Is Spell Resistance on enemies broken? Or am I missing something?

[Wizza]

First of all: the combat states that you roll to penetrate the mobs' dodge. Not sure if it's always been like that or not.

Second: when you fail your Spell Pen check, the Combat says "Spell Resistance failure". When you succeed, it says "Spell Penetration success".

Third: from the images below, you can see that sometimes the same roll on the same mob caused first a failure and then a success. As far as I know, this shouldn't be possible in any scenario. Mobs have a static SR that you can either overcome with a roll or not.

These tests were all on the same kind of mobs, Outpost Drow Archers, and I made sure that neither of the mobs were affected by negative levels or anything else when testing.

http://i.imgur.com/z1ajHaE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FxaJqFl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cu5Sfc9.jpg

Another example. A roll of 10+50 results in a failure, but a roll of 4+50 is a success.

http://i.imgur.com/z1ajHaE.jpg

Am I missing something?

[EllisDee37]

What was that hidden game mechanic that spawned an 80-page thread of outrage years ago? I think it was during the wail nerf, where it was switched to work like implosion. Haunting? Harrowing? I can't remember.

Anyway, it was essentially a big boost to mob saves when they were at 100% health. The idea was to have melee and casters working together, where the melee would damage a mob so the caster could insta-kill it. A more tone-deaf mechanic would be hard to imagine, but hey, that's the Turbine way. ("Melees hate it when casters steal their kills; we should implement a mechanic to make that almost mandatory!")

Could something like that be causing the variance on what spell resistance checks you need to make?

[Wizza]

What was that hidden game mechanic that spawned an 80-page thread of outrage years ago? I think it was during the wail nerf, where it was switched to work like implosion. Haunting? Harrowing? I can't remember.

Anyway, it was essentially a big boost to mob saves when they were at 100% health. The idea was to have melee and casters working together, where the melee would damage a mob so the caster could insta-kill it. A more tone-deaf mechanic would be hard to imagine, but hey, that's the Turbine way. ("Melees hate it when casters steal their kills; we should implement a mechanic to make that almost mandatory!")

Could something like that be causing the variance on what spell resistance checks you need to make?

The two ideas were Hard to Kill (http://ddowiki.com/page/Hard_to_Kill), scrapped due to negative feedback in favor of Haunting (http://ddowiki.com/page/Haunting), scrapped too due to negative feedback. There are the links to the thread as well.

It was not a hidden mechanic, but rather their ideas on how to nerf Instakills, which was then replaced by the 6-max target Wail nerf IIRC.



EDIT: I believe you are talking about Epic Resilience (http://ddowiki.com/page/Epic_Resilience) now that I think about it.

Introduced in Update 14, monsters in Epic Elite difficulty receive a bonus to their saving throws versus magic depending on their health.

+6 at full health
+4 when slightly hurt
+2 between 50% and 75% health
no bonus below 50%

It only affects saves, not Spell Penetration. If it's something like that that is happening, I assume it's a bug. First because it's not written anywhere, second because I don't think it would make sense for Spell Penetration. I'm not 100% sure about this, but a lot of those rolls were done with mobs' hp being at 100% or slightly below that, and the difference with the rolls succeeding and failing is really wide.

[EllisDee37]

The two ideas were Hard to Kill (http://ddowiki.com/page/Hard_to_Kill), scrapped due to negative feedback in favor of Haunting (http://ddowiki.com/page/Haunting), scrapped too due to negative feedback. There are the links to the thread as well.Right, thanks.


It was not a hidden mechanic, but rather their ideas on how to nerf Instakills, which was then replaced by the 6-max target Wail nerf IIRC.Actually, I'm about 99% sure that there is still a hidden mechanic very similar to that still on live. One of the devs mentioned it a year or two ago, IIRC.

There was some discussion about how a dev discovered it one day and its existence impacted future development. I think the end result is they decided to leave the mechanic intact since all the old epic stuff was built with it factored in, but they'd not enable it for new content.

Maybe they forgot to disable it?

EDIT: You nailed it with your edit. Your research skills are vastly superior to my memory, thanks much.

[Wizza]

Right, thanks.

Actually, I'm about 99% sure that there is still a hidden mechanic very similar to that still on live. One of the devs mentioned it a year or two ago, IIRC.

There was some discussion about how a dev discovered it one day and its existence impacted future development. I think the end result is they decided to leave the mechanic intact since all the old epic stuff was built with it factored in, and they'd not enable it for new content.

Maybe they forgot to disable it?

Read my edit :) I think you are talking about Epic Resilience, which was hidden until a while ago (before ToEE), but it's now visible as a buff on the mobs.

[Morroiel]

Haven't tested spell pen extensively after the recent update - I've been busy.

I can tell you for a fact that spell pen didn't have any sort of hidden mechanic behind the scenes as your data indicates. The only thing that I'm not 100% certain of in your data is if you made sure to test on equal CR mobs, as that can and does affect their sr.

However, spell pen before the recent update was firm - a "x" roll on the 1d20 either corresponded with static success or failure, not some %.

[Wizza]

Haven't tested spell pen extensively after the recent update - I've been busy.

I can tell you for a fact that spell pen didn't have any sort of hidden mechanic behind the scenes as your data indicates. The only thing that I'm not 100% certain of in your data is if you made sure to test on equal CR mobs, as that can and does affect their sr.

However, spell pen before the recent update was firm - a "x" roll on the 1d20 either corresponded with static success or failure, not some %.

All of them were CR 57, yes, which is why I made the thread. Something seems wonky.

[Morroiel]

All of them were CR 57, yes, which is why I made the thread. Something seems wonky.

Very possible that they either stealth nerfed player spell pen on purpose or on accident in addition to the spell resistance changes they made in the update.

Is this a reaper/elite only effect? Does it work the same on normal?

[Morroiel]

See, thats what happens when you post cheese charm completions.

And it is all your fault sweety.

This is literally the most backward logic...

[Wizza]

Very possible that they either stealth nerfed player spell pen on purpose or on accident in addition to the spell resistance changes they made in the update.

Is this a reaper/elite only effect? Does it work the same on normal?

I only tested it on Reaper from the OP, but I recall a wonky behaviour from Normal/Hard/Elite too (not tested properly thou).

[Lynnabel]

This is WAI.

[Rys]

This is WAI.

So how does it work exactly since the SR doesn't scale with difficulty either and is the same on R10 and Normal?

[Lynnabel]

So how does it work exactly since the SR doesn't scale with difficulty either and is the same on R10 and Normal?

This falls under the reaper mode blanket of mechanics that we don't communicate with players about. Sorry!

[scipiojedi]

This falls under the reaper mode blanket of mechanics that we don't communicate with players about. Sorry!

Can we get a monster manual for the devs and if we kill them enough in the Anniversary Quest we learn more about the mechanics of the game? :D

[Maelphistez]

Well... Lynnabel has basically said "Figure it out for yourself" which is the party line when figuring things out about Reaper mechanics.

Just a guess, it's looking like mobs get a die roll to add to their SR. Barring any other party members affecting the SR of the mobs that is not shown in your logs (taint the aura and the like), that is my best guess.

[Morroiel]

Well... Lynnabel has basically said "Figure it out for yourself" which is the party line when figuring things out about Reaper mechanics.

Just a guess, it's looking like mobs get a die roll to add to their SR. Barring any other party members affecting the SR of the mobs that is not shown in your logs (taint the aura and the like), that is my best guess.

My guess would be d(skull) added. If the mechanic behaves in this way.

[Rys]

This falls under the reaper mode blanket of mechanics that we don't communicate with players about. Sorry!

So, let's not talk about reaper.

On Elite CR 57 roll 68 success/67 failure
On Casual CR 32 roll 64 success/63 failure

Isn't the formula that is supposed to work CR+10?

[Maelphistez]

My guess would be d(skull) added. If the mechanic behaves in this way.


That would make sense. The only way to disprove this would be to log a mob with a spell pen disparity greater than the skull count on the quest. In Wizza's example above, he would have had to capture that log in a quest at 7 Skull or greater.

[Qezuzu]

I'm also going with a die roll being added to mob SR, or mobs randomly having a fixed bonus to SR. I actually noticed this yesterday in an r2 run of Running With the Devils, where I failed an SR check on a 6, but then was succeeding on lower numbers later in the quest.


I imagine the bonus is random (compared to saves which is a fixed +1.5 to saves per skull level, or so one person's testing claims) because Spell Penetration is far more "under control" in terms of how high you can get it, so raising it by a fixed amount could easily lead to some quests where a caster is getting a ton of failures on spell resistance, in addition to possible failures due to higher saves, which would be pretty frustrating when there are very limited options to raise your spell pen.

[Rys]

This falls under the reaper mode blanket of mechanics that we don't communicate with players about. Sorry!

Your reaper mode blanket of mechanics doesn't really make too much sense. I can make a succesful SR check on Reaper but I can't on Elite. Isn't the reaper mode supposed to be more challenging than Elite?

[Morroiel]

That would make sense. The only way to disprove this would be to log a mob with a spell pen disparity greater than the skull count on the quest. In Wizza's example above, he would have had to capture that log in a quest at 7 Skull or greater.

And here in lies the issue: if we figure it out, will the devs just change it next patch and not tell us? If so, this makes figuring it out pointless.

[scipiojedi]

Since the game is not fun anymore

Splain

[Thar]

The two ideas were Hard to Kill (http://ddowiki.com/page/Hard_to_Kill), scrapped due to negative feedback in favor of Haunting (http://ddowiki.com/page/Haunting), scrapped too due to negative feedback. There are the links to the thread as well.

It was not a hidden mechanic, but rather their ideas on how to nerf Instakills, which was then replaced by the 6-max target Wail nerf IIRC.



EDIT: I believe you are talking about Epic Resilience (http://ddowiki.com/page/Epic_Resilience) now that I think about it.

Introduced in Update 14, monsters in Epic Elite difficulty receive a bonus to their saving throws versus magic depending on their health.

+6 at full health
+4 when slightly hurt
+2 between 50% and 75% health
no bonus below 50%

It only affects saves, not Spell Penetration. If it's something like that that is happening, I assume it's a bug. First because it's not written anywhere, second because I don't think it would make sense for Spell Penetration. I'm not 100% sure about this, but a lot of those rolls were done with mobs' hp being at 100% or slightly below that, and the difference with the rolls succeeding and failing is really wide.

+1 research rep.

[Thar]

Drow mobs should only have 6 SR unless they have all the same gear and enhancements which isn't likely unless they are shopping at Sam's club for equipment. pc drow dropped from base 40 with no equipment to base 10... how is that fair compared to the opponents.

[scipiojedi]

Drow mobs should only have 6 SR unless they have all the same gear and enhancements which isn't likely unless they are shopping at Sam's club for equipment. pc drow dropped from base 40 with no equipment to base 10... how is that fair compared to the opponents.

Those are underdark drow; PC drow are ebberron drow. I'm not making a statement on its fairness, I'm just making a statement on the validity of the comparison, since underdark drow differ from ebberron, so they don't have to be inherently equal.

[Miow]

Drow mobs should only have 6 SR unless they have all the same gear and enhancements which isn't likely unless they are shopping at Sam's club for equipment. pc drow dropped from base 40 with no equipment to base 10... how is that fair compared to the opponents.

Fair? Fairness??? HAHAHAHAHAHA ha. Ha. :p

Speaking of SP i wonder if they fixed the formula on Mass Frog yet.

[jakeelala]

So, let's not talk about reaper.

On Elite CR 57 roll 68 success/67 failure
On Casual CR 32 roll 64 success/63 failure

Isn't the formula that is supposed to work CR+10?

It looks from the very sparse info presented here that death effect spells specifically have a much higher SR check than non death effect spells (enervation). Did I read something incorrectly?

I see now energy drain working with a 2 and then not working with a 4. Nevermind, definitely some random modifier being applied per cast. Lame.

[Morroiel]

Those are underdark drow; PC drow are ebberron drow. I'm not making a statement on its fairness, I'm just making a statement on the validity of the comparison, since underdark drow differ from ebberron, so they don't have to be inherently equal.

Pretty sure tempest spine drow are eberron drow...

[Renvar]

Saying it is WAI and is a secret is unfair to players.

There is a published formula for Spell Pen checks and mob spell resistance. If you want to obscure the target SR in reaper, that's fine. But if the overall mechanic has been changed and randomized with some dice roll or something such that the same mob in the same quest on back to back casts (with no changes to the mob otherwise) succeeds on 50 +4 = 54 Spell pen check but fails on a 50+5 = 55 spell pen check then that makes it impossible for players to build and gear their characters.

This is a builder's game. Not saying you need to reveal all the details. Just the basic functionality so that players can play the game intelligently.

The "reaper secret blanket" comment makes me feel like this is happening:

Playing monopoly.

Pass Go: I get $200.

Next time: I get $100.

Why?

Banker: Can't tell you. It's a secret.

Land on Boardwalk: Fee is $60

Land on Boardwalk again: Fee is $250

Why? Can't tell you. It's a secret. Pay up.

Does that sound like a fun game? One with any strategy to it?

[Maelphistez]

Your reaper mode blanket of mechanics doesn't really make too much sense. I can make a succesful SR check on Reaper but I can't on Elite. Isn't the reaper mode supposed to be more challenging than Elite?

Well Rys, the bad news is that on Discord when asked if she would respond to your question Lynnabel's reply was: "I honestly really shouldn't. I think I've said too much already." It seems that if we are really interested in this mechanic, it's either going to have to become a "thing" or we just need to chalk it up to another in the "who really knows?" category. Personally I think it's time to edit the wiki for Spell Pen and Spell Resistance to say: "No player knows how this is supposed to work and no Dev is interested in explaining."

[Wizza]

Well Rys, the bad news is that on Discord when asked if she would respond to your question Lynnabel's reply was: "I honestly really shouldn't. I think I've said too much already." It seems that if we are really interested in this mechanic, it's either going to have to become a "thing" or we just need to chalk it up to another in the "who really knows?" category. Personally I think it's time to edit the wiki for Spell Pen and Spell Resistance to say: "No player knows how this is supposed to work and no Dev is interested in explaining."

Based on the tests that I did with Rys, seems like they get a base Spell Resistance and then they get a roll added to it.

I'll leave to others (if they want to bother) understanding how exactly it works.

Mysterious is fun™



Personally I think it's time to edit the wiki for Spell Pen and Spell Resistance to say: "No player knows how this is supposed to work and no Dev is interested in explaining."

Lol +1

[SeveredSteel]

It looks from the very sparse info presented here that death effect spells specifically have a much higher SR check than non death effect spells (enervation). Did I read something incorrectly?

I see now energy drain working with a 2 and then not working with a 4. Nevermind, definitely some random modifier being applied per cast. Lame.

Prolly works similar to how attck rolls work; 6+92 = grazed!. 4+994 = hit!. Good luck explaining that to anyone.

[SeveredSteel]

Prolly works similar to how attck rolls work; 6+92 = grazed!. 4+94 = hit!. Good luck explaining that to anyone.
Sorry for double post, edit and delete are not working for me. fixed my typo.

[nokowi]

They specifically mentioned a variable amount was added to these checks, which would obviously scale more into high reaper.

SR 57 + (1d?) with the ? scaling upwards in higher reaper.

The intent is that reaching SR 58 is useful, but reaching no fail requires much further investment.

It's a way to make additional DC-type investment more useful and a way scale DC's in a d20 system to something more like d30.

The formula should be simple to reverse engineer.

[Avocado]

Similar to my experience it seems to be dependant on the spell. Soundburst hit with 53 spell pen but I couldn't hit with greater command at 53. It would hit maybe 1 min in a pack and soundburst would hit 90% of them.

[Wizza]

Similar to my experience it seems to be dependant on the spell. Soundburst hit with 53 spell pen but I couldn't hit with greater command at 53. It would hit maybe 1 min in a pack and soundburst would hit 90% of them.

It's not dependant on the spell for what we could test.

[Eryhn]

maybe the secret is that its doubly randomized:

mobs get a +skull dice added to scale with the difficulty setting, but then they also all get another special, wider randomization bonus - lets call it the "you could always get royally screwed cause this is reaper" special dice, maybe something like total SR -5 + d20 where you have a small chance to somewhat leviate the skull scaled dice addition a bit but a much much higher chance to run into higher total SR and generate one of those "oh ****" moments if you expect your stuff to land properly

*shrugs*

[Sam-u-r-eye]

I believe something similar to this is happening for DC checks on mobs as you go up in skulls.
Take a 102 necro into gianthold and see what I mean.

They can roll a 20 on more than a 20...

[Mr_Helmet]

This is literally the most backward logic...

Challenge accepted!

EDIT: SSG beat me to it.

