels job.


Actually the best decision is now evasion. Then again, watching people become soul-stones in EE content is now entertaining because people blame everything but the fact that they are wearing HA. The number one excuse in my personal PUG's is "lag" :)


I can go "tanky" with evasion and have just as much (or more) chance to live as you do. Granted, it's now best to run around in Chain so that is an improvement over PJ's for those who like some semblance of reality.

Riiight best decision is evasion same as pyjamas and other let's try avoid damage x effects and sudden dead moment somone hits you. If having dodge and evasion is your primary source of defense i feel sorry for you and admire that. If you didnt noticed i doubt something so useless as evasion is 100% save effect, anyone who goes fighter/pal splash prefers to pick HA for a simple reason to get stance and lets say 20% more hp while also geting more prr in the end. If you die in the end from caster issue not game but your lack of understanding of game. If i have dozen prr and avarage mrr i dont bother with melees, anyone who is smarter will go for wizards/clerics behind those meatballs and deal with them first. If you understanding of game ends to a point you kill any closest target, and cry out after dying from caster HA worhtless i should go evasion instead... Best go pls raise your reflex get dodge use your childish game tactics and don't cry when you die from same casters again. Anyone who at least have half basic understanding will have easy time in HA and again if they are smart they go for caster blind spots (protection from evil, fom, gh, resistance, shield even ioun stone if needed) and will kill those scary casters with no issues.



Really? Maybe I skipped a math class.
~25% (or more. Ok, slightly less for most classes, I rounded up) chance to avoid 100% melee damage. That is 1 out of ever 4 attacks negated. It becomes a second "lesser displacement" enhancement. PRR + your limited Dodge cap (thanks to HA) will not make up for this.

Then again, HA is still less investment than Evasion + Dodge gearing.

BTW seems you still live underrock with no clue what is misschance of how its calculated so go read this might help in future, couse your math outdated maybe you will get those hard explanations and mechanics from U19 and will understand how dodge exactly works:

http://ddowiki.com/page/Miss_chance

[Chai]

I have seen you talk about other classes in justification for the old Monk DC.

Class vs class comparison is appropriate. What you are referring to is player X has .... , so I deserve ...

Balance is different than equal.

Unfortunately, Dev's have chosen equal DPS as "balance", without considering any other character ability, and catered to the "I need ..." crowd for long enough to have a negative impact on the game.

Ive also read multiple posts where you complain about class homogenization, which is caused directly by class -vs- class balance implementation.

The reason I made reference to other classes in reference to asking for monk QP DC to be returned, was to give monks more power while NOT doing it the same way as they have all other revamped classes - turning up DPS to 11.

If you want class homogenization, keep asking for class -vs- class balance. Youll get it.

Im not referring to player X has .... , so I deserve ...Im referring to Player X on a first life class Y did better in our group than my multi-life class Z did, so Y needs a to be nerfed. After three paladin nerfs, you think people would have learned whats causing that issue - hint: its not either of the classes. But that will not stop them from asking for a 4th nerf.

[GroundhogDay]

snip

I'm sorry, i really fail to see the logic of your statement. I said that when paladins did what they were supposed to do everybody cried for a nerf, 3 times, and now that light builds are over performing people are fine with it. I get it, it's nice to be overpowered, so i don't really blame them. What i do is ask to stop calling it balance. And the claim still stands.

When a HA build has to chose between dps and survivability it's all good, because you need to make a choice and can't have it all, but then when the same choice is put in front of a LA melee it isn't cool anymore? We do let them have it all and call it balance? I'm sorry man, i really get where you're coming from, but that's not balance.

And in the near future we'll see:

Monk pass, probably boosting dps and stuns in one of the fastest attacking melees.

Wizard pass, more dc and instakills.

Sorcerer pass, and as Jeremy Clarkson would say: POWAAAAAR!!!

etc etc etc

Meanwhile HA melees will go back in the dog house. Want to talk about balance? I still believe that can be achieved by not stacking mrr/prr bonuses given by pres. You want to be a light melee? You gotta sacrifice your physical resistance. Otherwise it's simply not fair and i want my HA to have 25% dodge in HA.

[Blastyswa]

Really? Maybe I skipped a math class.
~25% (or more. Ok, slightly less for most classes, I rounded up) chance to avoid 100% melee damage. That is 1 out of ever 4 attacks negated. It becomes a second "lesser displacement" enhancement. PRR + your limited Dodge cap (thanks to HA) will not make up for this.

Then again, HA is still less investment than Evasion + Dodge gearing.

This probably isn't the best place to throw numbers since some other responses are more biting, but I just wanted to compare PRR/dodge real quick.
My rogue build is sitting at 106 PRR. I don't know how that compares to other evasion builds, because I am only comparing to myself. I also am having trouble finding decent screenshotted current builds on the forum to compare it with at the moment, i'll assume thats what everyone is running around with. My paladin build is sitting at 223 PRR atm TWF thanks to some different build decisions (It still has decent dps. That's not the point I'm trying to make anyways, just having that much survivability tends to attract naysayers).
So comparing my Heavy Armor build, which we'll pretend has bad HP, and my rogue:

Heavy Armor:
1200 HP
69% damage reduction
25% Lesser Displacement
10% Dodge (I really push the limits of that heavy armor)
10% incorporeal
5% miss chance discounting AC, despite being relevant, because of variability
1200/.31(damage taken)= 3871 effective HP
3871/.57(chance of getting hit)= 6791 effective HP Heavy Armor

Light Armor:
1200 HP
51% damage reduction
25% Lesser Displacement
25% Dodge
10% incorporeal
5% miss chance AC is less relevant, but hard to track on paladin build
1200/.49= 2449 effective HP
2449/.48= 5102 effective HP Light Armor

Important numbers out of the above would be 6791 effective HP Heavy Armor 5102 effective HP Light Armor. This gap is significant enough that I think its safe to assume that given a properly built heavy armor character and a properly built dodge character, the heavy armor character will have more effective HP. Damage is also delivered more consistently and less spikey, which allows for easier healing and gets more benefit out of overtime effects like consecration or healing aura.

[kmoustakas]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

No I think it is fine.

[hit_fido]

This probably isn't the best place to throw numbers since some other responses are more biting, but I just wanted to compare PRR/dodge real quick.

A more instructive comparison given some of the claims in this thread, e.g. "Heavy armor was the #1 choice for EVERYONE, including rogues.", would be to compare your pre u28ish rogue in light armor vs your same rogue but in heavy armor, something like:

a) light armor, 106 PRR, 75 MRR (based on your previous post), (improved) evasion, higher dodge

b) heavy armor, ~144 PRR, 95 MRR, no evasion, lower dodge

The argument being posed as far as I can see is that going from roughly 51% physical reduction to roughly 59% physical reduction and what, maybe ~6% more magical reduction, is just so obviously worth giving up 15% or more dodge and (improved) evasion.

Does that seem like a legitimate argument from people saying rogues were better off in heavy armor? I don't buy the argument but I may be missing something and would like to see someone present a more informed comparison. Can you flesh out the above using a real world case (your rogue) and real numbers instead of my guesswork, because it would add some insight in either direction: either heavy armor really was so overpowered that even all rogues should have been wearing it (setting aside the issue of whether they should have gained any benefit at all if not proficient), or it wasn't actually that absurd as it's being made out.

[bartharok]

A more instructive comparison given some of the claims in this thread, e.g. "Heavy armor was the #1 choice for EVERYONE, including rogues.", would be to compare your pre u28ish rogue in light armor vs your same rogue but in heavy armor, something like:

a) light armor, 106 PRR, 75 MRR (based on your previous post), (improved) evasion, higher dodge

b) heavy armor, ~144 PRR, 95 MRR, no evasion, lower dodge

The argument being posed as far as I can see is that going from roughly 51% physical reduction to roughly 59% physical reduction and what, maybe ~6% more magical reduction, is just so obviously worth giving up 15% or more dodge and (improved) evasion.

Does that seem like a legitimate argument from people saying rogues were better off in heavy armor? I don't buy the argument but I may be missing something and would like to see someone present a more informed comparison. Can you flesh out the above using a real world case (your rogue) and real numbers instead of my guesswork, because it would add some insight in either direction: either heavy armor really was so overpowered that even all rogues should have been wearing it (setting aside the issue of whether they should have gained any benefit at all if not proficient), or it wasn't actually that absurd as it's being made out.

Remember that while the rogue lost dodge, he gained ac. While the amount gained might not reduce the hit% all that much, it might be enough to tip the balance for physical damage.

