Crowd Control/Heroic Surge Feedback

[Favis]

Monsters breaking cc in 3.5, 2.5 or 1 minute and requiring 2 spells to reapply will destroy your strategy in a 3 minute protect? Yeah, the elite numbers are at the edge of what is reasonable, but come on.

There are many thing that I disslike with HS working on monster one of them is the increase of imunities.
So it's not like you can re-cast the spell ones they they are under HS (as you can when you get a ordinary save).
(Asuming that you are refrering to HS above).

[Zenako]

Monsters breaking cc in 3.5, 2.5 or 1 minute and requiring 2 spells to reapply will destroy your strategy in a 3 minute protect? Yeah, the elite numbers are at the edge of what is reasonable, but come on.

Heroic surge is a NON FACTOR on higher settings. The Mobs have already saved from those multiminute (on paper) spells almost before you can hit them with anything else. CC will require one or more Energy Drains First to not only land, but to make anything stick for more than a few seconds. Saves frequency was hardcoded according to Mad and will be going live. Wait and see the cries of anquish when that happens. It will not be pretty. The ONLY spells where HS come into play appears to be ones that did not have recurring saves before, and did not get one in the update.

Have you actually tried out CC on Lamannia? If so on which quests? I had a capped enchantment focused wizard out there (DC 35 on enchantment spells with no outside help like Spellsongs which is pretty good without any specific raid gear beyond the Napkin). Save frequency on spells has been dramatically increased to being every few seconds. That means even with semi poor saves, the mobs roll high soon enough to be an issue.

Flip the coin. Lets reduce the duration of Barbarian Frenzy to a flat 10 seconds, period. That will do for DPS what this does for CC in many circumstances. Yes you can still land it or rage, but you will spend more time reraging or recasting those spells than doing anything else.

[shadosatblackphoenix]

There are many thing that I disslike with HS working on monster one of them is the increase of imunities.
So it's not like you can re-cast the spell ones they they are under HS (as you can when you get a ordinary save).
(Asuming that you are refrering to HS above).

And even if you could, you'll run out of SP doing so. Its not like there's a countdown on top of the mob telling you when they're ready...so if the mob is a threat, you may end up casting the spell again 1-2 time, sometimes wondering if you just lagged (happens all the time), if they resisted, or if it was HS.

Epic Spell Storing Ring aside, even sorcerers would feel the sting fast enough in longer quests, especially at lower level. As it is, in quests like Chains of Flame, which, many will agree, is a quest where CC is "god", you seriously have to throttle it if you're doing the quest at level 12 (quest level). You already will NOT be able to do "something" (anything, be it CC or damage spells) on every encounter (maybe on a sorc, but its borderline). Having to reapply would seriously mean sitting it out for a big chunk of the quest.

So fun!

Again: spells have to last long because in a game where you don't regen spell points (even in quests with infinite respawns), spells need to last forever to compensate. Sure, if you do 6 man balanced parties decked in greensteel exclusively, sure, but don't we want to keep the creative aspect that is allowed in this game?

[Borror0]

Heroic surge is a NON FACTOR on higher settings. The Mobs have already saved from those multiminute (on paper) spells almost before you can hit them with anything else.

Zenako, you have to realize you're talking about a completely different thing than all of us are talking about.

Look, I agreed with you that the repeated saves for Flesh to Stone, dominate Person and Dominate Monster were too frequent. After I said that, no one disagreed with me. Thus, when you're making that kind of argument you're preaching to the choir. No one disagrees with you on that.

What we're discussing the maximum duration and nothing else. For the sake of the argument, let's ignore the changes on Lamannia and let's assume it's exactly the same as on Live. No more frequent saves. Under those circumstances, do you believe that it would be problematic for Fascinate, Suggestion, Mass Suggestion and Flesh to Stone to have a reduced duration and perhaps more frequent saves or to you think it would be a good balancing decision?

[Zenako]

Zenako, you have to realize you're talking about a completely different thing than all of us are talking about.

Look, I agreed with you that the repeated saves for Flesh to Stone, dominate Person and Dominate Monster were too frequent. After I said that, no one disagreed with me. Thus, when you're making that kind of argument you're preaching to the choir. No one disagrees with you on that.

What we're discussing the maximum duration and nothing else. For the sake of the argument, let's ignore the changes on Lamannia and let's assume it's exactly the same as on Live. No more frequent saves. Under those circumstances, do you believe that it would be problematic for Fascinate, Suggestion, Mass Suggestion and Flesh to Stone to have a reduced duration and perhaps more frequent saves or to you think it would be a good balancing decision?