[Mr_Helmet]

Take a 102 necro into gianthold and see what I mean.



You're trying to get me to log in again aren't you?

[Sam-u-r-eye]

You're trying to get me to log in again aren't you?

=p

[SirValentine]

This falls under the reaper mode blanket of mechanics that we don't communicate with players about. Sorry!


So, let's not talk about reaper.


I second the motion to address the issue for non-Reaper.

Has there been a change in the mechanics of enemy Spell Resistance in Casual, Normal, Hard, and Elite? If so, explain it, please.

[Maelphistez]

I second the motion to address the issue for non-Reaper.

Has there been a change in the mechanics of enemy Spell Resistance in Casual, Normal, Hard, and Elite? If so, explain it, please.

I specifically asked Lynnabel if she would address this and that's when she told us she had probably said too much already.

[cheeselivesmatters]

Just players test stuff in the game and they want to hide changes.

[Rys]

Well Rys, the bad news is that on Discord when asked if she would respond to your question Lynnabel's reply was: "I honestly really shouldn't. I think I've said too much already." It seems that if we are really interested in this mechanic, it's either going to have to become a "thing" or we just need to chalk it up to another in the "who really knows?" category. Personally I think it's time to edit the wiki for Spell Pen and Spell Resistance to say: "No player knows how this is supposed to work and no Dev is interested in explaining."


I specifically asked Lynnabel if she would address this and that's when she told us she had probably said too much already.

Hey, thanks.

This is no surprise and was expected. Devs don't know how many of the mechanics work in their own game and the players are left to test and shoot in the dark after the stealth changes (intended or not) that are not contained in the release notes. I am very surprised her reply was so quick which indicates any testing didn't happen so I am very doubting the credibility of any reply.

The whole confusion about how RXP is calculated, if the reaper penalty is based of elite or not, if the drop rates scale with skulls, all the reaper is mysterious and challenging bs while making it a grinding TR difficulty is very telling. We are not supposed to talk about reaper, fine. So how about get a reply on elite vs casual since it seems different than it used to be and unless I missed something and I would stand corrected, it is not documented anywhere (which we were also told, every change is always in the release notes).

[slarden]

Saying it is WAI and is a secret is unfair to players.

Not in reaper no.

What makes the game too easy to vets has alot to do with the predictability of mobs. To the extent they throw the unexpected at us it adds challenge as we figure out how to work around such things.

[Wizza]

Not in reaper no.

What makes the game too easy to vets has alot to do with the predictability of mobs. To the extent they throw the unexpected at us it adds challenge as we figure out how to work around such things.

Knowing the formula or how it works would change absolutely nothing.

[slarden]

Knowing the formula or how it works would change absolutely nothing.

It appears you are wrong because people wouldn't be complaining if it changed nothing.

[cheeselivesmatters]

Why don't make the game completely random?

You log in your server and end up joining other one.

You pick a quest like underdark chain and went up in a Cannith Crystal run.

You cast FoD and end up teleported to Storm Horns.

You join a Chrono run but end up in Titan.

#challenge

[SeveredSteel]

Not in reaper no.

What makes the game too easy to vets has alot to do with the predictability of mobs. To the extent they throw the unexpected at us it adds challenge as we figure out how to work around such things.

LOL. Yeah, guys, if you figure out how mechanics in the game work then it will be too easy. So the next step is for everyone to enter a dungeon, tie a dark sack around their heads, find a bludgeoning item in rl, bang said item into face and then try to finish the quest.

[Jasparion]

Not in reaper no.

What makes the game too easy to vets has alot to do with the predictability of mobs. To the extent they throw the unexpected at us it adds challenge as we figure out how to work around such things.

The only work around to mobs with random spell resist is to just be sure you have your Spell Pen high enough to beat the max of the range of their random spell resist.

It doesnt make the game harder or more clever. Its just random rubbish which has to be overcome.

Would mobs having random saves, HP, AC make a clever difference?

[blerkington]

This is no surprise and was expected. Devs don't know how many of the mechanics work in their own game and the players are left to test and shoot in the dark after the stealth changes (intended or not) that are not contained in the release notes. I am very surprised her reply was so quick which indicates any testing didn't happen so I am very doubting the credibility of any reply..

Maybe silence seems like the best policy if when you open your mouth there's a good chance you'll jam your foot into it.

Eg: mobs with true seeing not being able to see invisible players, xp bonuses for opening chests in quests, reaper xp being based on modified quest level not base quest level, there being nothing wrong with loot tables in the most recent update, etc etc etc.

There would be far less scepticism of developer claims if there weren't so many mistakes being made when they post about their understanding of game mechanics.

The way to put that problem to bed is to research and test your claims before making them on the forums, rather than huffing and puffing about being a professional and since you do this stuff as your job you should be believed, then getting it wrong and taking it as a personal insult when you are called on it.

Thanks.

[Pyed-Pyper]

This falls under the reaper mode blanket of mechanics that we don't communicate with players about. Sorry!

wow, just wow.







wow.




.... a whole lotta truth .....

OK serious question here, does DDO want players, or did SSG take on board some Gordon Gekko type?

[Wizza]

It appears you are wrong because people wouldn't be complaining if it changed nothing.

I dont think you understand why people are complaining. It's ok.


LOL. Yeah, guys, if you figure out how mechanics in the game work then it will be too easy. So the next step is for everyone to enter a dungeon, tie a dark sack around their heads, find a bludgeoning item in rl, bang said item into face and then try to finish the quest.

Lmao +1


Maybe silence seems like the best policy if when you open your mouth there's a good chance you'll jam your foot into it.

Eg: mobs with true seeing not being able to see invisible players, xp bonuses for opening chests in quests, reaper xp being based on modified quest level not base quest level, there being nothing wrong with loot tables in the most recent update, etc etc etc.

There would be far less scepticism of developer claims if there weren't so many mistakes being made when they post about their understanding of game mechanics.

The way to put that problem to bed is to research and test your claims before making them on the forums, rather than huffing and puffing about being a professional and since you do this stuff as your job you should be believed, then getting it wrong and taking it as a personal insult when you are called on it.

Thanks.

You need to stop saying truths because I cant rep you. Totally agree, specially with the last two paragraphs.

[Requiro]

Reading posts from people that demand explanation, I start understand why Developers are so quiet about some stuff.

[Wipey]

I don't like it one bit. What's next ? Heals failing randomly ? Intimidate failing randomly ? Spells failing randomly ?

Teamwork interaction and game experience depend on performing, and relying on such crucial roles.

Random is bad okay ? I don't know why some of the devs keep repeating that it is so much fun.

Not in these type of games. Where people spend literally years to perfect and min max their toons.
Mysterious and hidden is bad. More info on mechanics and characters is good. Ok ?

I get that reaper is supposed to be unfair, don't take this as complain.
We will adapt but it's kinda absurd.

I am playing chess. My opponent punches me in the face and turn the board over as "hidden move". Because mysterious.
I am climbing with my partner. Our rope breaks. So much fun, because mysterious.

Yeah, terrible analogies lol.

[PermaBanned]

This is WAI.
This falls under the reaper mode blanket of mechanics that we don't communicate with players about. Sorry!Let me guess: if you don't tell us "how it's actually supposed to work" then when how it works changes (either intentionally or accidentally) you can still call the new/current version of working as WAI.

Smmmooooooooooth.

[Wizza]

Mysterious and hidden is bad. More info on mechanics and characters is good. Ok ?


No no no


Mysterious is fun™

[Sam-u-r-eye]

WE LOVE RNG

YAY RNG

REMEMBER THE MADNESS PACK

SO MUCH FUN

DAPPER

http://i.imgur.com/X25tvus.png

+1 Blerk, they should hire you for a week

[Sam-u-r-eye]

Maybe silence seems like the best policy if when you open your mouth there's a good chance you'll jam your foot into it.

Eg: mobs with true seeing not being able to see invisible players, xp bonuses for opening chests in quests, reaper xp being based on modified quest level not base quest level, there being nothing wrong with loot tables in the most recent update, etc etc etc.

There would be far less scepticism of developer claims if there weren't so many mistakes being made when they post about their understanding of game mechanics.

The way to put that problem to bed is to research and test your claims before making them on the forums, rather than huffing and puffing about being a professional and since you do this stuff as your job you should be believed, then getting it wrong and taking it as a personal insult when you are called on it.

Thanks.

+1

[Sam-u-r-eye]

Hey guys! Remember when they sprang Reaper Rewards we didn't want, a week before release of the difficulty?

It's not like we had been play-testing it for months under the impression that it would be mostly bling...

...ya guys you're missing something...

because you should all be on the players council permanently and you're not.
These mechanics need to be transparent to SOMEONE since it appears, they're NOT understood by anyone.

HOW can we BUG-TEST things we DO NOT know are OCCURING?????

BLERHALKJD:ASKDHAS:LSKDJA CAPSLOCK CAPLSLOCK RAGE
/SOAPBOX

[slarden]

LOL. Yeah, guys, if you figure out how mechanics in the game work then it will be too easy. So the next step is for everyone to enter a dungeon, tie a dark sack around their heads, find a bludgeoning item in rl, bang said item into face and then try to finish the quest.


The only work around to mobs with random spell resist is to just be sure you have your Spell Pen high enough to beat the max of the range of their random spell resist.

It doesnt make the game harder or more clever. Its just random rubbish which has to be overcome.

Would mobs having random saves, HP, AC make a clever difference?

As someone with a long history of playing maxed out casters it's simply too easy this way. There should be some percentage of enemies you can't use easy-button DC casting on. They did this in old epics with red and orange named enemies and the old epics became scripted because you knew exactly what worked on which enemies and how to handle the exceptions.

If the game was 100% random it would take the fun out of the game because there would be no opportunity to develop a plan, but having some percentage of things being random actually makes sense. Some enemies in a dungeon are tougher than others and you don't know that by looking at the enemies which have higher spell resistance. That makes sense especially when people have been complaining the game is too easy. Predictability is what made the game too easy more than anything else. This is why most people that want challenge play PvP vs. PvE because of that lack of predictability.

I get that people have different opinions on these things - I just think having some randomness is helpful rather than the old days of knowing a 40 spell pen and 42 enchant save works 100% on everything except XXX and for those you use YYY. The only challenge was old epics was having people fill roles that didn't have the right #s. If people had the right #s it was an auto-win.

That's not challenge, it's simply a matter of following a script to beat content.

[cheeselivesmatters]

Just play naked and you will have your super fun challenge failing all the time random quest.

Or turn off your monitor.

But don't tell others how they should play the game.

[JOTMON]

Knowing the formula or how it works would change absolutely nothing.


Well, it does change some things..

Know thy enemy and all that stuff...

If we understand the math behind the challenge we can work with formula's to figure out what we need to overcome obstacles in the game..
If achievable we could then build to attain those benchmarks following a course of planning and design..
if its not achievable then we adjust and plan for something that is more efficiently viable.

Perhaps they are migrating the game way from players understanding the math and mechanics behind the defenses of various obstacles for intelligent progression and just want us spamming random [expletive] relying on luck that eventually something will penetrate mob defenses for some unknown reason..


http://68.media.tumblr.com/018a589acdc65b77f501a5eabcf29792/tumblr_ot5bvw4qJZ1qc4uvwo1_500.png

[whoolsey]

I don't like it one bit. What's next ? Heals failing randomly ? Intimidate failing randomly ? Spells failing randomly ?

Teaqmwork interaction and game experience depend on performing, and relying on such crucial roles.

Yeah, terrible analogies lol.
Funny. I've seen self healing gone wrong so many times i'm wodering how random that actually is.
A guildy is currently on an extended break because she's fed up with the broken agro mechanic. Wether she's on her rog and 5 rooms behind the party invised and hidding, she would still somehow pull agro from the partyy while piking, almost like the mobs go for the one with the lowest hp. On her barb all her self heals come 5-10 seconds too late resulting in unnecesairy deaths..
Imagine those situations not being random but part of some sick dev joke...


Just play naked and you will have your super fun challenge failing all the time random quests.
Or turn off your monitor.

But don't tell others how they should play the game.

Yes people should come of their triple epic/ heroic/racial/iconic toons and play an alt.
I understand it's hard not to play a toon that is so OP but then you shouldn't complain on the forum
And stop spamming the forum for harder content that screws over the rest of the community.

the devs should pich in on this too, first by fixing content, secondly by mäking all classen equally valid .
The devs were on the right track for anwhile.
No one playing a healer? Party wouldn' t fill? Seeing peopl adapt to that? Lets build healing.

[Chai]

Well, it does change some things..

Know thy enemy and all that stuff...

If we understand the math behind the challenge we can work with formula's to figure out what we need to overcome obstacles in the game..
If achievable we could then build to attain those benchmarks following a course of planning and design..
if its not achievable then we adjust and plan for something that is more efficiently viable.

Perhaps they are migrating the game way from players understanding the math and mechanics behind the defenses of various obstacles for intelligent progression and just want us spamming random [expletive] relying on luck that eventually something will penetrate mob defenses for some unknown reason..



If they are adding a random rolled number to a base, it is possible that knowing the formula will show us we shouldnt be casting those spells on drow in the first place.

[JOTMON]

If they are adding a random rolled number to a base, it is possible that knowing the formula will show us we shouldnt be casting those spells on drow in the first place.

It might, but at least it would be an educated decision based on factual data and formula's

what we have now is a perception of.. ~snip~ we don't communicate with players ~snip~

[Rys]

Hey guys! Remember when they sprang Reaper Rewards we didn't want, a week before release of the difficulty?

It's not like we had been play-testing it for months under the impression that it would be mostly bling...

...ya guys you're missing something...

because you should all be on the players council permanently and you're not.
These mechanics need to be transparent to SOMEONE since it appears, they're NOT understood by anyone.

HOW can we BUG-TEST things we DO NOT know are OCCURING?????

BLERHALKJD:ASKDHAS:LSKDJA CAPSLOCK CAPLSLOCK RAGE
/SOAPBOX

Is there actually anyone in the PC representing the end gamers? The only name I recognise is Cetus but he seems afk and the last time I saw him in game he was TRing.

[Arktanis]

Why don't make the game completely random?

You log in your server and end up joining other one.

You pick a quest like underdark chain and went up in a Cannith Crystal run.

You cast FoD and end up teleported to Storm Horns.

You join a Chrono run but end up in Titan.

#challenge

Sounds like we should drop the Eldritch Knight tree in Wizard and use this as the guideline for Wild Mage PrE.

Also wanted to add that I think that there should be randomity. I get really bored when you have a target DC and after that you are basically no-fail and don't have any randomity. You may as well just be lvl 30 and go play Kobold Assault because its the same difficulty. Having a mode where you can't always be certain you will live through an encounter is why we all stayed at the beginning anyways. Hell, you could die from jumping to high back in the day. My 8 con Wiz couldn't cast jump on himself and fall off a 1 foot ledge without feather fall for example. I think that they just need to nerf overall mob HP and reduce the overly insane number of additional damage and have it more in line with 2012 or so and it'd be what we're all wanting back. Plus class balance of course!

[cofveve]

Sounds like we should drop the Eldritch Knight tree in Wizard and use this as the guideline for Wild Mage PrE.

Also wanted to add that I think that there should be randomity. I get really bored when you have a target DC and after that you are basically no-fail and don't have any randomity. You may as well just be lvl 30 and go play Kobold Assault because its the same difficulty. Having a mode where you can't always be certain you will live through an encounter is why we all stayed at the beginning anyways. Hell, you could die from jumping to high back in the day. My 8 con Wiz couldn't cast jump on himself and fall off a 1 foot ledge without feather fall for example. I think that they just need to nerf overall mob HP and reduce the overly insane number of additional damage and have it more in line with 2012 or so and it'd be what we're all wanting back. Plus class balance of course!

If you don't want no fail you can remove equips or change feats, simple.

[Chai]

It might, but at least it would be an educated decision based on factual data and formula's

what we have now is a perception of.. ~snip~ we don't communicate with players ~snip~

After the last round of attempts to communicate directly, and the responses that generated, I understand their hesitation.

[zehnvhex]

The pessimist in me believes that they outsourced all of the Reaper programming to someone in India and that's why they have no clue how any of it works, refuse to touch it and refuse to comment on it.

[nokowi]

After the last round of attempts to communicate directly, and the responses that generated, I understand their hesitation.

Not communicating could work if they understood the game and had a plan.

I don't think this has generally been the case for DDO.

I see signs that communication actually works - check out the current Lynnabel thread - more positive comments than I have seen in ages.

[Pyed-Pyper]

Not communicating could work if they understood the game and had a plan.

I don't think this has generally been the case for DDO.

I see signs that communication actually works - check out the current Lynnabel thread - more positive comments than I have seen in ages.