[Andrash]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

They were lazy to beef up fighters, so they introduced a nerf that allows some benefits for fighters when compared to other classes with not many feats...

It is obvious. :P

[Drelak]

I want to be able to actually use those +armor bracers and rings with my DEX builds.

If armor is inherently superior compared to the same AC given by other items, those items are useless.

I prefer the P&P feel, where lighter armor is better when AC is the same. This is because touch AC comes from DEX, and armor does not help there.
In DDO touch AC is replaced by action combat positioning, and thus more DEX is useless here anyway.
At least armor should not be better option against spells than bracers of armor.

[GroundhogDay]

Just to show some hard evidence instead of the usual nothingness:

http://s29.postimg.org/cdx4p46r7/Screen_Shot00014.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Lvl 28 paladin with no shield, no guardian's ring, no mysterious cloak and in lvl 1 rank 0 magister

http://s21.postimg.org/dpn2o1deb/Screen_Shot00013.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Lvl 1 rog, 3 paladin, 11 ranger shadar i just rolled with no guardian's ring and no mysterious cloak but with dodge and evasion

I'd say the ranger is a bit on the op side, more than the pally for sure, and that's not balanced.

Edit: the ranger (if not forced to take that first level as a rogue) could have taken cleric or fvs for another 10 prr, closing the gap

[AzureDragonas]

Just to show some hard evidence instead of the usual nothingness:

http://s29.postimg.org/cdx4p46r7/Screen_Shot00014.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Lvl 28 paladin with no shield, no guardian's ring, no mysterious cloak and in lvl 1 rank 0 magister

http://s21.postimg.org/dpn2o1deb/Screen_Shot00013.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Lvl 1 rog, 3 paladin, 11 ranger shadar i just rolled with no guardian's ring and no mysterious cloak but with dodge and evasion

I'd say the ranger is a bit on the op side, more than the pally for sure, and that's not balanced.

Edit: the ranger (if not forced to take that first level as a rogue) could have taken cleric or fvs for another 10 prr, closing the gap

Lol so wait you show those numbers on what?
As gimp as possible paladin who uses probably only stance and heavy armors where there are dozen options how increase even more prr/mrr on paladin?

To a ranger splash who uses paladin stance to get resistance invest in in dual prr bonuses all way in tempest?

All you did showed your lack of understanding same paladin anyway will have more ac (gives separate miss chance from all other miss chances (incorporality, displacment, dodge)), more hp, higher saves, and still can cap on your precious dodge bonus like +10

Opposite than you they will be better in both harder to hit than you ever will be and getting less damage than you yet again, they will lack only evasion which is minor factor anyway again if you know how to ddeal with casters is a joke

P.S. If you wanna prove something at least show how looks with light armors and heavy armors ranger and paladin when there are really spended points in enchantments as normal ppl do and not stealing bonuses from other classes couse in reallity your light armor ranger should look like what?

39 / 7? half score paladin have?

[GroundhogDay]

Lol so wait you show those numbers on what?
As gimp as possible paladin who uses probably only stance and heavy armors where there are dozen options how increase even more prr/mrr on paladin?

To a ranger splash who uses paladin stance to get resistance invest in in dual prr bonuses all way in tempest?

I'm sorry, what?

I'm assuming you're calling gimp my pally, without knowing my build or even understanding what i did there, but i really have no idea.

A question, tho, why do you feel the need to antagonize everyone who doesn't think like you? I'm really surprised you're not banned yet.

[AzureDragonas]

I'm sorry, what?

I'm assuming you're calling gimp my pally, without knowing my build or even understanding what i did there, but i really have no idea.

A question, tho, why do you feel the need to antagonize everyone who doesn't think like you? I'm really surprised you're not banned yet.

Same back to you, i ask to explain what is reasoning behind a compare (i guess vanguard) with no shield enchantments and proper items ignoring like 50-70% of all prr/mrr paladins achieve to a light armor ranger who even steals enchantments from paladin and saying look how useless heavy armors are there are no difference. I pointed out that even by accident (happens) or on purpose (shows lack of understanding and trolling you are making) you ignore at same time that same paladin no matter which T5 goes either(Vanguard -better misschances saves cc than tempest ever have) (KotC - higher heal amp extra damage massive special exalted attacks and ohter benefits), Paladin beats light armors by having better damage reduction/better saves/more hp/more fortification/better misschance while still having enough dps, while ranger gets more dps evasion in cost of hp/saves/damage reduction/miss chance etc what paladins have.


http://i.imgur.com/4jYylen.jpg this looks more real to what paladin is at 28 even if he buffed numbers by swithing to sentinental

[GroundhogDay]

(i guess vanguard)

And you guessed wrong, again.

Thx god we don't base anything on your guesswork or else we'd all be screwed.

[GroundhogDay]

Umm... placing 4 numbers into your post is not hard evidence.

Those numbers could be from anywhere, unless you actually show where they are from.

Those number serve the sole purpose of showing that a lightly splashed light build can have almost the same amount of prr/mrr as a paladin (based only on armor and enhanchement).

Past life feats, items and whatnot can be obtained by both. You can easily confirm by rolling two iconics, one ranger splashed pally, and one pure pally (first mandatory level notwithstanding). The amount of prr/mrr is going to be roughly the same. But the light build will still have a higher (much higher) dodge and evasion to put it in the lead.

All i'm saying is: i would find the game more fair and balanced if prr/mrr couldn't be stacked across the trees, as i think a light build should be more about burst dmg (dealing and taking more), while a heavy build should be more average (dealing and taking less).

[bartharok]

Those number serve the sole purpose of showing that a lightly splashed light build can have almost the same amount of prr/mrr as a paladin (based only on armor and enhanchement).

Past life feats, items and whatnot can be obtained by both. You can easily confirm by rolling two iconics, one ranger splashed pally, and one pure pally (first mandatory level notwithstanding). The amount of prr/mrr is going to be roughly the same. But the light build will still have a higher (much higher) dodge and evasion to put it in the lead.

All i'm saying is: i would find the game more fair and balanced if prr/mrr couldn't be stacked across the trees, as i think a light build should be more about burst dmg (dealing and taking more), while a heavy build should be more average (dealing and taking less).

Ah, you misunderstand me. I mean that without all the rest of the information on the sheet, the four numbers are just four numbers, not evidence.

[Gremmlynn]

Personally, I would have rather seen the amount of MMR one can get from other sources toned down and armor left alone. As it is, one can now have evasion as well as most of the available MRR, so it really isn't a choice. Just trading one paradigm for another.

[alvarego]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

Omg I am no longer an invulnerable panzer, now I have to worry about saves ...

aka /not signed

[Ellihor]

Personally, I would have rather seen the amount of MMR one can get from other sources toned down and armor left alone. As it is, one can now have evasion as well as most of the available MRR, so it really isn't a choice. Just trading one paradigm for another.

You are implying we don't have any choice and evasion is the obvious way to go. That's incorrrect. Only classes for traditionally have evasion like rogue, monk and ranger are using light armor, everyone else is in the heaviest armor they can use.

[slarden]

Just to show some hard evidence instead of the usual nothingness:

http://s29.postimg.org/cdx4p46r7/Screen_Shot00014.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Lvl 28 paladin with no shield, no guardian's ring, no mysterious cloak and in lvl 1 rank 0 magister

http://s21.postimg.org/dpn2o1deb/Screen_Shot00013.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Lvl 1 rog, 3 paladin, 11 ranger shadar i just rolled with no guardian's ring and no mysterious cloak but with dodge and evasion

I'd say the ranger is a bit on the op side, more than the pally for sure, and that's not balanced.

Edit: the ranger (if not forced to take that first level as a rogue) could have taken cleric or fvs for another 10 prr, closing the gap

Your #s are ridiculous here - I am sorry but this is just useless information.

A twf paladin can also splash ranger and get PRR benefits. They can also splash cleric or fvs and get PRR benefits. You are comparing a ranger splashing to max out PRR/MRR to a paladin not splashing to max out PRR/MRR.

If you are playing a paladin and complaining about survivability you are doing something wrong.

Try playing an assassin if you really want to learn about playing with some risk of dying - and yes even with improved evasion because the biggest damage spikes in this game is physical damage or non-evadable spells like disintegrate and not magical damage protected by MRR/evasion. The # of places in the game evasion or high MRR is needed is very small. A paladin can still get to an 80 MRR fairly easily which is 44.44% magical damage reduction. Prior to the change it would have been 110 MRR with 52.38% magical damage reduction. 2 years ago it would have been 0%.

Between the high PRR, high Hp, Shadow Guardian and still solid MRR Paladin survivability is fine. Nobody needs to shed any tears for my paladin.