But if you read the post I was actually responding to, that was exactly the inference I got from it. That that poster was focused on how he felt no one should care about the changes since they (HS timers) were long enough to not matter for him. My point was that yes, from a purely Heroic Surge standpoint, probably true, SINCE, HS is largely irrelevant to most CC spells. This is a Crowd Control / Heroic Surge Thread and the two aspects of the changes are both fair game from where I sit.

I do not feel we can ignore the changes on Lamannia, they will be going live in a couple of days, and probably be with us for weeks or months, or perhaps forever depending on who makes the final call. Pretending it won't happen does nothing to further the discussion. People will be affected.

[Borror0]

But if you read the post I was actually responding to, that was exactly the inference I got from it.

I understood that, but you're misreading several of our posts when you do that.

all of us think that the changes to Flesh to Stone and dominate are unacceptable. You have made that claim and I have made that claim, yet no one has come to either challenge us on that claim by saying that either of those changes were just right. I do think Flesh to Stone needs reoccurring saves but too frequent is too frequent. If MadFloyd is still reading, he probably understood that the changes made in Update 3 to Dominate and Flesh to Stone are bad and need to be revised.

I do not feel we can ignore the changes on Lamannia, they will be going live in a couple of days, and probably be with us for weeks or months, or perhaps forever depending on who makes the final call. Pretending it won't happen does nothing to further the discussion. People will be affected.

I agree with you on this, but you have to realize that there are several discussions going at once. The ideal maximum duration for spells and the ideal frequency of reoccurring saves for specific spells are completely different discussions.

If you reply to a post about maximum duration by saying that "these changes will impact players at all challenge levels, and change quest dynamics notably" you're risking to confuse the readers or, worse, start a pointless argument where the two opposed sides are talking about two different things. If you want to talk about the frequency of saves on Dominate, go for it! This thread is the right place for it but don't respond to unrelated posts.

Now that it's clear, what is your opinion on capping the duration of all CC spells at 1 minute?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Instead of debating with the 2 posters that are typing the most, and to try to take a step back and look at the whole picture....

There have been about 3-4 notables that arent really that bothered by this change. 2 of them have posted by far the most often in here. Im not really concerned with that, I just want to make sure that EVERYONE's opinion is counted.

Not done yet, but here's who spoke out against in the first 12 pages alone:

Zenako
BoBoDaClown
Mjesko
InSoNiAc
Favis
Sarr
Harncw
Cedrica-the-Bard
geoffhanna
fuzzy1guy
joneb1999
ieatogres
Shade
Lifespawn
Ponza69
Angelus_dead
Arctigis
Calogrenant
dopey69
Mistinarperadnacles
Ranmaru2
Shoal
Gorbadoc
natakeu
Mannyfrez
KillEveryone
calvinklien
Aashrym
JPDefault
mediocresurgeon
Xyfiel
Emili
Pharaun78
Kemoc
Lorien_the_First_One
mavannas
Pyromaniac
Kriogen

I'm hoping Turbine is listening to Everybody's concerns, that is all.

[Borror0]

Im not really concerned with that, I just want to make sure that EVERYONE's opinion is counted.

Joey Naylor: ...so what happens when you're wrong?
Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I'm never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But you can't always be right...
Nick Naylor: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong?
Nick Naylor: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say...
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other.
Nick Naylor: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about
Nick Naylor: Ah! But that's what I'm talking about.
Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best...
Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.
[points into the crowd]

[Xyfiel]

Zenako, you have to realize you're talking about a completely different thing than all of us are talking about.

Look, I agreed with you that the repeated saves for Flesh to Stone, dominate Person and Dominate Monster were too frequent. After I said that, no one disagreed with me. Thus, when you're making that kind of argument you're preaching to the choir. No one disagrees with you on that.

What we're discussing the maximum duration and nothing else. For the sake of the argument, let's ignore the changes on Lamannia and let's assume it's exactly the same as on Live. No more frequent saves. Under those circumstances, do you believe that it would be problematic for Fascinate, Suggestion, Mass Suggestion and Flesh to Stone to have a reduced duration and perhaps more frequent saves or to you think it would be a good balancing decision?

All of the following is assuming no HS.

Hold and Fts have similiar characteristics. Hold was changed from 6 second intervals to 2 second intervals back in 2006. I think 6 seconds would be fine for Fts.
1) Hold can be blocked from racial immunity or freedom of movement, fts can't be blocked.
2) Fts still gives auto hit/crit but gives 10dr, making it take longer to kill you/them.
3) 6 seconds with a good save would mean breaking free within 6-12 seconds. Even with a poor save, you have a good chance of breaking free in 30(6 rolls).
4) Against mobs with poor fort saves, you are looking at a 30 second CC. Add in a energy drain effect for longer. Even with a high dc, they can still break with a high roll, making it more unpredictable.
5) Petrification effects should be made similiar.