+1



After the last round of attempts to communicate directly, and the responses that generated, I understand their hesitation.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, is it that you think the Devs are being treated unfairly?

DDO representatives are being taken to task for being one or more of the following: dishonest, ignorant, misleading, unresponsive, arrogant, unhelpful, miscommunicative, secretive, inaccurate, out of touch, skeptical of player feedback, and/or uncaring. And I probably missed a few other choices.

When someone from DDO does something right, are they being subjected to negative behavior on the forum? I don't think so. Witness the avalanche of positive feedback directed at one of the Devs simply for fixing some typos. Typos! Consider what happened recently between a dev and a player. The player posted something in earnest and the Dev in question answered whimsically. The player reacted brusquely that they didn't appreciate humor in place of a serious response. Was their reaction strong? Yes. Was it inappropriately so? Maybe. Was it unfair? I don't think so. Yet the overwhelming number of posts after that sided with the dev against the player.

There is a difference between legitimate criticism and unfair attacks. If the Devs are withdrawing because they don't like scrutiny, fine. But don't expect anyone sympathize with them.

[blerkington]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, is it that you think the Devs are being treated unfairly?

DDO representatives are being taken to task for being one or more of the following: dishonest, ignorant, misleading, unresponsive, arrogant, unhelpful, miscommunicative, secretive, inaccurate, out of touch, skeptical of player feedback, and/or uncaring. And I probably missed a few other choices.

When someone from DDO does something right, are they being subjected to negative behavior on the forum? I don't think so. Witness the avalanche of positive feedback directed at one of the Devs simply for fixing some typos. Typos! Consider what happened recently between a dev and a player. The player posted something in earnest and the Dev in question answered whimsically. The player reacted brusquely that they didn't appreciate humor in place of a serious response. Was their reaction strong? Yes. Was it inappropriately so? Maybe. Was it unfair? I don't think so. Yet the overwhelming number of posts after that sided with the dev against the player.

There is a difference between legitimate criticism and unfair attacks. If the Devs are withdrawing because they don't like scrutiny, fine. But don't expect anyone sympathize with them.

This really sums it up perfectly.

There's far too much of a tendency towards treating criticism as trolling and victimisation on these boards. And it's pretty obvious that at least some of the community's theory of why people criticise goes no further than assuming the people doing it are just bad. Not a very nuanced way of looking at things at all, and a very convenient way of writing off alternative points of view.

Then there's the obviously wrong attempt to blame everything that is wrong with the game on the community. As if we are a homogenous mass and the developers are helpless slaves and must do whatever we ask, even when some of us are asking for one thing and others want something else.

Chai, you are a member of the community too, as are other people who have argued against some of the things you are blaming us for. This line of yours makes no sense at all. You cannot reasonably remove SSG's responsbility for making decisions from the process of how changes are made to the game. My take on this is they do pretty much what they want, and sometimes that coincides with majority opinion.

Thanks for spelling this out so clearly, Pyed. One of the best posts I've seen on this very hot topic in a long time.

Take care.

[Rys]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, is it that you think the Devs are being treated unfairly?

DDO representatives are being taken to task for being one or more of the following: dishonest, ignorant, misleading, unresponsive, arrogant, unhelpful, miscommunicative, secretive, inaccurate, out of touch, skeptical of player feedback, and/or uncaring. And I probably missed a few other choices.

When someone from DDO does something right, are they being subjected to negative behavior on the forum? I don't think so. Witness the avalanche of positive feedback directed at one of the Devs simply for fixing some typos. Typos! Consider what happened recently between a dev and a player. The player posted something in earnest and the Dev in question answered whimsically. The player reacted brusquely that they didn't appreciate humor in place of a serious response. Was their reaction strong? Yes. Was it inappropriately so? Maybe. Was it unfair? I don't think so. Yet the overwhelming number of posts after that sided with the dev against the player.

There is a difference between legitimate criticism and unfair attacks. If the Devs are withdrawing because they don't like scrutiny, fine. But don't expect anyone sympathize with them.

Very well said.

[PermaBanned]

After the last round of attempts to communicate directly, and the responses that generated, I understand their hesitation.While I'm a bit curious exactly what you might be including/excluding as "the last round of attempts at communicating directly," I find it even more curious why the official DDO forums are allowed to be so toxic that the DDO Devs don't want to use them.

[slarden]

She said specifically that not providing the formula was by design, presumably since predictability reduces challenge. As always the community can figure it out and document in the wiki and some people enjoy puzzles and figuring things out. Not everyone thinks it's a bad thing.

I think it's fine to disagree, but it shows a real lack of emotional IQ and common sense to call the developers "deceptive", "ignorant", "arrogant", etc. or support any of those kind of ridiculous comments in any way. It's even more ridiculous to wonder why the devs don't bother responding.

If you don't like it attack the issue not the person.

[Ryiah]

The pessimist in me believes that they outsourced all of the Reaper programming to someone in India and that's why they have no clue how any of it works, refuse to touch it and refuse to comment on it.

They just want the ability to nerf or buff enemies without having the players create thread after thread of whinging. What better way to do that when nobody knows what the values were and what they became.

[cofveve]

They have a HUGE history of bugs and not knowing how game mechanics works.

If you don't want to know how some thing work it is fine just don't check how is the formula.

But others want to know because it is fun for some to beat it and fun to others test to see if it is really working.

[Cantor]

They just want the ability to nerf or buff enemies without having the players create thread after thread of whinging. What better way to do that when nobody knows what the values were and what they became.

I think there is something to this. Makes me think of the person who posted that they played a couple hours with their warlock after the last nerf before they remembered there was a nerf. A lot of things people complain about are pointless, you need nerfs and buffs to get things working right. Those who only want to ever see player power increases have killed the group aspect of this game over the years.

[Chai]

I think there is something to this. Makes me think of the person who posted that they played a couple hours with their warlock after the last nerf before they remembered there was a nerf. A lot of things people complain about are pointless, you need nerfs and buffs to get things working right. Those who only want to ever see player power increases have killed the group aspect of this game over the years.

So if no one knows the values and how they are derived, then how can they tell if nerfs made it "work right?"

[Chai]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, is it that you think the Devs are being treated unfairly?

DDO representatives are being taken to task for being one or more of the following: dishonest, ignorant, misleading, unresponsive, arrogant, unhelpful, miscommunicative, secretive, inaccurate, out of touch, skeptical of player feedback, and/or uncaring. And I probably missed a few other choices.

When someone from DDO does something right, are they being subjected to negative behavior on the forum? I don't think so. Witness the avalanche of positive feedback directed at one of the Devs simply for fixing some typos. Typos! Consider what happened recently between a dev and a player. The player posted something in earnest and the Dev in question answered whimsically. The player reacted brusquely that they didn't appreciate humor in place of a serious response. Was their reaction strong? Yes. Was it inappropriately so? Maybe. Was it unfair? I don't think so. Yet the overwhelming number of posts after that sided with the dev against the player.

There is a difference between legitimate criticism and unfair attacks. If the Devs are withdrawing because they don't like scrutiny, fine. But don't expect anyone sympathize with them.

When they withdraw due to the tone and non-actionable nature of the feedback provided, that lack of sympathy becomes a two way street. In that environment, no one being objective could expect more transparency.

[Renvar]

If they are adding a random rolled number to a base, it is possible that knowing the formula will show us we shouldnt be casting those spells on drow in the first place.

This. A big part of effectively playing a caster in high difficulties is knowing what will be effective against which mobs. When is a will save spell better than a fort save. Which mobs can be held, which can be stunned, tripped, etc. If the formula has been changed and we don't know how it works, that greatly reduces the ability for players to make informed choices and play tactically. It reduces the game to "fishing" for good rolls. Which is more of a brute force, spamming, uninformed play style that only appeals to a segment of the player base.

But for players that spend years learning the game mechanics and crafting builds and gear around those mechanics and then play smart and strategic, it is a change that undermines their enjoyment of the game because it removes skill and knowledge as a game play element.

[cofveve]

This. A big part of effectively playing a caster in high difficulties is knowing what will be effective against which mobs. When is a will save spell better than a fort save. Which mobs can be held, which can be stunned, tripped, etc. If the formula has been changed and we don't know how it works, that greatly reduces the ability for players to make informed choices and play tactically. It reduces the game to "fishing" for good rolls. Which is more of a brute force, spamming, uninformed play style that only appeals to a segment of the player base.

But for players that spend years learning the game mechanics and crafting builds and gear around those mechanics and then play smart and strategic, it is a change that undermines their enjoyment of the game because it removes skill and knowledge as a game play element.

Exactly what they are doing in the last few years.

Thats why the game is boring now.

Why learn and work hard to create a build when it is going to be destroyed in the next update or if other build can do way better with no gear/pl's/tatics at all?

Then what we get are bags of hp's that hit for 100k damage...

[Odysseus2011]

Part of the issue here has become how easy it is for casters to obliterate trash mobs with huge amounts of HP, and now with reaper; effective HP. What I see occurring now is an attempt by developers to try to limit the damage a DC focused caster can do. Did the developers hit a hole in one? Most definitely not, but this appears to be the course of action they're taking to perhaps restore a little more balance; escpecially on more challenging difficulties.

[Wizza]

Part of the issue here has become how easy it is for casters to obliterate trash mobs with huge amounts of HP, and now with reaper; effective HP. What I see occurring now is an attempt by developers to try to limit the damage a DC focused caster can do. Did the developers hit a hole in one? Most definitely not, but this appears to be the course of action they're taking to perhaps restore a little more balance; escpecially on more challenging difficulties.

Leaving aside whether one thinks that random spell resistance is dumb or not:

Telling or not the formula to the players affects this how...?

[nokowi]

I have previously talked about how DDO tends to provide too many no-fail solutions.

Adding a scaled and random amount to DC based checks is a pretty good design choice. It encourages, but does not require, more investment in DC abilities, and it provides a way to keep content relevant (particularly if they change the scaling over time). Expecting devs to manually go through all content and update every single DC on a repeated basis (let's say yearly) is simply an unreasonable expectation from those that complain about old content being outdated. If they know how much loot progression there is, it should be easy to keep the scaling fixed relative to current DC's.

Dev's deserve credit for this kind of implementation. Good job!

Some of the arguments here "I won't know if I should use Fort or Reflex" are completely false. Adding a random amount still makes the same choice of ability the best answer, and even more so when best vs worse saves are typically far from each other.

I fully support this decision, and I hope that whatever the scaling factor is, devs continue to update this value over time to keep content engaging.

I feel that players could have fully tested what values they now need in the time it took to complain in this forum.

If anyone actually finds that there DC abilities have become useless in-game, I would of course welcome their comments.

I find this entire line of complaints silly (we need auto-win), especially from anyone who said no to easy buttons.

Absent any specific cases where things don't work, the only valid complaint is with regards to whether or not devs should have communicated the change. I support not giving the values, because it allows them to keep DC's relevant without continually updating us if they find they need to adjust anything.

If someone can't tell me every mob with fortification bypass, then it's pretty clear you can play the game without needing to know exact values. Players can easily establish maximums, even with a variable quantity that does not have to be met.

[Rys]

I have previously talked about how DDO tends to provide too many no-fail solutions.

Adding a scaled and random amount to DC based checks is a pretty good design choice. It encourages, but does not require, more investment in DC abilities, and it provides a way to keep content relevant (particularly if they change the scaling over time). Expecting devs to manually go through all content and update every single DC on a repeated basis (let's say yearly) is simply an unreasonable expectation from those that complain about old content being outdated. If they know how much loot progression there is, it should be easy to keep the scaling fixed relative to current DC's.

Dev's deserve credit for this kind of implementation. Good job!

Some of the arguments here "I won't know if I should use Fort or Reflex" are completely false. Adding a random amount still makes the same choice of ability the best answer, and even more so when best vs worse saves are typically far from each other.

I fully support this decision, and I hope that whatever the scaling factor is, devs continue to update this value over time to keep content engaging.

I feel that players could have fully tested what values they now need in the time it took to complain in this forum.

If anyone actually finds that there DC abilities have become useless in-game, I would of course welcome their comments.

I find this entire line of complaints silly (we need auto-win), especially from anyone who said no to easy buttons.

The only valid complaint is with regards to whether or not devs should have communicated the change. I support not giving the values, because it allows them to keep DC's relevant without continually updating us if they find they need to adjust anything.

If someone can't tell me every mob with fortification bypass, then it's pretty clear you can play the game without needing to know exact values. Players can easily establish maximums, even with a variable quantity that is not have to be met.

Elite CR 57 roll 68 success/67 failure
Casual CR 32 roll 64 success/63 failure

Tell me moar? Oh and no to the easy buttons. Sarcasm is hard!

[nokowi]

Telling or not the formula to the players affects this how...?

It provides too easy of a guaranteed no fail solution - this is bad for those actually wanting design/play choices and challenge.

If you find your ability failing in the content you play, just up your value.

[nokowi]

Elite CR 57 roll 68 success/67 failure
Casual CR 32 roll 64 success/63 failure

You can complain about specific values, but you have not done enough testing to define a problem. The combat log is off more than it is correct, as an example.

Is this true for all casual vs elite mobs, or specific to this test?

If the numbers are off, devs would not be able to give you a formula.

You should establish a trend, and show that trend if off, before demanding the numbers.




Tell me moar? Oh and no to the easy buttons. Sarcasm is hard!

Coming from the person who said they just play the game, and have no interest in discussing values - yes the sarcasm is great in your post. (see how I used a specific response) Feel free to defend your conflicting statements.

If you have specifics of me asking for easy buttons, please present them and defend your statements. If you can't do this, refrain from statements you can not support.

You can go take a look at the U33.2 agro thread and see where Wizza said stealth was broken and unplayable, and you can find the thread where he said I just wanted easy buttons because I said it was broken. You can look at the poll where 93% of players agree with me. There is a difference between trolling someone and showing people that have a history of conflicting statements.

[Rys]

You can complain about specific values, but you have not done enough testing to define a problem. The combat log is off more than it is correct, as an example.

Is this true for all casual vs elite mobs, or specific to this test?

If the numbers are off, devs would not be able to give you a formula.

You should establish a trend, and show that trend if off, before demanding the numbers.

Coming from the person who said they just play the game, and have no interest in discussing values - yes the sarcasm is great in your post. (see how I used a specific response) Feel free to defend your conflicting statements.

If you have specifics of me asking for easy buttons, please present them and defend your statements. If you can't do this, refrain from statements you can not support.

You can go take a look at the U33.2 agro thread and see where Wizza said stealth was broken and unplayable, and you can find the thread where he said I just wanted easy buttons because I said it was broken. You can look at the poll where 93% of players agree with me. There is a difference between trolling someone and showing people that have a history of conflicting statements.

Elite CR 57 roll 68 success/67 failure
Casual CR 32 roll 64 success/63 failure

[nokowi]

Elite CR 57 roll 68 success/67 failure
Casual CR 32 roll 64 success/63 failure


With a variable amount, you need to test min and max success values in each setting.

The fact that you can fail in casual on a DC/SR check that could succeed in elite doesn't necessarily mean things are broken.

It might, but you haven't yet done the work to show this.

[Rys]

With a variable amount, you need to test min and max success values in each setting.

The fact that you can fail in casual on a DC/SR check that could succeed in elite doesn't necessarily mean things are broken.

It might, but you haven't yet done the work to show this.

Doesn't seem you actually know how the SR formula used to work until recently. Why am I discussing this with you again? Ah the personal attacks. I remember now.

[nokowi]

Doesn't seem you actually know how the SR formula used to work until recently. Why am I discussing this with you again? Ah the personal attacks. I remember now.

In a discussion, you can choose add to the discussion.

My understanding would be that SR was a fixed value (outside of reaper), and now has a variable component. (see how this is something specific you can choose to respond to)

My statements are consistent with that understanding.

You can show me how I am wrong, or respond to what I actually said.

Here is a clarification (something done in a discussion) based on my interpretation of your OP.

casual: target value 49 + 1d10
elite: target value 57 + 1d10

In such an implementation, the same roll could succeed in elite and fail in casual. In such an implementation, your two posted rolls (by themselves) are largely meaningless.

You can choose to clarify your OP instead of telling me I don't understand.

[Rys]

In a discussion, you can choose add to the discussion.

My understanding would be that SR was a fixed value (outside of reaper), and now has a variable component. (see how this is something specific you can choose to respond to)

My statements are consistent with that understanding.

You can show me how I am wrong, or respond to what I actually said.

Here is a clarification (something done in a discussion) based on my interpretation of your OP.

casual: target value 49 + 1d10
elite: target value 57 + 1d10

In such an implementation, the same roll could succeed in elite and fail in casual.

You can choose to clarify your OP instead of telling me I don't understand.