[Gremmlynn]

You are implying we don't have any choice and evasion is the obvious way to go. That's incorrrect. Only classes for traditionally have evasion like rogue, monk and ranger are using light armor, everyone else is in the heaviest armor they can use.For any character with evasion, or that could be built with it, pretty much so. The issue I see is that to much MRR was added to the game and when they backed that down, they took it from the wrong place.

MRR was pretty much introduce to allow non-evasion characters a better chance to survive in the high spell damage environment created to deal with evasion. The change just gives it to pretty much everyone, outside of what heavy/tower shields give. So it's not really relatively high MRR or evasion as you can have nearly the same MRR as a full up tank and the same as a heavy DPS character as well as evasion now.

[nokowi]

For any character with evasion, or that could be built with it, pretty much so. The issue I see is that to much MRR was added to the game and when they backed that down, they took it from the wrong place.

MRR was pretty much introduce to allow non-evasion characters a better chance to survive in the high spell damage environment created to deal with evasion. The change just gives it to pretty much everyone, outside of what heavy/tower shields give. So it's not really relatively high MRR or evasion as you can have nearly the same MRR as a full up tank and the same as a heavy DPS character as well as evasion now.

I see your logic here, however the loss of PRR is also a factor in switching to evasion. Some builds also need to make changes to have enough saves for evasion.

So far, I see people both switching to evasion (often with rebuild for saves), and staying in heavy armor. You can argue for a better implementation (be specific if you do), but the effect we are seeing is the desired effect (choice between the two).

[Gremmlynn]

I see your logic here, however the loss of PRR is also a factor in switching to evasion. Some builds also need to make changes to have enough saves for evasion.

So far, I see people both switching to evasion (often with rebuild for saves), and staying in heavy armor. You can argue for a better implementation (be specific if you do), but the effect we are seeing is the desired effect (choice between the two).PRR is, at least in theory, balanced by dodge. It would be better if their weren't so many feasible ways to raise one's Dex/dodge cap though.

A better implementation would have been to re-invent the mechanics to better fit the game from the beginning. But with what we are given, to come up with ball park figures for how much value they want things like evasion, MRR, dodge and PRR to have under what conditions and build the system around that. As is it seems they are mostly throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

[nokowi]

PRR is, at least in theory, balanced by dodge. It would be better if their weren't so many feasible ways to raise one's Dex/dodge cap though.

A better implementation would have been to re-invent the mechanics to better fit the game from the beginning. But with what we are given, to come up with ball park figures for how much value they want things like evasion, MRR, dodge and PRR to have under what conditions and build the system around that. As is it seems they are mostly throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I would take more PRR in a heartbeat. Dodge is often over-rated because of all the other miss chances a player can get. Dodge keeps you alive some of the time, PRR keeps you alive all the time.

I would argue that if almost all players were choosing heavy armor prior to the change, and some now choose each, whatever thew threw at the wall stuck. You shouldn't complain about the method if it gets the desired result.

[Chai]

I'm sorry, i really fail to see the logic of your statement. I said that when paladins did what they were supposed to do everybody cried for a nerf, 3 times, and now that light builds are over performing people are fine with it. I get it, it's nice to be overpowered, so i don't really blame them. What i do is ask to stop calling it balance. And the claim still stands.

When a HA build has to chose between dps and survivability it's all good, because you need to make a choice and can't have it all, but then when the same choice is put in front of a LA melee it isn't cool anymore? We do let them have it all and call it balance? I'm sorry man, i really get where you're coming from, but that's not balance.

And in the near future we'll see:

Monk pass, probably boosting dps and stuns in one of the fastest attacking melees.

Wizard pass, more dc and instakills.

Sorcerer pass, and as Jeremy Clarkson would say: POWAAAAAR!!!

etc etc etc

Meanwhile HA melees will go back in the dog house. Want to talk about balance? I still believe that can be achieved by not stacking mrr/prr bonuses given by pres. You want to be a light melee? You gotta sacrifice your physical resistance. Otherwise it's simply not fair and i want my HA to have 25% dodge in HA.

Give us one example of one instance in DDO when the classes were balanced.

There aren't any - as there has always been something at the top of the power ladder people carry on about being OP. Its what happens when people compare class -vs- class in a game system which doesn't use that kind of balance.

Everyone has their theory on how class -vs- class balance can be achieved, yet it hasn't been in almost 10 years of DDO now. If and when people begin to understand how content balance works in a D&D system, there might some hope for game balance, but until then it wont happen, as evidenced by a full decade now of it not happening.

This change is at least a step in the right direction. Some people switch to evasion builds at the first sign of a nerf, while others still claim armor is still better. The reality is its all based on the content. People don't see this however, and continue to attempt to claim its one or the other as an absolute, which is better.

[nokowi]

Give us one example of one instance in DDO when the classes were balanced.



When classes had roles, and it didn't matter who had the highest DPS.

When noobs did only 30% less damage than vets (instead of 90%? less today).

When cap was 20, this was the state of the game.


Yes, some people were eliminated from groups by class needs, and not everybody got a trophy.

[Chai]

When classes had roles, and it didn't matter who had the highest DPS.

Nope - game was still a "DPS is king" game, even more so than now. If you want to get era specific we can discuss what was OP then.


When noobs did only 30% less damage than vets (instead of 90%? less today).

never happened. When to-hit was a linear scale noobs were missing on a 19 and hitting only on 20s on mobs with higher AC. All the while refusing to turn their power attack off.


When cap was 20, this was the state of the game.

When cap was 20, evasion paladin/monk builds with high AC and high reflex saves were the melee build to play, and casters were OP. Not a balanced game. Are you telling us that farming scrolls on a solo caster faster than an entire group of tank/heals/dps could farm them, was "balanced"?

I admit I see different eras of DDO through rose colored glasses from time to time too, but not because of any claim that the game was balanced on a class -vs- class comparison in those eras.

[Gremmlynn]

I would take more PRR in a heartbeat. Dodge is often over-rated because of all the other miss chances a player can get. Dodge keeps you alive some of the time, PRR keeps you alive all the time.

I would argue that if almost all players were choosing heavy armor prior to the change, and some now choose each, whatever thew threw at the wall stuck. You shouldn't complain about the method if it gets the desired result.Which is a problem with the "throw it at the wall" system. Dodge is mostly over-rated because of all the other, relatively easy to get layers. If blur and displacement didn't have clickies and ghostly was limited to just classes/trees and UMD were more tightly controled, dodge would have more value. Even with the current system, if the actual in-game value for dodge and PRR were even roughly figured out, the formula for PRR wouldn't be something they try out for a while, then completely change to try to find something that works.

Though the problem goes deeper than that to where we have a situation where they really can't build an environment where more possible builds than not will either be over powered or over matched.

[nokowi]

Which is a problem with the "throw it at the wall" system. Dodge is mostly over-rated because of all the other, relatively easy to get layers. If blur and displacement didn't have clickies and ghostly was limited to just classes/trees and UMD were more tightly controled, dodge would have more value. Even with the current system, if the actual in-game value for dodge and PRR were even roughly figured out, the formula for PRR wouldn't be something they try out for a while, then completely change to try to find something that works.

Though the problem goes deeper than that to where we have a situation where they really can't build an environment where more possible builds than not will either be over powered or over matched.

Good points. We should start by saying that classes will never and can not be perfectly balanced.

Chai believes that because some builds were always better than others, we never had balance. This is simply untrue.

Balance:

1. When somebody joins your group, do ANY of their abilities even matter?

If you have a top build, the answer today is NO.
In the past there were only a few top builds that could solo quests.

2. When somebody joins your group, how important are their abilities other than DPS?

Today, the answer is not very important. Some cc might be nice if you don't have your own already.
In the past, the synergy between classes mattered much more than it does today.


Balance is having strengths and weaknesses, and not about tallying up superior builds.

Not everything was perfect in the past (AC is a good example), but ignoring a few mechanics we had much more balance throughout the rest of the game. Character damage was balanced even if the to-hit mechanism was not.

In the past, players found lower DPS builds that succeeded very well in top content. This is simply not true today.

[redoubt]

Give us one example of one instance in DDO when the classes were balanced.



Cap was somewhere around 10? Giant caves were a loot run and we actually wanted the threnal blade to turn around and run tempest spine. Full bab classes were the only ones who could hit the blackguards in there, but they could not complete without help from other classes.

[Gremmlynn]

When classes had roles, and it didn't matter who had the highest DPS.

When noobs did only 30% less damage than vets (instead of 90%? less today).