Fascinate/motd/motm
1) changed to have recurring saves every 6 seconds also.
2) duration 20 + (3*bard level) =23-80 seconds
Song Dc is already highest in game, mobs still will need to roll high/20 to break. This still gives the give party time to reprepare for fight, a good cc, while not being exploitive.

Suggestion songs/spells
Since these are not as powerful as dominate, would make them break on certain hp thresholds depending on difficulty. You are suggesting the mob to fight for you, but they won't kill themselves in doing it. Charmed monsters when charmed should not count against DA, but once broken, should. Meaning that you can charm a room and run by, but once they beat each other down, you will gain alert and maybe be across the map. This allows us to still use it for effective CC, then kill them as they break or dismiss them to kill them. It will not allow us to ignore the mobs, and if it does, tweak the percentages.
Casual=10%
Normal=20%
Hard=40%
Elite=60%
Epic=80%

[Borror0]

Suggestion songs/spells
Since these are not as powerful as dominate, would make them break on certain hp thresholds depending on difficulty.

That's the only one I would really disagree with in your post.

First of all, I'm not of a big fan of scaling anything player-related depending on difficulty because it messes up with the spell descriptions and feels like a hack. Secondly, the number you proposed would end up being too powerful on some difficulties (Casual and normal for certain and perhaps Hard too).

Currently, Suggestion lasts 6 second/caster level for a total of 4 minutes at level 20 with Extend. Obviously, this needs reducing because, were it to land even just 40% of the time, Mass Suggestion would be overpowered but it would be good for Extend to retain some utility. I would thus suggest to cap the duration at a fixed 20s and have Extend increase it to 40s. If that ends up being too powerful, throw in some reoccurring save in there somewhere.

Talking about reoccurring saves, how frequent are the saves for Charm Monster and Charm Person? The Compendium says 3d6+12 seconds but that sounds much less frequent than what I remember. It could be an incorrect perception, but...

[redoubt]

While attempting to leave the horsebeating, I again mentioned improving the AI.

Why does no one else discuss this as an alternative?

It seems to me that smarter bad guys would also fix the problem with altering the spells themselves. You could also remove many immunites if the enemy was smarter.

A second way is through dungeon design. Someone else mentioned it, but it gets lost in all the yelling over who's right.

For example: Ritual sacrifice. There are rooms there where mass CC spells simply don't hit everything. Lots of mobs perched in places etc. The time required to CC everything is long. Melee and ranged characters can contribute at the same time.

[Xyfiel]

That's the only one I would really disagree with in your post.

First of all, I'm not of a big fan of scaling anything player-related depending on difficulty because it messes up with the spell descriptions and feels like a hack. Secondly, the number you proposed would end up being too powerful on some difficulties (Casual and normal for certain and perhaps Hard too).

Currently, Suggestion lasts 6 second/caster level for a total of 4 minutes at level 20 with Extend. Obviously, this needs reducing because, were it to land even just 40% of the time, Mass Suggestion would be overpowered but it would be good for Extend to retain some utility. I would thus suggest to cap the duration at a fixed 20s and have Extend increase it to 40s. If that ends up being too powerful, throw in some reoccurring save in there somewhere.

Talking about reoccurring saves, how frequent are the saves for Charm Monster and Charm Person? The Compendium says 3d6+12 seconds but that sounds much less frequent than what I remember. It could be an incorrect perception, but...

I would never use the song due to how long it takes to fascinate THEN suggest for 20 seconds. Of course the suggest song should be a seperate song that does both requiring only one singing. I think the biggest issue is trying to balance low level suggest song/spell with high level mass song/spell. You can't extend the song, nor can you drank pots for more of them. It is why I gave fascinate a base +per level so it wasn't gimp in the lower levels.

I think a formula will be easy once we determine a good duration. I don't like 20/40, seems to low to me. I wouldn't go under 30/60, and 45/90 would be more to my liking.

I took CM mass on my lastest sorc, I don't factor on hitting casters with it so I never perceived it as broken.

[Zenako]

I think that pretty much everyone would support a smarter AI (at least those posting on this thread), but that we can probably also agree that it is a non-trivial task. While specific cases are easy to envision, and solutions exist, the issue becomes with creating a more universal AI.