My OP. Okay. Have a good discussion with Wizza.

[nokowi]

My OP. Okay. Have a good discussion with Wizza.

This is an example of not contributing to a discussion, and not being able to respond to the points made by someone else.

Well done!

You quoted these numbers, and I responded.

You made an uncorroborated personal statement about my understanding, and I responded.

That's twice now you may uncorroborated statements about me.

[Wizza]

I have previously talked about how DDO tends to provide too many no-fail solutions.

Adding a scaled and random amount to DC based checks is a pretty good design choice. It encourages, but does not require, more investment in DC abilities, and it provides a way to keep content relevant (particularly if they change the scaling over time). Expecting devs to manually go through all content and update every single DC on a repeated basis (let's say yearly) is simply an unreasonable expectation from those that complain about old content being outdated. If they know how much loot progression there is, it should be easy to keep the scaling fixed relative to current DC's.

Dev's deserve credit for this kind of implementation. Good job!

Some of the arguments here "I won't know if I should use Fort or Reflex" are completely false. Adding a random amount still makes the same choice of ability the best answer, and even more so when best vs worse saves are typically far from each other.

I fully support this decision, and I hope that whatever the scaling factor is, devs continue to update this value over time to keep content engaging.

I feel that players could have fully tested what values they now need in the time it took to complain in this forum.

If anyone actually finds that there DC abilities have become useless in-game, I would of course welcome their comments.

I find this entire line of complaints silly (we need auto-win), especially from anyone who said no to easy buttons.

Absent any specific cases where things don't work, the only valid complaint is with regards to whether or not devs should have communicated the change. I support not giving the values, because it allows them to keep DC's relevant without continually updating us if they find they need to adjust anything.

If someone can't tell me every mob with fortification bypass, then it's pretty clear you can play the game without needing to know exact values. Players can easily establish maximums, even with a variable quantity that does not have to be met.


You can complain about specific values, but you have not done enough testing to define a problem. The combat log is off more than it is correct, as an example.

Is this true for all casual vs elite mobs, or specific to this test?

If the numbers are off, devs would not be able to give you a formula.

You should establish a trend, and show that trend if off, before demanding the numbers.




Coming from the person who said they just play the game, and have no interest in discussing values - yes the sarcasm is great in your post. (see how I used a specific response) Feel free to defend your conflicting statements.

If you have specifics of me asking for easy buttons, please present them and defend your statements. If you can't do this, refrain from statements you can not support.

You can go take a look at the U33.2 agro thread and see where Wizza said stealth was broken and unplayable, and you can find the thread where he said I just wanted easy buttons because I said it was broken. You can look at the poll where 93% of players agree with me. There is a difference between trolling someone and showing people that have a history of conflicting statements.


This is an example of not contributing to a discussion, and not being able to respond to the points made by someone else.

Well done!

You quoted these numbers, and I responded.

You made an uncorroborated personal statement about my understanding, and I responded.

That's twice now you may uncorroborated statements about me.


In a discussion, you can choose add to the discussion.

My understanding would be that SR was a fixed value (outside of reaper), and now has a variable component. (see how this is something specific you can choose to respond to)

My statements are consistent with that understanding.

You can show me how I am wrong, or respond to what I actually said.

Here is a clarification (something done in a discussion) based on my interpretation of your OP.

casual: target value 49 + 1d10
elite: target value 57 + 1d10

In such an implementation, the same roll could succeed in elite and fail in casual. In such an implementation, your two posted rolls (by themselves) are largely meaningless.

You can choose to clarify your OP instead of telling me I don't understand.

Leaving aside the miriad of personal attacks that you like to make towards Rys and I, everywhere, at anytime, because you really love our attention:

You have no rights to scold people about not contributing to a discussion when you have showed, in your own replies, how ignorant (as in, you don't know anything) you are on the matter. Not only you have proved that you have not read any of the thread past the OP, but you have proved how you have no idea how SR works nor worked. Not only you have no rights to scold others about whether they are contributing or not to a discussion, but this same thread would have not been possible without Rys and I, hence you are, once again, wrong.

Reading the first page of the thread should make you realize your errors and apologize.

And no, I'm not pointing them out. You can simply read the thread.

[Renvar]

Here is a clarification (something done in a discussion) based on my interpretation of your OP.

casual: target value 49 + 1d10
elite: target value 57 + 1d10

In such an implementation, the same roll could succeed in elite and fail in casual. In such an implementation, your two posted rolls (by themselves) are largely meaningless.


And that's fine, if they want to add d10 to the SR on each roll. No problem at all. I like the idea of some variation in challenge. But that means the target for casual, when building is 50-59 and for elite is 58-67. If you want to be able to succeed half the time (or 75% or whatever), then you know, roughly what number to target. That informs your PL efforts, your AP spend, your race choice, your stat point allocations & level ups, what tomes you want, and your gear choices.

I don't see why sharing the formula causes any lessening in challenge. The numbers are what they are in either case.

[nokowi]

Reading the first page of the thread should make you realize your errors and apologize.

Here is where you were wrong:



Third: from the images below, you can see that sometimes the same roll on the same mob caused first a failure and then a success. As far as I know, this shouldn't be possible in any scenario. Mobs have a static SR that you can either overcome with a roll or not.

Here is where a dev updated you:


This is WAI.


Am I missing something?

Yes, you need to do further testing to see if mobs are dodging your effect (no SR roll), and/or if there is a variable target you have to meet.

The combat log only shows roll + bonus, and does not give you this info. Your data in the OP does not resolve which is happening.

Best of luck!

[nokowi]

And that's fine, if they want to add d10 to the SR on each roll. No problem at all. I like the idea of some variation in challenge. But that means the target for casual, when building is 50-59 and for elite is 58-67. If you want to be able to succeed half the time (or 75% or whatever), then you know, roughly what number to target. That informs your PL efforts, your AP spend, your race choice, your stat point allocations & level ups, what tomes you want, and your gear choices.

I don't see why sharing the formula causes any lessening in challenge. The numbers are what they are in either case.

It might also have something to do with how spell pen can possibly now be dodged. (Needs confirmation what this message means)

Go play the game and see what works.

Good design allows you to increase your success rate through improvements.

Bad design just flatly ignores abilities for no in-game reason, and good design (such as a drow with high SR) has a reason with a way for players to improve.

[cofveve]

It might also have something to do with how spell pen can possibly now be dodged. (Needs confirmation what this message means)

Go play the game and see what works.

Good design allows you to increase your success rate through improvements.

Bad design just flatly ignores abilities for no in-game reason, and good design (such as a drow with high SR) has a reason with a way for players to improve.

If we know how it works we can think in the better way to improve.

Not knowing the formula we can't even know if it woth to play that playstyle.

If some of you don't want to know fine but others want. Especially those playing higher difficulties.

Usually the r1 pro crew don't care about dc's because they just need to go art or warlock.

[nokowi]

If we know how it works we can think in the better way to improve.

Not knowing the formula we can't even know if it woth to play that playstyle.

If some of you don't want to know fine but others want. Especially those playing higher difficulties.

Usually the r1 pro crew don't care about dc's because they just need to go art or warlock.

I'm saying anyone can easily test this and figure it out without all this complaining.

Those that listened to my responses would understand how to do so.

[cofveve]

I'm saying anyone can easily test this and figure it out without all this complaining.

Those that listened to my responses would understand how to do so.

Do tests is not a problem, hide info is.

[Chai]

Lets say they added a tier level system that rolls a + different dice for each tier.

Mob has full HP, SR = X + roll d20
Mob has 75% HP SR = X + roll d12
Mob has 50% HP SR = X + roll d8
Mob has 25% or less HP. SR = X

The tests that would need to be done to find out the range of variance, and how many ranges of variance exist, per dungeon, per mob type, per CR, per difficulty setting, per gradient of reaper, etc...

How much of ones day (month) should be spent testing something like this before filling out an I9 and a direct deposit form?

I mean really.

[nokowi]

Do tests is not a problem, hide info is.

Well I'm going to demand the fortification bypass of every mob be revealed before you get the numbers for SR. (sarcasm)

After all, it's just dumb they make us play the game without giving us those values. (sarcasm)

Surely we as players are unable to play the game and make decisions about fortification levels absent the specific values from devs. (sarcasm)

[nokowi]

Lets say they added a tier level system that rolls a + different dice for each tier.

Mob has full HP, SR = X + roll d20
Mob has 75% HP SR = X + roll d12
Mob has 50% HP SR = X + roll d8
Mob has 25% or less HP. SR = X

The tests that would need to be done to find out the range of variance, and how many ranges of variance exist, per dungeon, per mob type, per CR, per difficulty setting, per gradient of reaper, etc...

How much of ones day (month) should be spent testing something like this before filling out an I9 and a direct deposit form?

I mean really.

That's the amazing thing about the human brain, you can make even more complex decisions such as which car is best for you without needing to crunch numbers.

People that play the game and pay attention will have the best conclusions about what is needed.

The same way you equip a certain amount of fortification (is this enough that I am not getting crits at a level I don't like?), will also work for SR. Some mobs have fortification bypass, and I would guess less than 0.001% of players know which mobs and how much. That doesn't stop you from equipping an appropriate level of fortification.

Of course, some people actually like figuring out the pattern, and will likely do so, so the idea that devs must provide the info is also false.

How do you make LGS items? I assume you didn't have to test everything yourself, and in fact didn't need to do any testing at all, even if you chose to do so.

All you need to do is play the game and find out you need 3 more through game play - no forms needed, and no calculations needed.

The subjective value "what works for you" is the value that actually matters.

[Chai]

That's the thing about the human brain, you can make decisions such as which car is best for you, without needing to crunch numbers.

People that play the game and pay attention will have the best conclusions about what is needed.

The same way you equip a certain amount of fortification (is this enough that I am not getting crits at a level I don't like?), will also work for SR.

Except system mastery is not a part of buying cars. System mastery is part of D&D, and MMOs. In order to master the system, the system being used needs to be known and understood first.

Now if you were selling the car to a race driver, they would want those numbers crunched. They arent trying to drive the second best car on the track.

[nokowi]

Id agree in an MMO with alot more gradience, but not in DDO where 1 point of SR = 5% effectiveness change. Just to put things into perspective, many MMOs entire power creep for a new expansion doesnt get to +5% over the previous expansion. One MMO in particular chose 5% as their literal point system increase between current expansion loot and last expansion loot.

Even if its rolling a d4, thats 20% effectiveness variance, 40% if it is + or - a d4.

This pretty much takes the horse behind the barn and shoots it for power gamers. System mastery is part of D&D, and MMOs. In order to master the system, the system being used needs to be known and understood first.

For more casual types, this basically tells them not to play the spell pen game. Its already hard enough to get to approach the value you want, then to find out theres variance at the top end, and if its + variance only that always works against the player. (before my spell pen value was 50% useful but not its somewhere between 30 and 50% effective)

For the D&D player who was attracted to this game, they just go play something else (LOL come on guys thats not how spell pen works) /rolls up a fighter (wait, thats not how D&D mitigation and AC works either)

If you find, in game, that the current system does not work for you, I hope to hear your specific feedback.

You can put your calculator away and figure this out (in-game) just fine.

The subjective opinion of what works is what matters.

You have not addressed why you are subjectively unable to determine usefulness by playing the game.

You have talked about how much time you must spend with a calculator instead of the obvious solution of playing the game to figure out what you need.


Causal players don't need hard targets, and the subjective test will tell them all they need to know. I think you are confusing meta-gamers with casuals.

[Chai]

If you find, in game, that the current system does not work for you, I hope to hear your specific feedback.

You can put your calculator away and figure this out (in-game) just fine.

The subjective opinion of what works is what matters.

You have not addressed why you are subjectively unable to determine usefulness by playing the game.

You have talked about how much time you must spend with a calculator instead of the obvious solution of playing the game to figure out what you need.


Causal players don't need hard targets, and the subjective test will tell them all they need to know. I think you are confusing meta-gamers with casuals.

When they fix assassins and play with DC variance the same way they do with spell pen here, will you have the same position?

I do remember a specific discussion where they did just this.

I also remember a particular poster who rallied against it pretty hard, with some other posters.

The idea wasnt used of course...

...until fairly recently in EE and now reaper.

[nokowi]

When they fix assassins and play with DC variance the same way they do with spell pen here, will you have the same position?

I supported the variable DC's for reaper if you want to check out the reaper threads. I have made a consistent argument about how abilities should apply over as wide a range as possible while being useful, and how achieving no fail (if possible) should be at the expense for something equally important. I argued against dex assasins for exactly this reason - it removed the choice between max dps and no fail insta kill.

The context of my recommendations was that reaper was stlil considered a place for challenge that devs were OK if only a small percentage of players would use it.

You know I was against the current bard DC based on skill, for the reason that it made balance impossible, and was not at the expense of anything else.

Of course I support the same DC implementation for assassins as for casters. Bards could use a fix, even if that is to scale the skill based DC more similarly as the game progresses.





I do remember a specific discussion where they did just this.

I also remember a particular poster who rallied against it pretty hard, with some other posters.

The idea wasnt used of course...



Feel free to link the specific proposal and I'll tell you why I was against it. I accept PM's, so there is no need to hide behind forum rules.

This is the third such unsubstantiated claim in this thread - it's a technique for making an attack/argument without supporting data.

[cofveve]

Well I'm going to demand the fortification bypass of every mob be revealed before you get the numbers for SR. (sarcasm)

After all, it's just dumb they make us play the game without giving us those values. (sarcasm)

Surely we as players are unable to play the game and make decisions about fortification levels absent the specific values from devs. (sarcasm)

I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny or what but fortification has nothing to do with sr.

They ruined melees introducing grazing hits.

Now they are doing the same thing with casters and doing it hiding those changes.

Good luck with an even more empty game.

[nokowi]

I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny or what but fortification has nothing to do with sr.

It shows that you can design against something without specific numbers.


You may be correct about some mechanic being less fun, but if so, you (or anyone else) needs to play the game and state why this is true. What I said is that players should be able to design against a mechanic they don't like, at the expense of something else. That means top investment in to-hit (or group tactics to increase to-hit) should largely eliminate grazing hits. The existence of grazing hits is not a design mistake.

On the forums, the flattened XP curve was the end of the world (I was against it for this reason). In game, nobody really cared after a week or so. Lesson learned.

[cofveve]

It shows that you can design against something without specific numbers.


You may be correct about some mechanic being less fun, but if so, you (or anyone else) needs to play the game and state why this is true.

On the forums, the flattened XP curve was the end of the world (I was against it for this reason). In game, nobody really cared after a week or so. Lesson learned.

Ok i was running the swamp quest in high road. Heroic reaper 3 skulls.

All plant mobs are hitting for 60 damage then a same plant hits for 400.

Ok we have info about that mob beeing harder (crown) and what kind of champ he is (ignore fort + damage boost).

But i had no idea it could hit me so high, it is bad design and completely absurd.

You can disagree and argue as much as you want but that's my opinion.

My toon have 175% fort but thats pointless since they can bypass 100000000000000000000%, this is terrible design.

Making fort, resists, saves, dc's pointless is not smart decision and it is going to make more and more people quit.

[nokowi]

Ok i was running the swamp quest in high road. Heroic reaper 3 skulls.

All plant mobs are hitting for 60 damage then a same plant hits for 400.

Ok we have info about that mob beeing harder (crown) and what kind of champ he is (ignore fort + damage boost).

But i had no idea it could hit me so high, it is bad design and completely absurd.

You can disagree and argue as much as you want but that's my opinion.

My toon have 175% fort but thats pointless since they can bypass 100000000000000000000%, this is terrible design.

Making fort, resists, saves, dc's pointless is not smart decision and it is going to make more and more people quit.

Since you didn't respond to my comment, I will point out that damage is also not SR.

Making SR pointless is indeed a poor design choice. Show that the new mechanic (in this thread) does so before declaring the end of the world. You have not done this - you have theory crafted a problem.

Having multiple layers of defense that each contribute something is a good design choice - it prevents one dimensional build solutions, and done correctly can allow players to adjust their build to their own preferences.

In good design, they could have designed much smaller damage spikes if they didn't give out so many one dimensional auto-success or autofail solutions. I hear your complaints, and I understand that auto-success is not the solution.

[Chai]

It shows that you can design against something without specific numbers.

In order to design against anything the theoretical max as well as the running average per difficulty setting, per save type, per ability type, would need to be known.

AKA specific numbers.

Cant design against something if what is being designed against is unknown, or so fluidly variant.

Furthermore, the more fluidity in the variance, the harder the task of balancing it in a current meta and re-balancing it for a new meta becomes. It also becomes more easy to abuse.