When cap was 20, this was the state of the game.


Yes, some people were eliminated from groups by class needs, and not everybody got a trophy.That has never been the case. DDO has always suffered from the problem of under controlled customization. It has just gotten worse since ED's were added and the enhancement pass. Classes have never really had much in the way of defined roles and what there ever was had to much overlap and the lack of restrictions from multi-classing pretty much made moot.

[Chai]

Cap was somewhere around 10? Giant caves were a loot run and we actually wanted the threnal blade to turn around and run tempest spine. Full bab classes were the only ones who could hit the blackguards in there, but they could not complete without help from other classes.

That's what Im advocating - a forced cooperation system. This is not synonymous with class -vs- class comparison balance however.

In tabletop D&D for instance, the young mage who throws fireballs gets a bit cocky because he can end most encounters with one spell, until the iron golem comes around the corner. That's content balance. Most examples of this in DDO were eroded shortly after they were implemented, as people complained their (insert class here) couldn't solo it, and it was fixed so they could in most cases, even on elite.

[nokowi]

That has never been the case. DDO has always suffered from the problem of under controlled customization. It has just gotten worse since ED's were added and the enhancement pass. Classes have never really had much in the way of defined roles and what there ever was had to much overlap and the lack of restrictions from multi-classing pretty much made moot.

We used to have healers.
You used to ask you bard what their specialization was and said "cool, a warchanter"
You might look for a role that was missing when forming a group.

By saying things are worse now, you admit things were "more balanced" in the past, which is exactly the point I am making.

[Chai]

We used to have healers.
You used to ask you bard what their specialization was and said "cool, a warchanter"
You might look for a role that was missing when forming a group.

By saying things are worse now, you admit things were "more balanced" in the past, which is exactly the point I am making.

Things weren't more balanced. More cooperation was required. They are not one and the same.

In the cap 20 era you were talking about, casters were relatively more OP than any one class is currently. This was not a class balance era.

The fact that healers were needed in raids didn't make the game more balanced. It made it more cooperative.

That forced cooperation is eroded out of the game, due to the very requests to balance the game by comparing class performance to class performance. AKA people got what they advocated, only to find out its not what they wanted.

[nokowi]

That's what Im advocating - a forced cooperation system. This is not synonymous with class -vs- class comparison balance however.

In tabletop D&D for instance, the young mage who throws fireballs gets a bit cocky because he can end most encounters with one spell, until the iron golem comes around the corner. That's content balance. Most examples of this in DDO were eroded shortly after they were implemented, as people complained their (insert class here) couldn't solo it, and it was fixed so they could in most cases, even on elite.

A class vs class comparison is EXACTLY how you create forced cooperation.

Each having their own strengths and weaknesses in a way where the synergy of a group is better than the sum of individual parts.

Class vs class comparison provides the differences, and makes sure each class has both strengths and weaknesses in a way they can still contribute to the group in a meaningful manner.

You should be looking at what class X has when making class Y. You just shouldn't make them equal to each other.

[nokowi]

Things weren't more balanced. More cooperation was required. They are not one and the same.

In the cap 20 era you were talking about, casters were relatively more OP than any one class is currently. This was not a class balance era.

The fact that healers were needed in raids didn't make the game more balanced. It made it more cooperative.

That forced cooperation is eroded out of the game, due to the very requests to balance the game by comparing class performance to class performance. AKA people got what they advocated, only to find out its not what they wanted.

Class balance is everyone making an important contribution to the success of the group. We used to have this is a larger degree than we do now.

You are equating DPS to balance, which is wrong, and exactly why we have the "balance" we do now.

Is the goal of DDO to kill the most mobs, or complete the quest?

Even low DPS melee had a role "surround the boss, prevent it from killing casters", "tendon slice the boss", etc, that was important to success.

[Chai]

A class vs class comparison is EXACTLY how you create forced cooperation.

This is false - as you are currently learning. Homogenizing the classes is EXACTLY what has eroded forced cooperation out of the game. That homogenization of classes occurred due to demands of class -vs- class balance.


Each having their own strengths and weaknesses in a way where the synergy of a group is better than the sum of individual parts.

That's not class balance. That's forced cooperation. In your cap 20 example, healers weren't nearly as powerful as arcane casters, but they were still needed, especially for raids.


Class vs class comparison provides the differences, and makes sure each class has both strengths and weaknesses in a way they can still contribute to the group in a meaningful manner.

This is incorrect, as you are currently learning. Class -vs- class comparison is what has caused the homogenization of the classes. Class -vs class comparison balance causes homogenization (sameness), not differences.


You should be looking at what class X has when making class Y. You just shouldn't make them equal to each other.

Class Y should be made independent to class X. This used to be the case, and classes were more unique.

Take the example of paladins versus rangers back in the cap 20 days versus now. They play all the same roles now. They certainly did not play those same roles then.

[nokowi]

Class Y should be made independent to class X. This used to be the case, and classes were more unique.



I am glad you agree with me. Didn't I say NOT to make Y equal to X? Each with strengths and weaknesses?

We are mostly arguing semantics, even though you seem to miss the agreement between our posts.

[Gremmlynn]

Good points. We should start by saying that classes will never and can not be perfectly balanced.

Chai believes that because some builds were always better than others, we never had balance. This is simply untrue.

Balance:

1. When somebody joins your group, do ANY of their abilities even matter?

If you have a top build, the answer today is NO.
In the past there were only a few top builds that could solo quests.This is a case of reality intruding on the game. The problem here is that the game has never had really generic content and it's been developed away from that since. So the issue isn't just finding others interested in playing, but finding other interested in playing the specific content one wants to play, be this because of favor, BB, play style or whatever. So the reality is that either the game allows players to solo as is often necessary to fit the conditions the games design makes attractive or they watch those players go play something else that either does that or is designed without specific conditions to entice players to want to play such specific content.


2. When somebody joins your group, how important are their abilities other than DPS?

Today, the answer is not very important. Some cc might be nice if you don't have your own already.
In the past, the synergy between classes mattered much more than it does today.Pretty much the same issue as above.



Balance is having strengths and weaknesses, and not about tallying up superior builds.

Not everything was perfect in the past (AC is a good example), but ignoring a few mechanics we had much more balance throughout the rest of the game. Character damage was balanced even if the to-hit mechanism was not.

In the past, players found lower DPS builds that succeeded very well in top content. This is simply not true today.IMO, the way to balance a game is around play styles. Where everything can at least get by with what they have and the biggest differences are more how they do it. Strengths and weakness are fine as long as the weaknesses are good enough to get by with and diverse strengths are more a nice situation to have than really necessary. That just better fits the environment the game is played in and makes it more convenient to play. Because inconvenience, not finding the right character mix or feeling compelled to play something other than what one really wants to be playing, pretty much removes the reason many, most IMO, play at all.

[nokowi]

IMO, the way to balance a game is around play styles. Where everything can at least get by with what they have and the biggest differences are more how they do it. Strengths and weakness are fine as long as the weaknesses are good enough to get by with and diverse strengths are more a nice situation to have than really necessary. That just better fits the environment the game is played in and makes it more convenient to play. Because inconvenience, not finding the right character mix or feeling compelled to play something other than what one really wants to be playing, pretty much removes the reason many, most IMO, play at all.

This is mostly what we have now. (new players trying to steamroll elite - aside)

At the Reaper level, we made need more, however.

Dev's can't add challenge in the current environment without isolating this challenge to 1-2 builds or removing players from the pool by class choice.

[Gremmlynn]

Cap was somewhere around 10? Giant caves were a loot run and we actually wanted the threnal blade to turn around and run tempest spine. Full bab classes were the only ones who could hit the blackguards in there, but they could not complete without help from other classes.And if those particular stars weren't aligned for them, one didn't play at all.

[Chai]

I am glad you agree with me. Didn't I say NOT to make Y equal to X? Each with strengths and weaknesses?

We are mostly arguing semantics, even though you seem to miss the agreement between our posts.

We agree that forced cooperation is needed. Im pointing out how class -vs- class has resulted in forced cooperation being eroded from the game. You continue to advocate class -vs- class balance as a way to attain forced cooperation, despite the evidence showing that it has not moved the game in that direction, but in the complete opposite direction - that of class homogenization.

[Chai]

Good points. We should start by saying that classes will never and can not be perfectly balanced.

Chai believes that because some builds were always better than others, we never had balance. This is simply untrue.

Iam correct here in distinguishing the difference between "forced cooperation" and "balance" - - and also correct in the understanding that class -vs- class balance is not needed for forced cooperation to exist, as per the numerous glossed over examples I have given.