Often times the "smartest" response will REALLY depend on the nature of the opponents the mobs are facing. How much perfect info are we willing to give the mobs in their decision tree? Will the mobs be able to know, that the group of humanoids charging into their "home" are all HIGH save Paladins and Monks so that most save or nothing spells are pointless? Or are they low WILL save Ftr's who fall to any pretty shiny spell and stand around transfixed? It is a thin line to draw before the player base proclaims the monsters are "cheating" even more.

As for avoiding WoF, and other DOT effects, perhaps that would be easier to code now that they are going to color code those effects in game. You can enter a friendly Red BB, but not a enemy white BB. But what if those barriers block all access to the caster, are they now prevented from doing anything and wait behind while being ranged? Imagine if that coding was in OOB. Just drop a barrier every so often and cut off all pursuit. So now you have to factor in competing goals for the mobs. And what if you have stacked effects, like an Acid Cloud on top of a Wall of Fire?

While smarter AI is easy to desire, it is not easy to build. They have already done a darn good job on many fronts. Notice how hot the seats of many casters and clerics became in higher level content where the mobs can go whereever they want. I have had quests, where my Cleric for example had cast nothing to generate Aggro, yet was the prime destination of all sorts of teleporting mobs. Kinda like one of those Bug Lights on the Deck. Just like we make beelines for the enemy casters in many encounters.

[Xyfiel]

While attempting to leave the horsebeating, I again mentioned improving the AI.

Why does no one else discuss this as an alternative?

It seems to me that smarter bad guys would also fix the problem with altering the spells themselves. You could also remove many immunites if the enemy was smarter.

A second way is through dungeon design. Someone else mentioned it, but it gets lost in all the yelling over who's right.

For example: Ritual sacrifice. There are rooms there where mass CC spells simply don't hit everything. Lots of mobs perched in places etc. The time required to CC everything is long. Melee and ranged characters can contribute at the same time.

Pick all that apply:
1) AI in general isn't that sophisticated
2) DDO engine isn't that sophisticated
3) Programmers aren't that sophisticated
4) The cost outweighs the benefits compared to other options

I am not a AI expert, but I assume it is 4.

[Pharaun78]

An idea regarding charm/suggestion spell duration balance:

Scale recurring saves frequency by monster CR ... a level 2 kobold can still be stoned forever by the lvl 20 caster, giving them the feeling of leetness all casters crave ... whereas the high level monster will break free in 10-20 seconds ...

Makes CR more meaningful, easier to balance quests for Dev's ...

[redoubt]

I think that pretty much everyone would support a smarter AI (at least those posting on this thread), but that we can probably also agree that it is a non-trivial task. While specific cases are easy to envision, and solutions exist, the issue becomes with creating a more universal AI.

Often times the "smartest" response will REALLY depend on the nature of the opponents the mobs are facing. How much perfect info are we willing to give the mobs in their decision tree? Will the mobs be able to know, that the group of humanoids charging into their "home" are all HIGH save Paladins and Monks so that most save or nothing spells are pointless? Or are they low WILL save Ftr's who fall to any pretty shiny spell and stand around transfixed? It is a thin line to draw before the player base proclaims the monsters are "cheating" even more.

As for avoiding WoF, and other DOT effects, perhaps that would be easier to code now that they are going to color code those effects in game. You can enter a friendly Red BB, but not a enemy white BB. But what if those barriers block all access to the caster, are they now prevented from doing anything and wait behind while being ranged? Imagine if that coding was in OOB. Just drop a barrier every so often and cut off all pursuit. So now you have to factor in competing goals for the mobs. And what if you have stacked effects, like an Acid Cloud on top of a Wall of Fire?

While smarter AI is easy to desire, it is not easy to build. They have already done a darn good job on many fronts. Notice how hot the seats of many casters and clerics became in higher level content where the mobs can go whereever they want. I have had quests, where my Cleric for example had cast nothing to generate Aggro, yet was the prime destination of all sorts of teleporting mobs. Kinda like one of those Bug Lights on the Deck. Just like we make beelines for the enemy casters in many encounters.

I know this is probably the most difficult solution. I also think it would be the best one.

Now, that said, its not about giving them mobs foreknowledge of the group. What I'd like to see is the casters react the actions of the group.

For example:
1. Fighter mob is stoned, arcane mob casts break enchantment.
2. Caster mob is enfeebled and can't move, cleric mob cast restore.
3. WoF in the way, caster mobs casts resist on fighter mob that needs to run through (i.e. the mob taking fire damage.)

Now, you can't make it automatic. It would be exploited by us. For example:
Player casts hold monster on a low will save mob = every mob caster spends time casting break enchantment. This can't be allowed.