This is already very difficult as it is, before we even begin discussing that the system is limited to 5% increments, and has already surpassed 5x full cycles in upward creep in some situations, and surpassed 4x while approaching 5x in most.

This makes it even more difficult to design for different types of players. Calculating the DC and spell pen on builds has become something akin to a 4th grade extra credit math problem. Whats the expectation for a new player on a non optimal build in normal and hard difficulties -vs- a vet in elite or reaper. Better be ready to answer this as increasing numbers of new players on non optimal builds should be the expectation post Ravenloft as that IP is popular and can be leveraged to bring in new players similar to how MOTU was with FR.


I hear your complaints, and I understand that auto-success is not the solution.

Then they need to refrain from using so many binary "hit or miss" mechanics. The power gamers will simply build for auto-hit, as thats really the only thing to strive for in a game loaded to the gills with binary mechanics. Fluidity in variance of the same one value doesnt fix that problem. It just moves the goal posts to an unknown each occurrence by adding a random value, but its still an all or nothing (binary) mechanic, which either hits or misses.

[nokowi]

Whats the expectation for a new player on ...

Devs should ignore literally every post by a non new player that talks about a new player. Posts that talk about what is good for them are 99% garbage used to justify what some non new player prefers.

As a new player, I did not know any of the required DC's, spell pen, etc, and the game was just fine. Knowing the exact value is something for vets, and generally not for new players, or even experienced causal players.





Then they need to refrain from using so many binary "hit or miss" mechanics. The power gamers will simply build for auto-hit, as thats really the only thing to strive for in a game loaded to the gills with binary mechanics. Fluidity in variance of the same one value doesnt fix that problem. It just moves the goal posts to an unknown each occurrence by adding a random value, but its still an all or nothing (binary) mechanic, which either hits or misses.

A variable added to DC or SR is the opposite of a hit or miss mechanic. It makes an ability more broadly useful. The EXACT opposite of what you say it does. It seems you don't understand how variance rewards a higher DC while allowing a low DC to still be useful.

I will show this in the next post.

[nokowi]

Here is how a target of 45+d10 provides a bigger range of usefulness than a static DC of 50.

Note that DC 45+d10 allows DC's of 26 to 54 to be useful, and requires the most investment at the top end to reach no fail. This allows those with 4 or 5 less DC to be much closer in performance to the best builds than a flat 5% per +1 (with a fixed target).

It takes +4 DC to get that last +5%, and you only get +9% from the +3 DC before that. Variable DC rewards more investment, and keeps those behind closer to the min/maxers. It's a win for everyone. The "randomness is stupid" crowd will have to explain why these are bad things.

I could make the variable target DC 44+d10 if you want the variable target to always be better at the low end. (Shift the right column values up by 1)




Player Value +d20
Fixed Target of 50
Target 45+d10


26+d20
0.0%
0.5%


27+d20
0.0%
1.5%


28+d20
0.0%
3.0%


29+d20
0.0%
5.0%


30+d20
5.0%
7.5%


31+d20
10.0%
10.5%


32+d20
15.0%
14.0%


33+d20
20.0%
18.0%


34+d20
25.0%
22.5%


35+d20
30.0%
27.5%


36+d20
35.0%
32.5%


37+d20
40.0%
37.5%


38+d20
45.0%
42.5%


39+d20
50.0%
47.5%


40+d20
55.0%
52.5%


41+d20
60.0%
57.5%


42+d20
65.0%
62.5%


43+d20
70.0%
67.5%


44+d20
75.0%
72.5%


45+d20
80.0%
77.5%


46+d20
85.0%
82.0%


47+d20
90.0%
86.0%


48+d20
95.0%
89.5%


49+d20
100.0%
92.5%


50+d20
100.0%
95.0%


51+d20
100.0%
97.0%


52+d20
100.0%
98.5%


53+d20
100.0%
99.5%


54+d20
100.0%
100.0%

[SeveredSteel]

I would sure hate it if something random could ruin my entire playstyle. See, I love stealth. And if, say, a random spider could tremor sense me in stealth, thereby alerting surrounding monsters to my location, I would quit. Stop playing, never enter slavers, or any reapers. But, I would still gladly pick fights with forum posters who think the same thing happened to them. Because it did not, ever. Only my playstyle matters and, so I will continue to pick fights on every thread so that others may suffer like I have. Another random SR check on top of a SR check? For a playstyle that relies on spells? Pfft, that is nothing like me quitting the game over stealth changes. Even though the changes made logical sense, much like how hounds spot things that are hiding). Assassins are reliant on stealth as a playstyle, nothing at all like casting spells that cannot land is for classes that cast spells, because; reasons.

[nokowi]

I would sure hate it if something random could ruin my entire playstyle. See, I love stealth. And if, say, a random spider could tremor sense me in stealth, thereby alerting surrounding monsters to my location, I would quit. Stop playing, never enter slavers, or any reapers. But, I would still gladly pick fights with forum posters who think the same thing happened to them. Because it did not, ever. Only my playstyle matters and, so I will continue to pick fights on every thread so that others may suffer like I have. Another random SR check on top of a SR check? For a playstyle that relies on spells? Pfft, that is nothing like me quitting the game over stealth changes. Even though the changes made logical sense, much like how hounds spot things that are hiding). Assassins are reliant on stealth as a playstyle, nothing at all like casting spells that cannot land is for classes that cast spells, because; reasons.

"The subjective test" matters, and stealth players have said (93% agreement in forum poll) the current system needs changes. In those threads, people played stealth, and described and recorded their experiences and showed what did not work for them. Those in thread can do the same when declaring forum rage.

Even the calculator does not currently support the "random is dumb crowd". Further testing about miss chances could change this, but variable DC seems to be a win/win.

[SeveredSteel]

Even the calculator does not currently support the "random is dumb crowd". variable DC seems to be a win/win.

So is variable stealth alert! Glad they didn't add that, or I would have quit, in king's forest, over a spider alerting mobs to my presence. dat random win/win

[Pyed-Pyper]

She said specifically that not providing the formula was by design, presumably since predictability reduces challenge. As always the community can figure it out and document in the wiki and some people enjoy puzzles and figuring things out. Not everyone thinks it's a bad thing.

I think it's fine to disagree, but it shows a real lack of emotional IQ and common sense to call the developers "deceptive", "ignorant", "arrogant", etc. or support any of those kind of ridiculous comments in any way. It's even more ridiculous to wonder why the devs don't bother responding.

If you don't like it attack the issue not the person.

I suspected someone might say something this but I expected better from you. The first paragraph was a general statement, no person was specifically mentioned. The second paragraph was a specific case with a specific example different from the previous list. Even then, no one was named, but thanks for illustrating what I described.

And just to be perfectly clear, I wasn't attacking anyone. I was describing what I have observed.


When they withdraw due to the tone and non-actionable nature of the feedback provided, that lack of sympathy becomes a two way street. In that environment, no one being objective could expect more transparency.

Are the Devs petulant children? Is DDO a government mandated activity? If the answers to either of those questions is "no", then there is no point in defending their withdrawal from engagement with the community because the responsibility for DDO's success lies with DDO.

The decay of meaningful dialogue is a direct consequence of the way the Devs have (or have not) interacted with player feedback.

And just to be clear, lets turn this around. Let's say, hypothetically, a player brings up a subject, a Dev responds with incorrect information. Another player chimes in with accurate info. What should the next step be? Maybe just maybe the Dev might say something like, "Gosh, you're right. Thanks for clearing that up." The Dev might go on to explain the cause of the mistake, "I was thinking about something else that has a similar feature," or "I confused that with the last version."

What if, in that situation, the Dev said, "I was [incorrect], what can we do to fix this? Can some players test some changes for us?" Do you think the toxic nature of recent conversations would continue? There are plenty of people on this forum that almost daily provide information useful to the Devs, that assist other players in ways that should be handled by DDO, that provide invaluable information related to the game. And for the most part, what comes of that?

There are plenty of people that want to see this game succeed. I'd say the number of players that want DDO to succeed is significantly higher than there are people at SSG. SSG has the power and the responsibility to make this happen, so, please don't bother pointing fingers anywhere else.

[nokowi]

So is variable stealth alert! Glad they didn't add that, or I would have quit, in king's forest, over a spider alerting mobs to my presence. dat random win/win

Random design can be used for good or bad. Declaring it always bad shows ignorance, as I outlined in my DC post. Four word slogans are nice and all, but when taken literally they usually fail. Some random trap locations = good. All random locations, probably not for most peoples preferences.

If you read the context of my posts, it is the ability to design against things you don't like, at the expense of something else, that is desirable to create an interesting builder game. This is what allows the most different preferences to be met.

Broader range of abilities = good

Ignoring player abilities = generally bad but can be OK in limited quantities (SA not working vs undead, etc)

The current auto shared alert in stealth is an example where you can not design against it using stealth scores. In limited quantity (individual spiders detecting you) it actually works and adds challenge. When shared with every mob, it doesn't pass the subjective test as evidenced by the almost unanimous forum response (trolling and griefing aside). Melee rogues don't have access to easy cc, range, HP, toughness or healing. Stealth is most of what they have that makes the build somewhat-effective (tier 2), fun and unique. Without other tools, stealth needs to function for this build to be played. That or add HP, DPS, toughness, more self healing, AOE, and cc so it can be like everything else.

[cofveve]

I agree, a good way to use random stuff are champions buffs.

Figth a mob with fom or dw is great. Same as resists.

But make something like sr random is silly.

[nokowi]

I agree, a good way to use random stuff are champions buffs.

Figth a mob with fom or dw is great. Same as resists.

But make something like sr random is silly.

I don't believe it is random as anyone has described it. You are agreeing with yourself, because nobody made those statements. You would probably need to respond to other posts instead of making things up to make a point.

I could go on about how great random is because someone won the lottery, or because I don't know who won a football game ahead of time. Of course, those statements wouldn't be part of a discussion, they would be a rant about randomness unrelated to any other posts. Using such statements to try to say random is always good or bad is not logical.

It should be trivial to figure out what you need with a variable component. Seriously less effort than what people have put into complaining.


Miss chances are a whole 'nother beast that would require some testing/validation. As in like a few minutes worth of work to describe general pattern and frequency.

[nokowi]

What they out to do is have anytime one mobs succeeds with SR, every mob in the area attacks you and your SR auto fails until you clear all agro. The SR-proof mobs can of course share this ability through walls, and sometimes even have mobs on the other side of the dungeon share SR-proof quality. Oh ya, and if you are at the front of the party your SR always fails, and sometimes even at the back.

When you get the message 7 months later that your SR no longer occasionally fails at the back of the party (with nothing else fixed) - I'm sure you will be overjoyed and have nothing but positives.

Oh the tears would be mighty indeed... Even when players have no-SR spells...

Try this without self healing and with 1/2 damage output whenever this happens. Oh ya, none of your AoE attacks or temp HP's work either, and your PRR and HP are cut by 33% as well.


Then we can have a chat about randomness on equal footing, without all this trolling of non working builds.

[cofveve]

What they out to do is have anytime one mobs succeeds with SR, every mob in the area attacks you and your SR auto fails until you clear all agro. The SR-proof mobs can of course share this ability through walls, and sometimes even have mobs on the other side of the dungeon share SR-proof quality. Oh ya, and if you are at the front of the party your SR always fails, and sometimes even at the back.

When you get the message 7 months later that your SR no longer occasionally fails at the back of the party (with nothing else fixed) - I'm sure you will be overjoyed and have nothing but positives.

Oh the tears would be mighty indeed... Even when players have no-SR spells...

Try this without self healing and with 1/2 damage output whenever this happens. Oh ya, none of your AoE attacks or temp HP's work either, and your PRR and HP are cut by 33% as well.


Then we can have a chat about randomness on equal footing, without all this trolling of non working builds.

Are you speaking to yourself?

Random is good for buffs like fom and dw.

Hide a new random system is silly.

It's not hard to understand, take your time.

[nokowi]

Are you speaking to yourself?

Yep, I thought is was time for me to post something sarcastic and generally unrelated to SR, kind of like damage spikes or other things people are randomly including instead of speaking to the specifics of the thread.

Find me one good player that would be happy with the SR system I described - that is what stealth is right now.

The point of the post would be how trivial this change is compared to things people on the forums like to routinely troll and grief about.

<continued>

Of course you could always bluff mobs one at a time and deal with them far away from any other mobs so any SR failure doesn't cause great aggravation.

Or maybe have a hireling go grab agro --> there will be around 5 out of 100 players that do this, don't know how often they should succeed or fail, and can't even notice there is a problem. Amazing, I know!

[cofveve]

Yep, I thought is was time for me to post something sarcastic and generally unrelated to SR, kind of like damage spikes or other things people are randomly including instead of speaking to the specifics of the thread.

Find me one good player that would be happy with the SR system I described - that is what stealth is right now.

The point of the post would be how trivial this change is compared to things people on the forums like to routinely troll and grief about.

<continued>

Of course you could always bluff mobs one at a time and deal with them far away from any other mobs so any SR failure doesn't cause great aggravation.

Or maybe have a hireling go grab agro --> there will be players that do this and can't even notice there is a problem. Amazing, I know!

None of this has nothing to do with the problem about hide changes in the game.

You think that agro changes ruined stealth, i think it was a good change. So what?

[nokowi]

None of this has nothing to do with the problem about hide changes in the game.

You think that agro changes ruined stealth, i think it was a good change. So what?

You can conclude where you fall in my prior post - assuming of course you actually play a melee assassin and not some other build unaffected.

My point was nobody (that understands the game) would accept a similar SR implementation.

If your enjoying it (on melee assassin), wonderful!

I look forward to your contributions over in the rogue forums. July 2017 join date is not very convincing, however.

[SeveredSteel]

Then we can have a chat about randomness on equal footing, without all this trolling of non working builds.

93% of players polled agree that randomness is bad.

[cofveve]

You can conclude where you fall in my prior post - assuming of course you actually play a melee assassin and not some other build unaffected.

My point was nobody (that understands the game) would accept a similar SR implementation.

If your enjoying it (on melee assassin), wonderful!

I look forward to your contributions over in the rogue forums. July 2017 join date is not very convincing, however.

I don't play a rogue or a caster.

I don't even like to play casters.

But again you ignored the real problem.

You may be chatting too much with delusional people that believe everything bad in game is players fault.

[nokowi]

93% of players polled agree that randomness is bad.

That's the fourth time in this thread someone completely made something up, unsupported, as if meant something. Should I expect a similar level of support for your statement as the last three? Feel free to start an actual poll on randomness - You might be surprised that most people will want some level of randomness.

Sorry, its at 92%. https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/487430-Stealth-and-Reapers

See I how I can actually defend my statements?

[nokowi]

I don't play a rogue or a caster.

Didn't stop you from saying you like the changes to stealth, however.

That's the issue on the forums.

Notice I asked for people's subjective opinion on the new SR mechanic? It seems that didn't serve the purpose of those complaining, and they may not be an actual problem here. Time will tell - as maybe there is just not enough feedback yet to identify an in-game issue.

[SeveredSteel]

Sorry, its at 92%. https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/487430-Stealth-and-Reapers


So you're saying that what we need is more random changes so that even more playstyles are affected? Got it, why didn't you just say so? We definitely need more random changes made. I mean, look how well it turned out for me and stealth!

[cofveve]

So you're saying that what we need is more random changes so that even more playstyles are affected? Got it, why didn't you just say so? We definitely need more random changes made. I mean, look how well it turned out for me and stealth!

I think he wants the game ruined for everybody because stealth is ruined.

[cofveve]

Didn't stop you from saying you like the changes to stealth, however.

That's the issue on the forums.

Notice I asked for people's subjective opinion on the new SR mechanic? It seems that didn't serve the purpose of those complaining, and they may not be an actual problem here. Time will tell - as maybe there is just not enough feedback yet to identify an in-game issue.

The only issue here are people telling others how to play the game.

I didn't say that stealth changes are perfect but it does make more sense than before.

Thats my opinion and you can cry a river but i am not changing it.

[nokowi]

The only issue here are people telling others how to play the game.

I didn't say that stealth changes are perfect but it does make more sense than before.

Thats my opinion and you can cry a river but i am not changing it.

I would ask for the opinion of people that actually play stealth, or can at least recognize the current issues of stealth, just like I asked for the in-game opinion about SR. Having done so, 92% of players see a problem with stealth. You have offered nothing that shows otherwise.

I don't think your opinion matters about stealth if you don't actually understand it. Your lack of play experience speaks volumes here - and you offered ZERO specifics that show any understanding at all. Contrasts that with my post that explained why a variable quantity broadens the successful DC range, and keeps those at the min/max level closer to those at the more causal or less geared level. I proved Chai wrong, who thought it somehow helped the min/maxers even more.