Balance:

1. When somebody joins your group, do ANY of their abilities even matter?

If you have a top build, the answer today is NO.
In the past there were only a few top builds that could solo quests.

2. When somebody joins your group, how important are their abilities other than DPS?

Today, the answer is not very important. Some cc might be nice if you don't have your own already.
In the past, the synergy between classes mattered much more than it does today.

In your cap 20 example, wizards who did not join groups farmed scrolls faster than entire full groups did. You continue to gloss over answering this question. Do you call this balance?



Balance is having strengths and weaknesses, and not about tallying up superior builds.

Not everything was perfect in the past (AC is a good example), but ignoring a few mechanics we had much more balance throughout the rest of the game. Character damage was balanced even if the to-hit mechanism was not.

In the past, players found lower DPS builds that succeeded very well in top content. This is simply not true today.

YOu are using the word balance, to define forced cooperation. They are not one and the same. Your continued advocating of class -vs- class balance is what is leading to, and what will continue to lead to, more and more class homogenization as more and more class passes are completed. AKA more and more demands of class -vs- class balance are what erode forced cooperation from the game - as evidenced in the current post revamped classes.

[Chai]

And if those particular stars weren't aligned for them, one didn't play at all.

Not true. Group preferred =/= cant ever solo or shortman. Having to account for group recovery =/= absolutely need a cleric or cant play until one joins.

I understand some people back then did assume these things, but that didn't make them correct assumptions.

There are still YouTube videos dating back to 2006 showing people soloing and duoing in DDO. It just wasn't the default way to play the game, nor the default expectation to succeed on elite while doing so.

[Gremmlynn]

We used to have healers.
You used to ask you bard what their specialization was and said "cool, a warchanter"
You might look for a role that was missing when forming a group.

By saying things are worse now, you admit things were "more balanced" in the past, which is exactly the point I am making.Actually, I find your idea of balanced as untenable in a game I would expect people to stick around in. At least not without good options for when it isn't the case.

[Gremmlynn]

We agree that forced cooperation is needed. Im pointing out how class -vs- class has resulted in forced cooperation being eroded from the game. You continue to advocate class -vs- class balance as a way to attain forced cooperation, despite the evidence showing that it has not moved the game in that direction, but in the complete opposite direction - that of class homogenization.I think the issue being referred to is more party balance than class balance. Though I do disagree that each class should be made independently in that situation, better they be made interdependently, else you are just tossing things together and hoping it works.

[Chai]

I think the issue being referred to is more party balance than class balance. Though I do disagree that each class should be made independently in that situation, better they be made interdependently, else you are just tossing things together and hoping it works.

making them interdependently creates the situation you are referring to - where you need a cleric or cant play, or you need a rogue or cant play.

making them independently is not simply tossing things together and hoping they work. It creates a situation where forced cooperation is still needed, but a specific combination of classes is not needed.

Good forced cooperation results in the group that has a tank, a healer, and 4 DPS doing just as well as 3 tanks, a bard, a wizard and a rogue. both groups still have to cooperate to succeed, while neither has to wait for any one other specific class to start playing.

[Gremmlynn]

Not true. Group preferred =/= cant ever solo or shortman. Having to account for group recovery =/= absolutely need a cleric or cant play until one joins.

I understand some people back then did assume these things, but that didn't make them correct assumptions.

There are still YouTube videos dating back to 2006 showing people soloing and duoing in DDO. It just wasn't the default way to play the game, nor the default expectation to succeed on elite while doing so.Which is great as long as it's the default that normal is designed to and there isn't such a gap between normal and elite as to make normal seem a waste of one's time. Unfortunately, Bravery and the way it's described makes this seem the case, to the point where that one oops lead to the situation we have today where elite is that default as to many think anything less would be a waste of time. It really doesn't matter whether that is actually true as it makes little difference if people are not playing the game because their perception is correct or incorrect, just that they aren't playing the game.

[Chai]

Which is great as long as it's the default that normal is designed to and there isn't such a gap between normal and elite as to make normal seem a waste of one's time. Unfortunately, Bravery and the way it's described makes this seem the case, to the point where that one oops lead to the situation we have today where elite is that default as to many think anything less would be a waste of time. It really doesn't matter whether that is actually true as it makes little difference if people are not playing the game because their perception is correct or incorrect, just that they aren't playing the game.

It matters a lot actually.

Previous eras. People claiming incorrectly that they need a full group of specific class make up or cant play.

Current era. Class homogenization trivializing soloing 95% of the game.

Now that we have seen both ends of the perception spectrum, when did DDO have more players?

Keep in mind that in the former, players can be educated as to how the game actually works. In the latter, that wont matter, as that education wont add challenge or cause the game to engage them more.

[nokowi]

Iam correct here in distinguishing the difference between "forced cooperation" and "balance" - - and also correct in the understanding that class -vs- class balance is not needed for forced cooperation to exist, as per the numerous glossed over examples I have given.



In your cap 20 example, wizards who did not join groups farmed scrolls faster than entire full groups did. You continue to gloss over answering this question. Do you call this balance?




YOu are using the word balance, to define forced cooperation. They are not one and the same. Your continued advocating of class -vs- class balance is what is leading to, and what will continue to lead to, more and more class homogenization as more and more class passes are completed. AKA more and more demands of class -vs- class balance are what erode forced cooperation from the game - as evidenced in the current post revamped classes.


I have argued against class homogenization in every post I ever made on these forums.

I am not responsible for things like bard getting a melee insta kill. You argued for this. "Why shouldn't bards have it?"

Now you argue for monk to have the same.

Take a moment and look in the mirror.


You blame all the supposed forumites for everything when you are a chief contributor to the problems you complain about.

[Chai]

I have argued against class homogenization in every post I ever made on these forums.

I am not responsible for things like bard getting a melee insta kill. You argued for this. "Why shouldn't bards have it?"

Take a moment and look in the mirror.


You blame all the supposed forumites for everything when you are a chief contributor to the problems you complain about.

When you continue to advocate class -vs- class balance, you are advocating class homogenization. Continual demands for class -vs- class balance are what specifically caused the result we have today.

The evidence is in the result - every single already revamped class. Rogue assassin is probably the class they got the most correct in terms of balance, one you heavily opposed in the past. Barbarians, paladins, rangers, bards now all play the same role, or roles so similar that the differences do not constitute anything close to forced cooperation. Belief that continues advocation of class -vs- class balance will result in anything different, is not a logically drawn conclusion, given the evidence already having demonstrated what happens when class -vs- class balance is implemented.

You continuing to harp on bards insta-kill is hilarious. This is not the cause of bards class homogenization. Being able to tank and damage at an A level, along with the devaluation of their buffs, took care of that.

[nokowi]

When you continue to advocate class -vs- class balance, you are advocating class homogenization. Continual demands for class p-vs- class balance are what specifically caused the result you are claiming is not your fault.

The evidence is in the result - every single already revamped class. Rogue assassin is probably the class they got the most correct in terms of balance, one you heavily opposed in the past. Barbarians, paladins, rangers, bards now all play the same role, or roles so similar that the differences do not constitute anything close to forced cooperation.

I don't think you are capable of understanding what I am advocating, as evidenced by your posts. I specifically argue against homogenization (I want to make them different), and you can't comprehend it.

Continuing to congratulate yourself on your own correctness is hysterical, as is blaming forumites for every problem in the game.


I may as well state that you are for homogenization and congratulate myself on my own correctness.

+1 (myself)

[Gremmlynn]

making them interdependently creates the situation you are referring to - where you need a cleric or cant play, or you need a rogue or cant play.

making them independently is not simply tossing things together and hoping they work. It creates a situation where forced cooperation is still needed, but a specific combination of classes is not needed.

Good forced cooperation results in the group that has a tank, a healer, and 4 DPS doing just as well as 3 tanks, a bard, a wizard and a rogue. both groups still have to cooperate to succeed, while neither has to wait for any one other specific class to start playing.Yes, but when you end up with large holes that nothing covers because you didn't look at the whole when developing the parts it doesn't work very well either. Or when two classes end up very similar other than one being clearly better and the other a redundant newb trap (DDO has seen this happen with fighters barbarians and paladins all filling both of those positions at various times in just the time I've been playing).