A couple ways around that are to give the mobs "character". In a group, one my be a healer and have a 75% chance of casting "curative" spells, while another is a "nuker" and only has a 15% chance of helping the other mob. In the same group the "CC mob" might have a 50% chance to help the mob in question.

In single caster situations, assign a probability based on caster type (shaman, arcane, etc) or based on the specific encounter if needed.

[Borror0]

I would never use the song due to how long it takes to fascinate THEN suggest for 20 seconds.

Reducing the induction for songs used against opponents would be a good way to make them be more used.

I don't think the problem is that the effect is too weak. Even back in Module 3-4, how many bards did you know what bothered to Fascinate and then hit them with the Suggestion song? I never had that happen to me, and back then CC was far more powerful than it is today.

I think the biggest issue is trying to balance low level suggest song/spell with high level mass song/spell.

I think the best solution is as follows to make bard PrEs tier II and/or III grant more buff of in-combat songs. Like that, even though the number of uses go up, the number of uses per day required in combat will also go up so it'll more or less balance out.

Using fix durations so that songs don't get much more powerful with levels might help, as well.

I think a formula will be easy once we determine a good duration. I don't like 20/40, seems to low to me. I wouldn't go under 30/60, and 45/90 would be more to my liking.

That's the kind of things that is harder to tell without trying them. The current duration is so long that it's obviously overpowered. However, when you go down to shorter durations it's less obvious. I agree that 20/40 sounds weak but 30/60 sounds a little too much, so 30/60 is probably just right (or at least a good place to start).

I took CM mass on my lastest sorc, I don't factor on hitting casters with it so I never perceived it as broken.

You've lost me there, Xyf.

I was asking for a check on the frequency to see how Mass Suggestion compares to Mass Charm Monster. Currently, Suggestion has the advantage of having a fixed duration where you are guaranteed to keep the mob charmed whereas Charm Monster has a shorter guarantee but has the potential to last longer. By tweaking with the maximum duration, you mess with the balance between the two. It'd be problematic if we nerf Suggestions so much that people just pick Charm Monsters instead.

[Mjesko]

I think the best solution is as follows to make bard PrEs tier II and/or III grant more buff of in-combat songs. Like that, even though the number of uses go up, the number of uses per day required in combat will also go up so it'll more or less balance out.

That is a very good idea, because it would make tier II / III Warchanters not overpowered if they have to sing another song to improve the attack and damage of the party further.

[Favis]

What I'd like to see is the casters react the actions of the group.

For example:
1. Fighter mob is stoned, arcane mob casts break enchantment.
2. Caster mob is enfeebled and can't move, cleric mob cast restore.
3. WoF in the way, caster mobs casts resist on fighter mob that needs to run through (i.e. the mob taking fire damage.)
...
In single caster situations, assign a probability based on caster type (shaman, arcane, etc) or based on the specific encounter if needed.

This could also be use in the "spam-quests". Where new monsters spam based on old on beeing killed. Asume that no monster are getting killed then caster with break enchantment are spammed.

[Aashrym]

Reducing the induction for songs used against opponents would be a good way to make them be more used.

I don't think the problem is that the effect is too weak. Even back in Module 3-4, how many bards did you know what bothered to Fascinate and then hit them with the Suggestion song? I never had that happen to me, and back then CC was far more powerful than it is today.

I think the best solution is as follows to make bard PrEs tier II and/or III grant more buff of in-combat songs. Like that, even though the number of uses go up, the number of uses per day required in combat will also go up so it'll more or less balance out.

Using fix durations so that songs don't get much more powerful with levels might help, as well.

This thread took a lot of catching up to since I last looked. Wow. I could watch it more I guess but I still have more fun playing the game than talking about it

I agree fascinate is not weak. Bard songs are the best thing the class has going for it.

Even without the extend spell feat applying and and extra song to suggest and the high induction time the DC's are high. That high DC is the trade off and benefit.

I do not agree a flat cap on duration is the answer for fascinate. I would prefer repeat saves every 6 seconds, possibly with incremental bonuses.

That would add more impact from build options and it will allow random lucky mob's to break early. Once a mob breaks and fighting starts we are usually looking at pulling the mob out of the pack or breaking more mob's fascinate with incremental damage.

Higher DC and focus on songs would effectively increase the duration this way, where weaker focus would decrease the duration. And more randomness will take a lot away from the sing and move on strategy.

A cap on suggestion seems kind of pointless in most cases. The mob dies or needs to be released before the suggestion wears off. My concern on a standard max duration is that takes more away from the extend spell feat from the spell itself (not the song) at higher levels. I think this would be better addressed with high initial duration and low incremental increases with level.