My opinion on SR was limited to a variable quantity - which it is not even clear is the actual implementation. I didn't make any conclusion because all the info is not in this thread. I certainly didn't tell anyone else how to play. People like to resort to such statements to imply that nobody else can have an opinion that differs with theirs.

And your insight on SR is?

[nokowi]

So you're saying that what we need is more random changes so that even more playstyles are affected? Got it, why didn't you just say so? We definitely need more random changes made. I mean, look how well it turned out for me and stealth!

I said random changes can be good or bad, depending on implementation.

Random trap locations have a place in DDO.

I supported variable DC for assassinate - just like SR and spellcasting DC.

What happened in stealth is not what is happening with SR. Equating them is inappropriate, as I supported the same thing for my build as what I recommend for casters.

I was consistent and you are being inconsistent.

I'll try your approach: "See how the lottery worked out and someone won money! Randomness is always good!"

One instance of randomness being good/bad does not make all randomness good/bad. It's a common misconception here on the forums.

[SeveredSteel]

I
I supported variable DC for assassinate - just like SR and spellcasting DC.

Just because you support something does not mean it is good.Anytime, any game has hidden its data, in order to give the appearance of an unsolved meta, has signaled that the team can no longer balance things correctly. This is true for any game. Even for games that are based on random DCs, like Darkest Dungeon. They tell you what the chance is. But, yeah, bro, sure, for brevity; we will just assume that your support of a double layer of variable random outcomes, one for SR then one for DC, is a good idea. 92% of some poll, somewhere, supports this.



I'll try your approach: "See how the lottery worked out and someone won money! Randomness is always good!"
One instance of randomness being good/bad does not make all randomness good/bad. It's a common misconception here on the forums.
Not if that lottery was always a bust, that was run by a company we know...

[Wizza]

I would sure hate it if something random could ruin my entire playstyle. See, I love stealth. And if, say, a random spider could tremor sense me in stealth, thereby alerting surrounding monsters to my location, I would quit. Stop playing, never enter slavers, or any reapers. But, I would still gladly pick fights with forum posters who think the same thing happened to them. Because it did not, ever. Only my playstyle matters and, so I will continue to pick fights on every thread so that others may suffer like I have. Another random SR check on top of a SR check? For a playstyle that relies on spells? Pfft, that is nothing like me quitting the game over stealth changes. Even though the changes made logical sense, much like how hounds spot things that are hiding). Assassins are reliant on stealth as a playstyle, nothing at all like casting spells that cannot land is for classes that cast spells, because; reasons.

Lol.

[cofveve]

I would ask for the opinion of people that actually play stealth, or can at least recognize the current issues of stealth, just like I asked for the in-game opinion about SR. Having done so, 92% of players see a problem with stealth. You have offered nothing that shows otherwise.

I don't think your opinion matters about stealth if you don't actually understand it. Your lack of play experience speaks volumes here - and you offered ZERO specifics that show any understanding at all. Contrasts that with my post that explained why a variable quantity broadens the successful DC range, and keeps those at the min/max level closer to those at the more causal or less geared level. I proved Chai wrong, who thought it somehow helped the min/maxers even more.

My opinion on SR was limited to a variable quantity - which it is not even clear is the actual implementation. I didn't make any conclusion because all the info is not in this thread. I certainly didn't tell anyone else how to play. People like to resort to such statements to imply that nobody else can have an opinion that differs with theirs.

And your insight on SR is?

You don't care about my opinion and i don't care about yours.

You are wrong and ignoring the problem again.

[Rys]

I think he wants the game ruined for everybody because stealth is ruined.

If only he wouldn't be barking up the wrong tree.

[nokowi]

If only he wouldn't be barking up the wrong tree.

I contributed a quality post about how random DC is an improvement. I certainly proved Chai's theory wrong, that randomness helped the min/maxer. That's the danger of engaging in a discussion, you might actually be wrong, and it is why some on the forums routinely choose not to do so.

Nobody complaining about randomness has been able to show why keeping non min/max players closer or making additional DC still useful is a bad thing. It makes the last +7DC worth +14% instead of +35%. It dramatically removes the "requirement" for DC past lives for someone that fully invests in DC on their build while still making it useful.


Of course those that don't participate in discussions like to troll about rogues while blaming you for responding.

If I factually state someones behavior you claim it is a personal attack that makes them a victim - think about that for a while. Someones own behavior is so poor that stating it is considered a personal attack by you.

Go ahead trash talk Nokowi and then claim victim status. It beats contributing to a discussion, right?

[Rys]

I contributed a quality post about how random DC is an improvement.

Nobody complaining about randomness has been able to show why keeping non min/max players closer or making additional DC still useful is a bad thing. It makes the last +7DC worth +14% instead of +35%. It dramatically removes the "requirement" for DC past lives for someone that fully invests in DC on their build while still making it useful.


Of course those that don't participate in discussions like to troll about rogues while blaming you for responding.

If I factually state someones behavior you claim it is a personal attack that makes them a victim - think about that for a while. Someones own behavior is so poor that stating it is considered a personal attack by you.

Go ahead trash talk Nokowi and then claim victim status. It beats contributing to a discussion, right?

You were the first to bring the personal fights from another thread to this one. Don't complain when I call you out for it. Take it to the PMs next time instead of hickjacking the thread that doesn't suit you for personal reasons.

[Kaisheng21]

it fixed

yay

[Rys]

it fixed

yay

It did?

[Lynnabel]

It did?

In a classical blunder, when I tested scaling SR out, I didn't actually use Drow as a test case. So yeah, Drow SR is whack. I'll bring it up to the team on Monday, sorry for the confusion. The good news is the difficulty scaling part of it works 100% A-ok :P

Cheers, happy Saturday all

[nokowi]

You were the first to bring the personal fights from another thread to this one. Don't complain when I call you out for it. Take it to the PMs next time instead of hickjacking the thread that doesn't suit you for personal reasons.

I don't report people - I choose to hold them accountable to their own actions and statements. Your actions here have done nothing to engage in conversation, so please don't complain about the result. Saying that a static no fail number is an easy button that allows players to design completely around that particular challenge is a factual statement and not a personal attack. It is an easy button that you are requesting if you require a static number. I can reference your campaign against easy buttons without it being a personal attack - it shows that you have argued the opposite in the past.

You have focused entirely on the stuff not related to the thread, and responded to nothing related to the thread.

When you respond about me personally, with no detail backing up your comment related to the thread, you are the one focusing on personal over subject matter. Please don't complain about the result - I am ready right now to engage in discussion if that was what you were interested in. I only see you taking about personal stuff.

[Rys]

In a classical blunder, when I tested scaling SR out, I didn't actually use Drow as a test case. So yeah, Drow SR is whack. I'll bring it up to the team on Monday, sorry for the confusion. The good news is the difficulty scaling part of it works 100% A-ok :P

Cheers, happy Saturday all

Great news! Thanks! Curious how it will go.

[nokowi]

In a classical blunder, when I tested scaling SR out, I didn't actually use Drow as a test case. So yeah, Drow SR is whack. I'll bring it up to the team on Monday, sorry for the confusion. The good news is the difficulty scaling part of it works 100% A-ok :P

Cheers, happy Saturday all

Thanks Lynnabel!

[Lynnabel]

Thanks Lynnabel!

Don't thank me, thank the people who politely and calmly brought this to my attention again. Also, seriously, don't thank me, I'm the one that tested this out in the first place and didn't try it on a Drow NPC.

[Rys]

I don't report people - I choose to hold them accountable to their own actions and statements. Your actions here have done nothing to engage in conversation, so please don't complain about the result. Saying that a static no fail number is an easy button that allows players to design completely around that particular challenge is a factual statement and not a personal attack. It is an easy button that you are requesting if you require a static number. I can reference your campaign against easy buttons without it being a personal attack - it shows that you have argued the opposite in the past.

You have focused entirely on the stuff not related to the thread, and responded to nothing related to the thread.

When you respond about me personally, with no detail backing up your comment related to the thread, you are the one focusing on personal over subject matter. Please don't complain about the result - I am ready right now to engage in discussion if that was what you were interested in. I only see you taking about personal stuff.

I brought the numbers from elite vs casual that seem to be too high for casual and did the initial tests with Wizza. So stop saying I contribued nothing. Then you go and say we complain and ask for easy buttons.

I didn't insult you but ... as Jon Snow would say everything before but is a horsesh*t.

[nokowi]

I brought the numbers from elite vs casual that seem to be too high for casual and did the initial tests with Wizza. So stop saying I contribued nothing. Then you go and say we complain and ask for easy buttons.

I didn't insult you but ... as Jon Snow would say everything before but is a horsesh*t.

To clarify I was referencing any response to any of my posts. When you engage in conversation with me, and none of it is related to the thread, you should not complain about the result. If you go read the early pages, I asked you to contribute to the discussion - showing I was willing to engage in conversation. I would classify your responses as intentionally unproductive and off topic rather than insults. You spent more time talking about me that responding to my statements.

Wizza certainly deserves credit for noticing and making this thread, and Lynnabel for jumping in and providing information (more of this please!).

I see no need for this thread to go any further, as there seems to be no interest in factually discussing variable quantities.

[Wizza]

In a classical blunder, when I tested scaling SR out, I didn't actually use Drow as a test case. So yeah, Drow SR is whack. I'll bring it up to the team on Monday, sorry for the confusion. The good news is the difficulty scaling part of it works 100% A-ok :P

Cheers, happy Saturday all

Thank you for looking into it once again.

[nokowi]

Don't thank me, thank the people who politely and calmly brought this to my attention again. Also, seriously, don't thank me, I'm the one that tested this out in the first place and didn't try it on a Drow NPC.

Yep, I gave Wizza props.

You underestimate how valuable a dev stepping in and providing clarity can be in a "discussion", which usually goes off track absent information.

You deserve every bit of thanks for this.

[Wizza]

Yep, I gave Wizza props.

You underestimate how valuable a dev stepping in and providing clarity can be in a "discussion", which usually goes off track absent information.

You deserve every bit of thanks for this.

The thread wouldn't be possible without Rys first noticing it :) She deserves as much props as me.

[nokowi]

The thread wouldn't be possible without Rys first noticing it :)

Ok. Thanks Rys too!

I didn't want to get in trouble again for referencing the wrong person, as the OP was clearly by Wizza.

[Wizza]

Ok. Thanks Rys too!

I didn't want to get in trouble again for referencing the wrong person, as the OP was clearly by Wizza.

She posted the values for non-Reaper :) All good, have fun.

[nokowi]

She posted the values for non-Reaper :) All good, have fun.

I got it - my response was mean to be humorous - you can read why earlier in the thread.

[Wizza]

I got it - my response was mean to be humorous - you can read why earlier in the thread.

There is nothing humorous about your name calling and veiled insults. As well as the "you are not contributing" that you keep pulling in every thread, which, as stated multiple times, is wrong, because this is a thread started by me with the help of Rys, and Rys was the one that brought up the issue in non-Reaper.

More over, you keep stating we "request" things, or ask for this and that, when neither of us did while you kept attacking Rys and I personally.

The one who didn't contribute to anything is you. Considering this was a thread made specifically to bring attention to the devs of a possible bug, you did no tests nor accepted that you had no idea what was being discussed.

[SeveredSteel]

There is nothing humorous about your name calling and veiled insults. As well as the "you are not contributing" that you keep pulling in every thread, which, as stated multiple times, is wrong, because this is a thread started by me with the help of Rys, and Rys was the one that brought up the issue in non-Reaper.

More over, you keep stating we "request" things, or ask for this and that, when neither of us did while you kept attacking Rys and I personally.

The one who didn't contribute to anything is you. Considering this was a thread made specifically to bring attention to the devs of a possible bug, you did no tests nor accepted that you had no idea what was being discussed.

Not only that, but he ruins the last 6 pages of this thread on SR by trying to sell people on his ****** variable random DC idea. Lacking any social basic social skills and just continues to ****post an idea that derails the thread and is met with aversion by most posters in this thread. For one, the moment the word random was used is the moment everyone's aversion triggers. You should have picked a better word. Your persuasion skills are lackluster, at best, at worst they fall somewhere on the spectrum. Second, there is already a variable DC system in place and it is called a difficulty check. Yeah, they use these things called d20s, bro... Go sharpen your autism somewhere else.

[Wizza]

Not only that, but he ruins the last 6 pages of this thread on SR by trying to sell people on his ****** variable random DC idea. Lacking any social basic social skills and just continues to ****post an idea that derails the thread and is met with aversion by most posters in this thread. For one, the moment the word random was used is the moment everyone's aversion triggers. You should have picked a better word. Your persuasion skills are lackluster, at best, at worst they fall somewhere on the spectrum. Second, there is already a variable DC system in place and it is called a difficulty check. Yeah, they use these things called d20s, bro... Go sharpen your autism somewhere else.

Not just that too, he can't be helped but to say what others are supposed to say or not, as if we need some kind of his permission to have a nice discussion with people contributing.

Let me repeat it slowly: we need the permission of someone that is not playing the game since months by his own admission and has absolutely zero experience on any of the matters in this thread, and not only this one.

[cofveve]

/popcorn

[nokowi]

There is nothing humorous about your name calling and veiled insults. As well as the "you are not contributing" that you keep pulling in every thread, which, as stated multiple times, is wrong, because this is a thread started by me with the help of Rys, and Rys was the one that brought up the issue in non-Reaper.

The humor was Rys correcting me for not distinguishing you two while your OP is based on her discovery. If I didn't distinguish your thoughts I could have credited you both.

You seem to dish out a lot of greifing (I saw how happy your were about the Warlock nerf- you tell us other peoples greif made you happy), while having very thin skin. You told us in the U33.2 thread that steath was broken and you were sorry a play style was ruined - and yet you show up later and troll my posts about how I want a fix because you think I need easy buttons. You think that me making factual statements is an insult, but it is a reflection of your own actions.



More over, you keep stating we "request" things, or ask for this and that, when neither of us did while you kept attacking Rys and I personally.

I made no personal statements about you or Rys other than the observation here of thin skin. I know nothing about you - I commented about your posts, something done on the forums. Feel free to say you didn't do those things.



The one who didn't contribute to anything is you. Considering this was a thread made specifically to bring attention to the devs of a possible bug, you did no tests nor accepted that you had no idea what was being discussed.

I did do tests for stealth - It didn't stop you from greifing my posts, or contributing nothing in those threads. Do you see your own double standard?

I happen to think my post about variable target is helpful - it's certainly relevant to misunderstanding posted within this thread.

[nokowi]

Yeah, they use these things called d20s

People build to no fail, negating any d20 roll. That's exactly what Wizza was trying to do in the OP - and why he needs/wants the exact number.

You should know this if you understand the game - it is something a variable target changes, but only to a minor extent, because you can still determine a max DC - it just may not be worth building to.

I explained why no-fail can be poor design. You may need to reread my posts since you think a d20 makes it always variable.

I never failed my assassinate rolls (with a d20) - do you think this is a variable outcome?

[nokowi]

Not just that too, he can't be helped but to say what others are supposed to say or not, as if we need some kind of his permission to have a nice discussion with people contributing.

Let me repeat it slowly: we need the permission of someone that is not playing the game since months by his own admission and has absolutely zero experience on any of the matters in this thread, and not only this one.

Please quote where I said those things - are you just making things up?

I think you are.

I welcome people to engage in a discussion, and I certainly didn't stop you from posting whatever you wanted to. This post is a good example. I can call you out on the complete fabrication, however.

[Wizza]

I did do tests for stealth - It didn't stop you from greifing my posts, or contributing nothing in those threads. Do you see your own double standard?

And that has to do with this thread how? Oh wait, you are frustrated because I said stealth and rogues aren't dead while you kept claiming they are? And kept claiming how bad it was that the random reapers kept seeing you? Awww!

Here, take this salty ice cream:

http://pm1.narvii.com/6247/cbcae62b14735fb9a8d7c8d191f2aa7d61958aba_hq.jpg

[Wizza]

People build to no fail, negating any d20 roll. That's exactly what Wizza was trying to do in the OP - and why he needs/wants the exact number.


You can read minds as well! Wrong, but can read my mind! Tell us some more why I want something please.

[nokowi]

And that has to do with this thread how?

It's a direct response to your complaint that you think I have to have added something to post in this thread.

Since you ignore what I did add about variable target DC (in response to Chai), I'll settle for showing that you don't get to decide what I post while complaining about the opposite. You see the irony?




Oh wait, you are frustrated because I said stealth and rogues aren't dead while you kept claiming they are? And kept claiming how bad it was that the random reapers kept seeing you? Awww!


I'm not even playing the game - how could reapers be frustrating me?. You of course know this, and this is a very weak attempt to upset someone else. Check out where YOU said they ruined an entire play style. Your words here are certainly much different than your prior words. I call this greifing someone.