[Thar]

Thats not a fair comparison because there are many ways to close the gap of PRR between heavy armor users and light/pajama users. However, there is a big gap, when lightarmor/pajama users can completely avoid all reflex based damage, while heavy armor users will still get smacked with 50% of the damage even with uber saves. Add that to the diff between dodge possibility with heavy armor users vs light/pajama users and it because even out of proportion.

light armor /no armor has evasion

heavy/med can slap on a shield for reduction.

it seems fair to me but i would have rather seen a more incremental reduction. ie minor mrr aon heavy and more mrr on light as a half way point than remove it all, but this way casters are not screwed without evasion. they are like everyone else that doesn't have evasion now.

[Chai]

I don't think you are capable of understanding what I am advocating, as evidenced by your posts. I specifically argue against homegenization (I want to make them different), and you can't comprehend it.

Continuing to congratulate yourself on your own correctness is hysterical, as is blaming forumites for every problem in the game.


I may as well state that you are for homogenization and congratulate myself on my own correctness.

+1 (myself)

You specifically argue against class homogenization, then turn around and demand more class -vs- class balance, which is what is directly causing class homogenization in DDO. All the evidence any objective observer needs to understand this is the current homogenization of the revamped classes - all being a direct result of class -vs- class balance demands. Continuing to claim that this will all somehow be remedied by inserting more class -vs- class balance into the equation, is an incorrect, illogical conclusion, given the evidence that already exists.

[slarden]

Nope - game was still a "DPS is king" game, even more so than now. If you want to get era specific we can discuss what was OP then.


Just using old epic devil assault as an example

CC: Nobody cared about your kill count they just wanted you to make sure dance, although realistically if you had the DC to make enemies dance death spells likely worked well too- I never ran into anything but a pm or warforged archmage doing the cc back then.

Healer: Nobody cared about dps they just wanted you to keep them healed. I used to use terror on my cleric and even though I only did like 15 damage I still had a reasonable kill count lol. They nerfed that shortly after U14.

Tank: People just wanted you to hold aggro - nobody cared about your dps.

3 DPS in the party was enough - but monks were really optimal to stun the mob that rolled a 20 and wasn't cc'd.

That was the game pre-U14 - and of course you need a trapper in some quests also but rogues had the best dps then.

[Chai]

Yes, but when you end up with large holes that nothing covers because you didn't look at the whole when developing the parts it doesn't work very well either.

That's what makes it work well. The dilemma that choosing one path will specifically create a weakness in another - as there isn't enough points to allocate to cover up all weaknesses. This causes people to want to play together more so that weakness in their one character isn't targeted as much.


Or when two classes end up very similar other than one being clearly better and the other a redundant newb trap (DDO has seen this happen with fighters barbarians and paladins all filling both of those positions at various times in just the time I've been playing).

That's what happens when class -vs- class balance is implemented. The classes all perform the same roles, but there will always be one better choice. This is why balance does NOT occur in a class -vs- class balanced system.

[nokowi]

You specifically argue against class homogenization, then turn around and demand more class -vs- class balance, which is what is directly causing class homogenization in DDO. All the evidence any objective observer needs to understand this is the current homogenization of the revamped classes - all being a direct result of class -vs- class balance demands. Continuing to claim that this will all somehow be remedied by inserting more class -vs- class balance into the equation, is an incorrect, illogical conclusion, given the evidence that already exists.

Why don't you let me state what I believe, and you can hold off the the misrepresentations?

You advocated for bard to have a melee insta kill (why not?).
You advocate for monk to have an insta kill every 6 seconds (why not, its nothing compared to an XXX crit from a ranged build).

So we see from your forum posts that you yourself are making class vs class comparisons to justify builds, while accusing everyone else of the same. This is called being a hypocrit. Slander is when you misrepresent (falsehood) someone else to their detriment. If you want to reference a specific recommendation I made that caused homogenization (give build X because everybody else has it, go ahead).

Please stop the lies.

[Gremmlynn]

It matters a lot actually.

Previous eras. People claiming incorrectly that they need a full group of specific class make up or cant play.If that's what they thought, it really doesn't matter if it's true or not. One can make the perfect product for their target demographic, but if that demographic doesn't think it's what they want they aren't going to buy it.


Current era. Class homogenization trivializing soloing 95% of the game.

Now that we have seen both ends of the perception spectrum, when did DDO have more players?

Keep in mind that in the former, players can be educated as to how the game actually works. In the latter, that wont matter, as that education wont add challenge or cause the game to engage them more.In my experience, the only people who can be educated are those who want to be educated. DDOs problem is that the game was out of whack from the start and they just kept cutting a bit off each leg to try to compensate until they have very little left to stand on. The game launched to early and development was to focused around making D&D work in a fast paced real time environment than to make a well rounded MMO. Not hard to believe when it's likely they had a partner that didn't want to make it or for it to succeed to compete with the games they did want to make under the license, in the first place.

[Chai]

Just using old epic devil assault as an example

CC: Nobody cared about your kill count they just wanted you to make sure dance, although realistically if you had the DC to make enemies dance death spells likely worked well too- I never ran into anything but a pm or warforged archmage doing the cc back then.

Healer: Nobody cared about dps they just wanted you to keep them healed. I used to use terror on my cleric and even though I only did like 15 damage I still had a reasonable kill count lol. They nerfed that shortly after U14.

Tank: People just wanted you to hold aggro - nobody cared about your dps.

3 DPS in the party was enough - but monks were really optimal to stun the mob that rolled a 20 and wasn't cc'd.

That was the game pre-U14 - and of course you need a trapper in some quests also but rogues had the best dps then.

Yep, that's a good forced cooperation example. That isn't class -vs- class balance.

After that group folds, the wizard goes on to farm epic scrolls solo faster than the rest of the group could farm scrolls together. Wizards were in the spot heavy melee is in right now.

[Chai]

If that's what they thought, it really doesn't matter if it's true or not. One can make the perfect product for their target demographic, but if that demographic doesn't think it's what they want they aren't going to buy it.

In my experience, the only people who can be educated are those who want to be educated. DDOs problem is that the game was out of whack from the start and they just kept cutting a bit off each leg to try to compensate until they have very little left to stand on. The game launched to early and development was to focused around making D&D work in a fast paced real time environment than to make a well rounded MMO. Not hard to believe when it's likely they had a partner that didn't want to make it or for it to succeed to compete with the games they did want to make under the license, in the first place.

that "incorrect perception" issue exists in the same portion of the community regardless of the balance implementation. Better to balance it correctly, and only lose those who are incorrect in their perceptions, than implement balance poorly on purpose, and lose those who understand correctly that the game can no longer engage them.

[nokowi]

Yep, that's a good forced cooperation example. That isn't class -vs- class balance.

After that group folds, the wizard goes on to farm epic scrolls solo faster than the rest of the group could farm scrolls together. Wizards were in the spot heavy melee is in right now.

Exactly how was the wizard forced to cooperate, when they could solo faster themselves?

[Chai]

Exactly how was the wizard forced to cooperate, when they could solo faster themselves?

Slarden outlined that - they were the best CC in that era with mass hold. The point on death spells is only true when the blanket immunities were lifted ~2011.

That's exactly what I am pointing out. Good forced cooperation =/= class -vs- class balance.

Wizards were OP in that era. They did fit into forced cooperation groups well in that era too.

[nokowi]

Slarden outlined that - they were the best CC in that era with mass hold. The point on death spells is only true when the blanket immunities were lifted ~2011.

That's exactly what I am pointing out. Good forced cooperation =/= class -vs- class balance.

Wizards were OP in that era. They did fit into forced cooperation groups well in that era too.

If they could solo faster, its not forced cooperation.

Classes had synergies, whether they needed to cooperate or not.

Those synergies made grouping fun (for me anyway) and are now partially/mostly? gone specifically because of class homogenization.


People cared far less about balance when these synergies existed, because we could each contribute something to the group.

[Gremmlynn]

That's what makes it work well. The dilemma that choosing one path will specifically create a weakness in another - as there isn't enough points to allocate to cover up all weaknesses. This causes people to want to play together more so that weakness in their one character isn't targeted as much. I'm talking about when designing the game, not the character.

That's what happens when class -vs- class balance is implemented. The classes all perform the same roles, but there will always be one better choice. This is why balance does NOT occur in a class -vs- class balanced system.Or just as easily when each class is designed independently by developers with no thought to how the parts fit into the whole interdependently. A dev team can't just spit a bunch of classes out and hope they work together.

[slarden]

Exactly how was the wizard forced to cooperate, when they could solo faster themselves?

There is no way I could have solo'd any epic content on my PM back then with the exception of partycrashers which had safe spots, minimal fights and ample shrines. PM single target DPS was bad even back then, but not nearly as bad as now of course.

What most PMs were soloing was really just fighting trash mobs for scrolls and some chests for seals. There were probably other PMs soloing epics though.

[Gremmlynn]

that "incorrect perception" issue exists in the same portion of the community regardless of the balance implementation. Better to balance it correctly, and only lose those who are incorrect in their perceptions, than implement balance poorly on purpose, and lose those who understand correctly that the game can no longer engage them.I disagree. I would say that the "hard sell" that was used to present Bravery Bonus by highlighting the percentages had a lot to do with how things turned out. Whereas, if they had put the numbers in better perspective and tried to under sell it, we would be in a lot better place right now and they likely wouldn't have felt the need to shift the entire game to stay with player base expectations.

[Gremmlynn]

If they could solo faster, its not forced cooperation.

Classes had synergies, whether they needed to cooperate or not.

Those synergies made grouping fun (for me anyway) and are now partially/mostly? gone specifically because of class homogenization.


People cared far less about balance when these synergies existed, because we could each contribute something to the group.Farming scrolls had little to do with what most would consider playing quests though. It was more about knowing the safe places to perch and fish for crits, loot any scrolls that dropped (pre dropping in inventory), reset and repeat.

[Qhualor]

Farming scrolls had little to do with what most would consider playing quests though. It was more about knowing the safe places to perch and fish for crits, loot any scrolls that dropped (pre dropping in inventory), reset and repeat.

That was pre-Carnival and Sentinels. After that their complaints were taking too long and using up too much sp to kill the end boss.

[Chai]

If they could solo faster, its not forced cooperation.

incorrect. Wizards being OP epic scroll farmers didn't make them an outlier no one wanted in groups. them being best CC made them desired in epic groups - they still had a role to play and weren't a solo only class, and they needed to play that role in the group for best chance of success.

The fact that they could solo is besides the point, and is clear evidence that class -vs- class balance =/= forced cooperation.


Classes had synergies, whether they needed to cooperate or not.

Yep, all eroded due to class -vs- class balance demands.


Those synergies made grouping fun (for me anyway) and are now partially/mostly? gone specifically because of class homogenization.

yep, homogenization caused by demands of class -vs- class balance.

Example: When the bruntsmash burst DPS test became the measuring stick, it all went downhill in a hurry.


People cared far less about balance when these synergies existed, because we could each contribute something to the group.

indeed. this is why D&D is still a fun game, even though its not anything remotely close to balanced. Present DDO could learn a thing or two from past DDO when it comes to forced cooperation.

[Chai]

I disagree. I would say that the "hard sell" that was used to present Bravery Bonus by highlighting the percentages had a lot to do with how things turned out. Whereas, if they had put the numbers in better perspective and tried to under sell it, we would be in a lot better place right now and they likely wouldn't have felt the need to shift the entire game to stay with player base expectations.

that's actually agreeing with me.

BB caused a lot of "incorrect perception" - example: people still cling to the absolute that they must be able to solo elite for max XP due to not enough Xp in game, when A-its not the best XP per minute if running hard is faster than elite, and B: Ive done normal once and done TRs to prove this specific point.

[Gremmlynn]

that's actually agreeing with me.

BB caused a lot of "incorrect perception" - example: people still cling to the absolute that they must be able to solo elite for max XP due to not enough Xp in game, when A-its not the best XP per minute if running hard is faster than elite, and B: Ive done normal once and done TRs to prove this specific point.I'm disagreeing that the same proportion will have an incorrect perception. Frankly, I believe the majority will have whatever perception has the most attractive spin applied.

I will say that the game could be more like what you want it to be if they had done a good job of selling it that way (and added enough things to keep people busy and feeling productive between finding/filling groups). But at the time of the F2P revival, they were leading mostly by trying to stay ahead of whatever direction the mob was going, rather than trying to set a direction. That's understandable though.

[Chai]

I'm disagreeing that the same proportion will have an incorrect perception. Frankly, I believe the majority will have whatever perception has the most attractive spin applied.

Naaa - its the same people who have the same goals regardless. For example, the xp/min players don't stop being xp/min players just because a different spin is put on how the best xp/min is gained.


I will say that the game could be more like what you want it to be if they had done a good job of selling it that way (and added enough things to keep people busy and feeling productive between finding/filling groups). But at the time of the F2P revival, they were leading mostly by trying to stay ahead of whatever direction the mob was going, rather than trying to set a direction. That's understandable though.

The game first has to be that way before they sell it that way. Staying ahead of that would have required a linear progression set up rather than a circular grind. When the one circular grind ran out of steam, we got another one.

Part of the content balance erosion is caused by 2014-2015 revamped characters playing through 2006-2012 content in a repetitive fashion. To stay ahead of the situation, the content would have needed to progress at a similar rate compared to the characters. Now days the player base is top heavy in character power due to the set up of playing through the same content over and over again while being slightly more powerful each time it is played through.

Then comes the mechanics which weren't even in existence when the majority of the content was designed, like PRR/MRR....

[redoubt]

That's what Im advocating - a forced cooperation system. This is not synonymous with class -vs- class comparison balance however.

In tabletop D&D for instance, the young mage who throws fireballs gets a bit cocky because he can end most encounters with one spell, until the iron golem comes around the corner. That's content balance. Most examples of this in DDO were eroded shortly after they were implemented, as people complained their (insert class here) couldn't solo it, and it was fixed so they could in most cases, even on elite.

I've advocated for content balancing before. I also advocate for returning to a point where characters had holes and could not do everything. (Yes I build characters to do everything now, because that is the current state of the game.)

Next:

We used to have healers.
You used to ask you bard what their specialization was and said "cool, a warchanter"
You might look for a role that was missing when forming a group.

By saying things are worse now, you admit things were "more balanced" in the past, which is exactly the point I am making.


Things weren't more balanced. More cooperation was required. They are not one and the same.

In the cap 20 era you were talking about, casters were relatively more OP than any one class is currently. This was not a class balance era.

The fact that healers were needed in raids didn't make the game more balanced. It made it more cooperative.

That forced cooperation is eroded out of the game, due to the very requests to balance the game by comparing class performance to class performance. AKA people got what they advocated, only to find out its not what they wanted.

True on both counts. The push for solo brought us here. Now everyone must do everything. Some say the population is low because of it. Some say the population has improved because of it. We likely will never know for sure.

Sadly, I don't think we have the population to go back to where we almost always ran in groups. This past weekend with the grouping xp bonus was a lot of fun because we got so many more people playing with us. That makes me think back and believe that playing with full groups is better.

Next:

And if those particular stars weren't aligned for them, one didn't play at all.

I don't remember it that way. It was well after epics were introduced that I first found that I would log in and look for a group and log out because I could not find something to do with a group.

Next:

Which is great as long as it's the default that normal is designed to and there isn't such a gap between normal and elite as to make normal seem a waste of one's time. Unfortunately, Bravery and the way it's described makes this seem the case, to the point where that one oops lead to the situation we have today where elite is that default as to many think anything less would be a waste of time. It really doesn't matter whether that is actually true as it makes little difference if people are not playing the game because their perception is correct or incorrect, just that they aren't playing the game.

I agree that most seem to think that elite is the only thing to run. As a vet, I won't run heroic on less than elite. There is no reason for me to do so. It is easy enough even on less equipped characters or less optimized builds. In epic I move between elite and hard depending on the character and build. Some lives I elite streak and others I do a mix of hard an elite because I realize my build is not as good that life and I have to step back to hard for some things. I still have fun and still level in a decent period of time.

Its easier to make that step in epic though, because you are not also getting faster turbine points and favor with the factions because you likely have done it in heroic already.

Next:

Just using old epic devil assault as an example

CC: Nobody cared about your kill count they just wanted you to make sure dance, although realistically if you had the DC to make enemies dance death spells likely worked well too- I never ran into anything but a pm or warforged archmage doing the cc back then.

Healer: Nobody cared about dps they just wanted you to keep them healed. I used to use terror on my cleric and even though I only did like 15 damage I still had a reasonable kill count lol. They nerfed that shortly after U14.

Tank: People just wanted you to hold aggro - nobody cared about your dps.

3 DPS in the party was enough - but monks were really optimal to stun the mob that rolled a 20 and wasn't cc'd.

That was the game pre-U14 - and of course you need a trapper in some quests also but rogues had the best dps then.

Yep, still agree.

I think the Chai vs Nokowi argument is in many ways over semantics.

You can balance build vs build (class vs class). This will likely lean toward homogenization. The metrics that are likely looked at are dps and survival. You can make the classes balanced this way.