Here is where you admitted assassin was broken, and the entire play style was broken - U33.2 agro page 11.


My preferred approach to DDO these days is to play the quests at a normal pace using tactics. My and my girlfriend play together (usual group set up of DPS/tank pally and assassin rogue) and approach each encounter with a little thought. We've been doing this for years now and has been a lot of fun.

This week in DDO has been very bittersweet.

Great news! The devs have now started their own company and will be looking after your game. Really positive stuff!

Oh, BTW, a good quarter of your chars are now broken and your preferred playstyle is no longer an option.

What's funny is that I had got a bunch of friends telling me to come back to ESO as the game is a lot better than it was at launch. It may be time to move on to Tamriel from Ebberon for these two accounts until this debacle is addressed.


I REALLY miss my double assassinate :(



Sucks that they killed a whole playstyle because of this "fix"

You have some explaining to do.

[nokowi]

You can read minds as well! Wrong, but can read my mind! Tell us some more why I want something please.

I assumed anyone who knows how to play the game goes for no fail.

Feel free to tell us why you choose not to do this. I'm certainly interested to hear why substandard DC's are preferred by you.

[Wizza]

I assumed

We can sum up all your comments in these two words. Glad you admitted it!

[nokowi]

We can sum up all your comments in these two words. Glad you admitted it!

I prefer to keep the < > .... I assumed <you knew what you were doing>

That way, when you claim or imply I am wrong for assuming, we know what it means.

[Wizza]

I prefer to keep the < > .... I assumed <you knew what you were doing>

That way, when you claim or imply I am wrong for assuming, we know what it means.

That way, we know you are wrong for assuming. Again. Exactly.

[nokowi]

That way, we know you are wrong for assuming. Again. Exactly.

Priceless!

I can't stop laughing.

(You just implied you don't know what you are doing) :)

[Wizza]

Priceless!

I can't stop laughing.

(You just implied you don't know what you are doing) :)

I know I'm hilarious, thank you.

I'd rather show that I don't know what I'm doing with my completions and threads showing light on bugs rather than cry, quit over a spider in Kings forest (sorry SeveredSteel, had to) and come to the forums telling others they don't contribute while not having played the game for months.

To each their own, right?

[nokowi]

I know I'm hilarious, thank you.

I'd rather show that I don't know what I'm doing with my completions and threads showing light on bugs rather than cry, quit over a spider in Kings forest (sorry SeveredSteel, had to) and come to the forums telling others they don't contribute while not having played the game for months.

To each their own, right?

You admitted they ruined a play style, so you should have no issue with me posting about it. If its OK for you to post bugs, it should be OK for me to do the same, right?

You should probably stop trolling my threads by claiming things are fine, in direct contrast to your own statements (quoted for you here). You demanded an apology from me in this very thread, but it seems you are the one that should probably be coughing one up - your responses about the build are quite different and one of these statements is a clear falsehood.

You don't seem to understand the context of my statement to Rys, which was that her replies to me (in this thread) contributed nothing related to the thread. I specifically thanked both Wizza and Rys for contributions in this thread (identifying the bug), so your statements here to the contrary here are completely false. I guess that's two apologies.

[Wizza]

You admitted they ruined a play style, so you should have no issue with me posting about it. If its OK for you to post bugs, it should be OK for me to do the same, right?

You should probably stop trolling my threads by claiming things are fine, in direct contrast to your own statements (quoted for you here). You demanded an apology from me in this very thread, but it seems you are the one that should probably be coughing one up - your responses about the build are quite different and one of these statements is a clear falsehood.

You don't seem to understand the context of my statement to Rys, which was that her replies to me (in this thread) contributed nothing related to the thread. I specifically thanked both Wizza and Rys for contributions in this thread (identifying the bug), so your statements here to the contrary here are completely false. I guess that's two apologies.

Poor Nokowi! Such a victim here :(

His complete ignorance of the subject of this thread didn't generate a wonderful discussion with him, and thus kept claiming Rys didn't contribute, whle it is only thanks to her that Lynnabel found the drow sr bug!

Poor you!

[nokowi]

Poor Nokowi! Such a victim here :(

Didn't think so, and I (unlike some other people here), don't claim victim status. I don't want an apology from you.

It's ironic that you can both claim to be a victim, and try and use that status as a negative. "Poor Wizza" would be more appropriate as you claimed this status for yourself earlier in the thread - but as it turns out I made factual statements about what you have done on the forums and you are no victim.

I do call people out for falsehoods (quoted for you in this thread) and intentional greifing - which is what each and every post about the build being fine or people needing easy buttons are in light of your U33.2 page 11 thread comments.

Greifing and trolling should be taken seriously, as they have no place in a discussion.

[nokowi]

thus kept claiming Rys didn't contribute

You mean this part:


Ok. Thanks Rys too!

Yet another falsehood...

[Wizza]

Didn't think so, and I (unlike some other people here), don't claim victim status.



Go ahead trash talk Nokowi and then claim victim status. It beats contributing to a discussion, right?

Are you sure? Completely, utterly sure that you aren't playing the victim here? Completely sure that you aren't playing the victim of griefing and trolling by someone who said a different opinion than yours in another thread, unrelated to this one, that you chose to bring into this one?


You mean this part:



Yet another falsehood...

Are you completely sure?



This is an example of not contributing to a discussion, and not being able to respond to the points made by someone else.


Here is 1!



Of course those that don't participate in discussions like to troll about rogues while blaming you for responding.

If I factually state someones behavior you claim it is a personal attack that makes them a victim - think about that for a while. Someones own behavior is so poor that stating it is considered a personal attack by you.

Go ahead trash talk Nokowi and then claim victim status. It beats contributing to a discussion, right?

Here is 2!


Your actions here have done nothing to engage in conversation, so please don't complain about the result. Saying that a static no fail number is an easy button that allows players to design completely around that particular challenge is a factual statement and not a personal attack. It is an easy button that you are requesting if you require a static number. I can reference your campaign against easy buttons without it being a personal attack - it shows that you have argued the opposite in the past.

You have focused entirely on the stuff not related to the thread, and responded to nothing related to the thread.

When you respond about me personally, with no detail backing up your comment related to the thread, you are the one focusing on personal over subject matter. Please don't complain about the result - I am ready right now to engage in discussion if that was what you were interested in. I only see you taking about personal stuff.

Here is 3!


If you go read the early pages, I asked you to contribute to the discussion - showing I was willing to engage in conversation. I would classify your responses as intentionally unproductive and off topic rather than insults. You spent more time talking about me that responding to my statements.


And finally 4!

Are you still sure?

[nokowi]

Are you still sure?

Yes, I clarified for Rys what I meant (her responses to me did not contribute to subject matter of the thread) and re-posted the thank-you for you.

You would need to go read and understand the context of her complaint, and my response to know why I said those things. Her responses to my statements were not contributing to the thread, and she complained about the result - lengthy thread.

You seem to have missed the thank you now posted 2 times, while arguing that I think you made no contribution.

The thank you proves that you are now wrong.

[Wizza]

Yes, I clarified for Rys what I meant (her responses to me did not contribute to subject matter of the thread) and re-posted the thank-you for you.

You would need to go read and understand the context of her complaint, and my response to know why I said those things. Her responses to my statements were not contributing to the thread, and she complained about the result - lengthy thread.

You seem to have missed the thank you now posted 2 times, while arguing that I think you made no contribution.

The thank you proves that you are now wrong.

Lolz.

Step 1 - Claim I never said "you are not contributing to the discussion"
Step 2 - Get proven wrong not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 times
Step 3 - Climb on a mirror and say "but but, I said thank you! I was a good boy, see!!! It was all clarified, we are good friends now!!!!"

[nokowi]

Are you sure? Completely, utterly sure that you aren't playing the victim here? Completely sure that you aren't playing the victim of griefing and trolling by someone who said a different opinion than yours in another thread, unrelated to this one, that you chose to bring into this one?


Pointing out false statements you have made is not claiming victim status.

You are trying to apply victim status to me - I have no need of it.

You don't know me, and a such there is not really anything you could do here to make me a victim.

[nokowi]

Lolz.
Step 1 - Claim I never said "you are not contributing to the discussion"
Step 2 - Get proven wrong not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 times
Step 3 - Climb on a mirror and say "but but, I said thank you! I was a good boy, see!!! It was all clarified, we are good friends now!!!!"

It sounds like you are unable to understand the context of the discussion Rys and I had.

Please ask her about it when you get the chance.

Saying that I think you made no contributions, after I clearly thanked both Rys and Wizza for your contributions, is completely false, despite you misinterpretation of the thread.

When you have to ignore two separate thank you's to be correct, you are wrong.

[Wizza]

It sounds like you are unable to understand the context of the discussion Rys and I had.

Please ask her about it when you get the chance.


As I said:


Lolz.

Step 1 - Claim I never said "you are not contributing to the discussion"
Step 2 - Get proven wrong not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 times
Step 3 - Climb on a mirror and say "but but, I said thank you! I was a good boy, see!!! It was all clarified, we are good friends now!!!!"

We can change Step 3 to - Climb on a mirror and say "but but, you don't understand the context of the discussion! I was a good boy, see!!! It was all clarified, we are good friends now!!!!"

[nokowi]

As I said:

We can change Step 3 to - Climb on a mirror and say "but but, you don't understand the context of the discussion! I was a good boy, see!!! It was all clarified, we are good friends now!!!!"

The problem is you argue that I think you made no contribution after I thanked you, Rys, and Lynnabel for your contributions.

As such, quoting things out of context can not make you correct.

Having told you I think you made contributions, you are arguing that I didn't.

It's quite humorous. Keep quoting though - popcorn needs to be eaten.




When you have to ignore two separate thank you's to be correct, you are wrong.

[Wizza]

The problem is you argue that I think you made no contribution

I don't think that you said it. I quoted where you said it, 4 times :)

But hey, thank you fixes everything.

[nokowi]

I don't think that you said it. I quoted where you said it, 4 times :)

But hey, thank you fixes everything.


Step 1. Tell Nokowi he made no contributions
Step 2. Complain that Nokowi thinks you made no contributions after he specifically, by name, thanked you for your contributions
Step 3. Ignore the thank you and misquote Nokowi posts that Rys responses to Nokowi were not thread-related, and contributed to the length and unproductiveness of the thread

You can keep doing #3 (ensuring more of the thing complained about - thread length).

It is #2 that makes you wrong.

[nokowi]

I don't think that you said it. I quoted where you said it, 4 times :)


I clarified that the responses to my posts by Rys were not productive or thread related, and contributed to the thread length she complained about --> which is also exactly what you are doing here.

You seem unable to comprehend the clarification.

[Wizza]

Step 1. Tell Nokowi he made no contributions
Step 2. Complain that Nokowi thinks you made no contributions after he specifically, by name, thanked you for your contributions
Step 3. Ignore the thank you and misquote Nokowi posts that Rys responses to Nokowi were not thread-related, and contributed to the length and unproductiveness of the thread

You can keep doing #3 (ensuring more of the thing complained about - thread length).

It is #2 that makes you wrong.

Aw, copied my format too! Really can't stay off me, can you?

This has all been incredibly fun! Thank you for being my fan! Cannot wait to have another incredibly discussion where you prove your knowledge once again.

[nokowi]

Aw, copied my format too! Really can't stay off me, can you?

You can go look where I had left the thread and there was a 3 person complaint fest about Nokowi.

I think you may need to rethink who is obsessed with who.




This has all been incredibly fun! Thank you for being my fan! Cannot wait to have another incredibly discussion where you prove your knowledge once again.


I'd prefer its actually related to the subject matter of the thread, but that is of course your choice.

Trying to prove that I think you made no contribution after I specifically thanked you for your contribution must have been mighty important to you! You can check the page numbers to see which happened first (hint: it was the thank you's)

Maybe next thread will be more on-target???

[Rys]

I feel that players could have fully tested what values they now need in the time it took to complain in this forum.

I find this entire line of complaints silly (we need auto-win), especially from anyone who said no to easy buttons.



I clarified that the responses to my posts by Rys were not productive or thread related, and contributed to the thread length she complained about --> which is also exactly what you are doing here.


You want to have a discussion but throw in a few insults here and there. Then you say I don't contribute to the discussion when I take those insults and call you out on them. Spare those if you want to have a discussion next time because it is a classic straw man.


I assumed anyone who knows how to play the game goes for no fail.

Feel free to tell us why you choose not to do this. I'm certainly interested to hear why substandard DC's are preferred by you.

You don't need to go for no fail to prove that you know how to play. In fact, it's quite the contrary.

[Iriale]

So that's why I have such variable results on SR cheks lately. Anyway, one more reason why I'm glad I stopped supporting the game financially. Definitely, DDO is no longer for me.

A question for SSG. When will you change the Dungeons & Dragons title of the game? Please, this is no longer D&D, assume it.

Wizza, ignore nokowi. Focus on the issue of thread, and do not let him divert it. Do not give more importance to the distractions they have

[Gremmlynn]

Drow mobs should only have 6 SR unless they have all the same gear and enhancements which isn't likely unless they are shopping at Sam's club for equipment. pc drow dropped from base 40 with no equipment to base 10... how is that fair compared to the opponents.PC drow are being driven by real brains, NPC drow by rather limited AI. How is that fair?

[JOTMON]

PC drow are being driven by real brains, NPC drow by rather limited AI. How is that fair?

Its not, the AI cheats while players are constrained by rules, cooldowns, mana bars, walls, and other limitations.

[nokowi]

You want to have a discussion but throw in a few insults here and there. Then you say I don't contribute to the discussion when I take those insults and call you out on them. Spare those if you want to have a discussion next time because it is a classic straw man.

I made factual statements about how you two have been inconsistent. I believe you are attempting to be the victim to deflect from your inconsistencies.

What exactly makes you a victim here? Be specific in your response instead of throwing out unsupported claims. Feel free to respond and participate in a discussion, instead of making unsupported claims. Claiming strawman while offering no specifics is ... a strawman claim... Note the specifics of my response below:

Stating Wizza said a particular playstyle was broken, and then noting that he likes to also throw out the opposite in response to my posts is not an insult - it is a fact, as proven in this thread. He threw in the comments about assassin in this thread an opened himself up to that response. I didn't bring his inconsistency up (yes, I've know about it for months and never chosen to respond when he trolls my posts about how great assassin is) before he claimed the opposite of his prior posts in this very thread. He should be accountable for saying things that are clearly untrue - you can judge the purpose of him doing so for yourself. He is not a victim when he chooses to do this, nor when I call him out for what he actually did.

Hardly a strawman argument - I laid out the proof for you. Respond to the specifics instead of claiming strawman. Tell us why these actions make Wizza a victim.





You don't need to go for no fail to prove that you know how to play. In fact, it's quite the contrary.

The context of my comments was that players routinely design for no fail because the game allows them to do so. I talked about how a variable target DC makes this more difficult (something related to the thread and the new implementation - despite the claims of no contributions)

The fact that you can succeed at 80% success rate does nothing to disprove or reduce my statement. In my example on page 6 of this thread, (repeated in the next post), Variable DC with a d10 makes you get +8 more DC to get from 80% to 100%, instead of the +4 it took previously. My example has little/no change for anyone at 80% success rate. Feel free to respond to my statements and participate in a discussion.

[nokowi]

So that's why I have such variable results on SR cheks lately. Anyway, one more reason why I'm glad I stopped supporting the game financially. Definitely, DDO is no longer for me.

A question for SSG. When will you change the Dungeons & Dragons title of the game? Please, this is no longer D&D, assume it.

Wizza, ignore nokowi. Focus on the issue of thread, and do not let him divert it. Do not give more importance to the distractions they have

Except that I posted about variable DC and what is actually does in-practice, directly related to the thread. There were some clear misconceptions that it helped the min/maxers, which were proven wrong by the numbers I posted.

The off-target stuff is ignoring posts related to the new implementation because it is inconvenient to your viewpoint, and doing other things that are unrelated to the thread. Spending time to try and prove Nokowi didn't give credit for the Op expressing a change in the game (when I did) is a perfect example. Bringing up spiders in Kings forest is a perfect example. Telling Nokowi he can't post about a change in the game, while posting about a change in the game, is a perfect example. My response to these posts are a perfect example. Several people are to blame here for a long thread. Let's not make it longer by trying to assign blame solely to one person and choose winners - there are none.

You can respond specifically as to why the numbers I posted are wrong, or why they don't do the things i said they do. That would be responding to the topic that is of most importance to this thread - the variable nature of SR now.

If there is just a miss chance now, and the target is not variable, then of course no further discussion about variable DC is necessary.

This thread will be on track the minute people stop claiming victim status, and start posting about the implementation instead of about other people.

All that remains is a discussion of what is good or bad about the new variable SR - and in words that talk about the implementation rather than other people.

Here is the last relevant post to variable DC, from 4 pages ago:


Here is how a target of 45+d10 provides a bigger range of usefulness than a static DC of 50.

Note that DC 45+d10 allows DC's of 26 to 54 to be useful, and requires the most investment at the top end to reach no fail. This allows those with 4 or 5 less DC to be much closer in performance to the best builds than a flat 5% per +1 (with a fixed target).

It takes +4 DC to get that last +5%, and you only get +9% from the +3 DC before that. Variable DC rewards more investment, and keeps those behind closer to the min/maxers. It's a win for everyone. The "randomness is stupid" crowd will have to explain why these are bad things.

I could make the variable target DC 44+d10 if you want the variable target to always be better at the low end. (Shift the right column values up by 1)




Player Value +d20
Fixed Target of 50
Target 45+d10


26+d20
0.0%
0.5%


27+d20
0.0%
1.5%


28+d20
0.0%
3.0%


29+d20
0.0%
5.0%


30+d20
5.0%
7.5%


31+d20
10.0%
10.5%


32+d20
15.0%
14.0%


33+d20
20.0%
18.0%


34+d20
25.0%
22.5%


35+d20
30.0%
27.5%


36+d20
35.0%
32.5%


37+d20
40.0%
37.5%


38+d20
45.0%
42.5%


39+d20
50.0%
47.5%


40+d20
55.0%
52.5%


41+d20
60.0%
57.5%


42+d20
65.0%
62.5%


43+d20
70.0%
67.5%


44+d20
75.0%
72.5%


45+d20
80.0%
77.5%


46+d20
85.0%
82.0%


47+d20
90.0%
86.0%


48+d20
95.0%
89.5%


49+d20
100.0%
92.5%


50+d20
100.0%
95.0%


51+d20
100.0%
97.0%


52+d20
100.0%
98.5%


53+d20
100.0%
99.5%


54+d20
100.0%
100.0%

[SeveredSteel]

Here is how a target of 45+d10 provides a bigger range of usefulness than a static DC of 50.

Note that DC 45+d10 allows DC's of 26 to 54 to be useful, and requires the most investment at the top end to reach no fail. This allows those with 4 or 5 less DC to be much closer in performance to the best builds than a flat 5% per +1 (with a fixed target).

Yeah, because the caster of a spell has to roll the save for the mob against his own spell? That DC of 26 would be going up against 45+d20+d10. The DC doesn't get the d20 roll, the target's save does... Your own system doesn't work. The one we have now has variables, like rolling a 1 or a 20. Glad you don't design games; you would probably quit your own game after this kind of blunder and then troll your own game forum afterwards.

[nokowi]

Yeah, because the caster of a spell has to roll the save for the mob against his own spell? That DC of 26 would be going up against 45+d20+d10. The DC doesn't get the d20 roll, the target's save does... Your own system doesn't work. The one we have now has variables, like rolling a 1 or a 20. Glad you don't design games; you would probably quit your own game after this kind of blunder and then troll your own game forum afterwards.

It doesn't matter who rolls the d20 (it's the computer either way, right?). The outcome is the same, and the computer coding can be exactly the same.

I listed a DC system (and labeled it as such) because the results can be applied to both DC and SR systems (SR is a type of difficulty check). If it's too difficult for you to make the transition, say so, and I can re-post with the exact same conclusions.

Please keep your troll comments to actual troll posts - I listed several examples of troll posts such as the reference to spiders in Kings Forest.

The fact that d20 and d20+d10 are both random does not make them the same. My results showed how and why they are different - go read them again if needed - it's called probability, and it's why the high and low end of the DC curve don't matter as much with 2 dice, while the middle is at +5% per +1 DC.

The blunder was not on my end.

[SeveredSteel]

It doesn't matter who rolls the d20 (it's the computer either way, right?). The outcome is the same, and the computer coding can be exactly the same.


- go read them again if needed - it's called probability.

No, it is not the same. At all. Do you even know how this works? because if the d20 is applied to the DC instead of the save, then it would need to be a totally new system. One that uses d20s for your dc and d10 for your saves? u wot m8? And does nothing to address no fails, because 45+10 gets no fail if the dc is 55+. \

L. O. L.

[HuneyMunster]

It doesn't matter who rolls the d20 (it's the computer either way, right?). The outcome is the same, and the computer coding can be exactly the same.

I listed a DC system (and labeled it as such) because the results can be applied to both DC and SR systems (SR is a type of difficulty check). If it's too difficult for you to make the transition, say so, and I can re-post with the exact same conclusions.

Please keep your troll comments to actual troll posts - I listed several examples of troll posts such as the reference to spiders in Kings Forest.

The fact that d20 and d20+d10 are both random does not make them the same. My results showed how and why they are different - go read them again if needed - it's called probability, and it's why the high and low end of the DC curve don't matter as much with 2 dice, while the middle is at +5% per +1 DC.

The blunder was not on my end.

I don't see how the poster is considered trolling as all they did was point out the mistake you made in your formula.

Anyway ddo is based on the d20 system, maybe instead you should post on dnd.wizards and tell them to adopt your new system as the one they are using is flawed.

All you doing is changing the bar for no fail.

[nokowi]

No, it is not the same. At all. Do you even know how this works? because if the d20 is applied to the DC instead of the save, then it would need to be a totally new system. One that uses d20s for your dc and d10 for your saves? u wot m8? And does nothing to address no fails, because 45+10 gets no fail if the dc is 55+. \

L. O. L.

Thinking that the player makes one roll and the mob makes another is your misunderstanding that a computer grabs one random number for a d20 either way.

I fully understand your comments.

I compared two systems (static vs +d10) which cancels out the things you are talking about.

If I always have $5 more than you, you are arguing that how many dollars you have actually changes that fact.

When comparing two systems, it is the difference that matters. The difference in the two systems is the same whether you add or subtract a d20 from both rolls.

[nokowi]

All you doing is changing the bar for no fail.

I'm discussing what a variable target does or does not do.

Changing the no-fail pulls those less invested closer to those fully invested. If you feel this makes no difference, you can go talk to all the people complaining about power creep.

I don't decide if DDO is a d20 system or not, so your d20 comments have nothing to do with me. DDO does not actually roll a d20, by the way (it picks a number between 0 and 1 and then scales it), and is full of non-d20 mechanics.

[SeveredSteel]

Thinking that the player makes one roll and the mob makes another is your misunderstanding that a computer grabs one random number for a d20 either way..

No. That is not how math works. You're better at math than this. I would let you try really hard to figure out that where the rolls apply matters, but you're already 6 pages of mistake and regret deep.

[nokowi]

No. That is not how math works. You're better at math than this. I would let you try really hard to figure out that where the rolls apply matters, but you're already 6 pages of mistake and regret deep.

If you were to grab an actual SR and see what you need, it would matter. That's not the purpose of the numbers I posted (hint: the +d10 is an example value).

To see how two systems compare, it does not matter, and the results I posted apply both SR or spell DC checks. I'm really, really, sorry this confused you, caused you to tell me to be disgraced, and not add to the thread productively. I mentioned DC values which should have been your clue.

Someone else already got the correct conclusion from my results (it extends the no fail). The low end doesn't really matter.

[SeveredSteel]

If you were to grab an actual SR and see what you need, it would matter. That's not the purpose of the numbers I posted (hint: the +d10 is an example value).

Poor example then. You don't even know how your won system would work. My spells have a d20 roll now? Target's saves have a d10 instead? ***....

But, no, please continue. I feel a bit of familiarity when a system change is proposed by someone that doesn't understand how the old system works or how their new system doesn't work, but will feel the need to force it upon you anyway. It's almost as if you work for turbine.

[Iriale]

No, someone got the correct conclusion that your system is not D&D. You and SSG should remember that this game is named Dungeon&Dragons Online. But, yes, we know that this team of devs has forgotten this. And maybe for this the player base is declining so fast. This is a niche game with a strong connection with D&D gamers. If SSG convert this game in a generic MMPRG, a lot of D&D players will leave. And SSG, remember: there are plenty of newer MMRPGs with better graphics. DDO was special because was a D&D-based videogame.

Anyways, I repeat the question to the devs: When you will change the name of the game? Because this game is not D&D anymore.

[nokowi]

Poor example then. You don't even know how your won system would work. My spells have a d20 roll now? Target's saves have a d10 instead? ***....

But, no, please continue. I feel a bit of familiarity when a system change is proposed by someone that doesn't understand how the old system works or how their new system doesn't work, but will feel the need to force it upon you anyway. It's almost as if you work for turbine.

The example I used was that an additional (d10-6) is added to what you currently need (variable target). There is a d20 roll in both systems. The results apply to SR or DC checks with variable targets.

Current: Left Hand column
Variable Target: Right Hand column

There is not a d10 roll in place of a d20 roll.

Please ask for clarification before you make so many accusations.

[SeveredSteel]

The example I used was that an additional (d10-6) is added to what you currently need (variable target). There is a d20 roll in both systems.

There is not a d10 roll in place of a d20 roll.


There is a d10 roll in place of the d20, unless you want the save to be 45=d20+d10.... In your mistaken belief that a d20 is added to the dc roll instead of the save roll. just stop. you're going to hurt yourself.

[nokowi]

No, someone got the correct conclusion that your system is not D&D. You and SSG should remember that this game is named Dungeon&Dragons Online. But, yes, we know that this team of devs has forgotten this. And maybe for this the player base is declining so fast. This is a niche game with a strong connection with D&D gamers. If SSG convert this game in a generic MMPRG, a lot of D&D players will leave. And SSG, remember: there are plenty of newer MMRPGs with better graphics. DDO was special because was a D&D-based videogame.

Anyways, I repeat the question to the devs: When you will change the name of the game? Because this game is not D&D anymore.

I play D&D and I run into kobolds with different stats and unique backgrounds. I run into similar dragon types with different DC's and SR values.

The variable stats mimic what any good DM would do when players learn too much about their foes (add variety).

Once I met an Dwarf that identified as an Elf.

I'm sorry if your D&D experience is not as diverse as mine.

(I still roll d20's, by the way)

[nokowi]

There is a d10 roll in place of the d20, unless you want the save to be 45=d20+d10.... In your mistaken belief that a d20 is added to the dc roll instead of the save roll. just stop. you're going to hurt yourself.

I showed a d20 AND a d10 in my numbers.

d20 on the left column and d10 for the 3rd (variable DC column)
d20 on the left column and no d10 for the second column (static DC column)

Both columns use a d20 (listing it once was easier than typing it two times for you, sorry again!). One also uses a d10.

[SeveredSteel]

I showed a d20 AND a d10 in my numbers.


why is the d20 in the dc column? because you don't know what you're doing....

[nokowi]

why is the d20 in the dc column? because you don't know what you're doing....

Because that's how it would work in D&D for a DC check and I only had to type it one time.

The DC and SR values are both static in D&D, and the listed numbers will make more sense to anyone that plays D&D.

I offered to re-post for you if you required it (several pages ago).

Admit that you need this, and I will post an SR table in additional to the DC table I already posted.

[nokowi]

because you don't know what you're doing....

You didn't understand it, but it says DC for you.

You should be arguing the table is confusing - and ask for it in a format that makes more sense to you - instead of throwing negatives at someone that took the time to list probabilities that many on the forums are not capable of doing themselves.

[SeveredSteel]

Because that's how it would work in D&D for a DC check

No. Look, if you can't figure out where the DC roll applies to in regards to a save against a spell; you should just admit the last 6 pages of your system are trash.

[nokowi]

Your reaper mode blanket of mechanics doesn't really make too much sense. I can make a succesful SR check on Reaper but I can't on Elite. Isn't the reaper mode supposed to be more challenging than Elite?

Unless you are talking about trees (which we were both against), it depends on the implementation used.

If you require this, yes it would be easy to design in such a way as to meet your preferences.

[nokowi]

No. Look, if you can't figure out where the DC roll applies to in regards to a save against a spell; you should just admit the last 6 pages of your system are trash.

I said several pages ago I understood, and offered to repost the table for you, if you need it. No request has happened.

Anyone that plays D&D will understand what the tables mean, as posted.

Our definition of trash differs I think.

[SeveredSteel]

I said several pages ago I understood, and offered to repost the table for you, if you need it. No request has happened.
.
why would I request yet another incorrect table of your failing ideas?

[nokowi]

why would I request yet another incorrect table of your failing ideas?

Others have been able to use the table as presented.

You haven't addressed any ideas related to the thread - only the presentation of the table and what an awful person someone must be if you don't like their table presentation for a video game forum.

[Rys]

So that's why I have such variable results on SR cheks lately. Anyway, one more reason why I'm glad I stopped supporting the game financially. Definitely, DDO is no longer for me.

Not sure if it it's a brand new mechanic. Maybe we just didn't notice because there wasn't much content with high SR mobs. But who knows when it happened if it's not documented in the release notes.

[SeveredSteel]

Others have been able to use the table as presented.
.

Yeah, sure... Maybe use it to tell you that your system is faulty and that you should keep your day job.

[nokowi]

Yeah, sure... Maybe use it to tell you that your system is faulty and that you should keep your day job.

I'm using it for discussion about variable DC.

The table has already shown someone that thought variable DC helped the min/maxers what really happens, and it has shown someone what happens at the top end --> and how that helps those without maximum investment in DC.

The idea would be that someone that invests in a full DC build, without the +3 DC from past lives can still perform very near peak performance.

It limits the benefit of earning the reaper tree (DC or SP) to more diversity plus some power rather than total power creep. Something complained about by people in this thread.

[SeveredSteel]

I'm using it for discussion about variable DC..

good for you. now you only need to figure out where each roll applies to. you're coming all swell.

[nokowi]

good for you. now you only need to figure out where each roll applies to. you're coming all swell.

/ignore

[SeveredSteel]

/ignore

/doesn't make this any better for you or your crappy idea

[zehnvhex]

The problem with your idea Nok is it's not grounded in reality. Nobody builds a DC/SR caster until they have a significantly high chance of no fail. Having someone hit 5% chance to land a spell a few DC's lower isn't going to make it suddenly attractive or a good idea.

They're still going to wait until they have a 90%+ chance to reliably land spells to do a DC caster and you're just delaying that.

[nokowi]

The problem with your idea Nok is it's not grounded in reality. Nobody builds a DC/SR caster until they have a significantly high chance of no fail. Having someone hit 5% chance to land a spell a few DC's lower isn't going to make it suddenly attractive or a good idea.

They're still going to wait until they have a 90%+ chance to reliably land spells to do a DC caster and you're just delaying that.

Thanks for your response.

I made a similar statement about no-fail earlier, but was told that is not the case by Wizza And Rys. I suppose it depends if you are going insta kill or char, or maybe on your preferred reaper setting or just plain personal preferences.

I used (d10-6) as my scaling, but you can change the scaling to match 90% at the same point, while still needing more investment to actually reach 100%.

Or you can do something else to meet whatever preference you like best.

There is no requirement to delay anything, except the last bit to reach 100% will take more effort with a variable DC.

If you desire 90% or more, think of the reaper DC's getting you from 90% to 100% on an invested build, or dropping some DC investment choices to stay at 90 or 95% and pick something else.

d10-5 matches right at 90%. You can look at the table I posted and move each value in the third column up by one, to see that d10-5 would make the 90% static chance into an 89.5% for variable DC. It still requires +6 more DC to get to 100%.

Same investment to reach 90%, but much more investment to get to 100% (+6 additional DC variable vs only +2 additional DC static).

If you complained about reaper tree DC power creep, this would be a partial fix that gives you more interesting build options, as you yourself said everyone is currently going to maximize DC to no fail. At ~1.6% per DC above 90%, that may not be the case.

Once you reach 100%, you could drop +6 DC from build choices if you were happy enough with 90% success rate.

[Pyed-Pyper]

Don't thank me, thank the people who politely and calmly brought this to my attention again. Also, seriously, don't thank me, I'm the one that tested this out in the first place and didn't try it on a Drow NPC.

There are so many things to consider when making a change, I can imagine it would be very easy to miss something. Everyone makes mistakes, the important thing is fixing them. Thanks for fixing things.

[Morroiel]

So what's the status on this?

I used to be able to break spell pen 100% on drow in monestary without any problem - now it seems like I fail a ton the time with a >+45 to spell pen on drow cr 22-25 mobs.

[Wizza]

So what's the status on this?

I used to be able to break spell pen 100% on drow in monestary without any problem - now it seems like I fail a ton the time with a >+45 to spell pen on drow cr 22-25 mobs.

Probably have to wait until the patch of divines. Or, more likely, Wait for Ravenloft™