You can balance build (class) vs content. Many more things can be looked at this way. By comparing how a build can complete content or how much content it can complete, you can take in variables and account for synergies in groups. (I don't think build vs build allows you to do that.) Also, you are able to actually set a power level relative to the content. (Then if all classes have the same relative power to the content, albeit through different means, then the classes are balanced to each other even if they don't have the same dps / survival stats.)

[Ayseifn]

Cool, a 5 page derail about yesteryear. Anyhoo about the MRR change I'm still digging it.

[Gremmlynn]

Naaa - its the same people who have the same goals regardless. For example, the xp/min players don't stop being xp/min players just because a different spin is put on how the best xp/min is gained.No, but they may play in a manner that doesn't maximize xp/min if they believe that spin.




The game first has to be that way before they sell it that way. Staying ahead of that would have required a linear progression set up rather than a circular grind. When the one circular grind ran out of steam, we got another one.

Part of the content balance erosion is caused by 2014-2015 revamped characters playing through 2006-2012 content in a repetitive fashion. To stay ahead of the situation, the content would have needed to progress at a similar rate compared to the characters. Now days the player base is top heavy in character power due to the set up of playing through the same content over and over again while being slightly more powerful each time it is played through.

Then comes the mechanics which weren't even in existence when the majority of the content was designed, like PRR/MRR....A lot of that is because they really didn't design a well thought out game to begin with. From their perspective. They should have had their time sinks planned out from the beginning. Not the exact details, but basically what was going to keep their players busy grinding between content updates.

Frankly, the amount of radical mechanical changes the game has had, just points out to me that the game wasn't in a good place mechanically from the start (well that and common sense).

[Gremmlynn]

I don't remember it that way. It was well after epics were introduced that I first found that I would log in and look for a group and log out because I could not find something to do with a group.Maybe it's just that I, and seemingly many others due to the direction the game was taken, aren't satisfied with simply finding "something to do". With the way the game is set up, simply doing "something" really isn't enough. It has to be something that checks off a box, new favor, BB, specific loot, etc., and for those even more picky (like me) it has to be something that is at least somewhat enjoyable. Else their time is better spent doing something that is not DDO.

[minorpenthes]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.


Why? It makes sense a speedy, lithe, sneaky person could maybe avoid a fireball.

But it makes no sense that steel plate mail would ameliorate that heat damage.

In this case, common sense, game balance, and the devlopers were all on the same page.

I know, people feel devastated when the exploit that made their particular build so "über" is eliminated, but it brings evasion back to the place of importance it should enjoy, and gives lightly armoured (or those in PJs) a fighting chance.

[slarden]

There should be heavy armor bonuses in reaper for melees but it can't be so ridiculous like it was after armor up. It can't be so good rogues use heavy armor like before. Evasion needs to mean something.

[mr420247]

They should remove the MRR cap on robes too then

[DrakHar]

Why? It makes sense a speedy, lithe, sneaky person could maybe avoid a fireball.

But it makes no sense that steel plate mail would ameliorate that heat damage.

In this case, common sense, game balance, and the devlopers were all on the same page.

I know, people feel devastated when the exploit that made their particular build so "über" is eliminated, but it brings evasion back to the place of importance it should enjoy, and gives lightly armoured (or those in PJs) a fighting chance.

Why did you bump a two year old thread?

[nokowi]

I think its complete bs, because the spell damage is ridiculously high now and makes a lot of "oh ****" moments for heavy armor users. Evasion toons on the other hand can easily avoid all reflex based damage, which is the most common type of spell spammed by casters. Some dungeons are also out of whack, like those new lv 13s, where the abishai monsters are doing splash damage of about 200+ in heroics!


MRR for heavy armor should be brought back.

I think my heavy armor + tower shield D&D character takes lots of damage from magical attacks.

I see no reason why DDO needs to give every build every easy button - you have the option to Cha build for high saves, and you have spell absorption items.

You could also take evasion with only 2 character levels. Others are doing fine without it, so the important thing is that there is a reasonable choice.

[Riddle_of_Steel]

I think a nice balance could be made buy bringing in MRR into the "Shield Mastery" and "Improved Shield Mastery" feats and doing something like

......... Mastery ... Imp Mastery
Buckler .. + 2 .......... + 5
Small .... + 4 .......... +10
Large .... + 6 .......... +15
Tower .... + 8 .......... +25
(stupid text formatting)

Would be a nice little boost and the cost of at least 1 feat, It gets pretty decent with improved, in particular with Tower shield so you are looking at 3 feats for your non-traditional Melee. Sure splash 2 fighter and you have all three for sure but then you are giving up 2 levels to fighter for it. I'd be OK with that and while the boost is nice it's not game breaking. You add that up with some of the bonuses you get from the Fighter / Pally trees though and it comes together meaningfully. In fact you could make some of the tier 4 or Tier 5 enhancements pop it up nicely if you have the Improved Shield mastery feat and make it a true and real build choice.

Throwing it on the heavy armor and rolling with it really did make that the "go to" for anyone even toons with evasion and that was frankly a little silly.

[Renvar]

They should remove the MRR cap on robes too then

No. They should give melee monks a method for raising the MMR cap. Casters and ranged combat do not need more MRR.

[Renvar]

I think a nice balance could be made buy bringing in MRR into the "Shield Mastery" and "Improved Shield Mastery" feats and doing something like

......... Mastery ... Imp Mastery
Buckler .. + 2 .......... + 5
Small .... + 4 .......... +10
Large .... + 6 .......... +15
Tower .... + 8 .......... +25
(stupid text formatting)

Would be a nice little boost and the cost of at least 1 feat, It gets pretty decent with improved, in particular with Tower shield so you are looking at 3 feats for your non-traditional Melee. Sure splash 2 fighter and you have all three for sure but then you are giving up 2 levels to fighter for it. I'd be OK with that and while the boost is nice it's not game breaking. You add that up with some of the bonuses you get from the Fighter / Pally trees though and it comes together meaningfully. In fact you could make some of the tier 4 or Tier 5 enhancements pop it up nicely if you have the Improved Shield mastery feat and make it a true and real build choice.

Throwing it on the heavy armor and rolling with it really did make that the "go to" for anyone even toons with evasion and that was frankly a little silly.

Putting it on shields makes it only useful for a few builds. Throwers (who don't need any more buffs. They are one of the few builds dominating content), swashbucklers, vanguards (do these exist any more) and tower shield warlocks/casters (who also don't need more buffs). The melee builds that most need the help aren't getting it (the twf and THF).

[mr420247]

So only melee monks or ranged monks too

[SiliconScout]

No. They should give melee monks a method for raising the MMR cap. Casters and ranged combat do not need more MRR.
They do ... it's called evasion.

if we are talking adding MRR in a way that evasion toons can get exactly the same benefit then we are wasting pixels.

If we are talking about ways to bring some parity to non-evasion toons via MRR then to me shields seem a decent way to go. Sure the TWF and THF don't get it but they DO get much increased DPS which is the TRADE. Let those toons have a way of doing solid single target CC or pop their single target DPS up a notch or two and their choice is dropping the caster before they get hit too badly.

Evasion or MRR
DPS or MRR

These are choices ... if we are looking for Evasion, dps AND MRR then let me off this train it leads down the path of mobs must have 80% more HP and do 50% more damage with everything ... ie a waste of everyone's time.

[nokowi]

No. They should give melee monks a method for raising the MMR cap. Casters and ranged combat do not need more MRR.

I would say they have access to evasion, SR, and high dodge - I'm not sure if they also need the MRR, particularly on a ranged build.

The tendency is to always say every build needs everything because someone else has it.

If someone can demonstrate how monks are not viable and what level of MRR would be needed (and why), I would be interested in hearing.

[minorpenthes]

Why did you bump a two year old thread?

No really good reason. That EVIL necromancer instinct...

To be honest I was looking up something else specifically, and forgot I had not hit "New Posts".

I hope it is not incredibly offensive to you, and it is not going to make you lose lots of sleep, or something- because unfortunately human error is a major factor in the world.

But, since I am not driving a bus, performing delicate surgery, or handling highly explosive devices, or really doing anything other than replying to an opinion I found very silly (and even after 2 years, it STILL seems very silly) I think the fallout from my mistake will not affect most people adversely...

[Pyed-Pyper]

IMO, it would be more interesting if -
..PRR increased with armor up
..MRR decreased with armor up

Not counting class enhancements and bonuses -
..heavy armor, heavy shield = high PRR, low MRR
..no armor no shield = low PRR, high MRR

The sweet spot for highest combined MRR/PRR would be light armor/no shield or med armor/buckler, depending on how the curves were implemented.

edit - the formula would be parabolic, not linear.