Crowd Control/Heroic Surge Feedback

[Mjesko]

But, it is also a balancing issue. When people make claims like 'But CC spells are fine now!" or "CC spells are useless now and you are making them worse!" they fail to realize that high saving throws, high SR and immunity to CC spells is much more common than it once was because Turbine reached the conclusion that those effects were too powerful. It's not uncommon to see players complain about those high saving throws, high SR and especially about the immunity to CC spells; if we want these to be gone, we have to accept spells getting nerfed one way or another.

Good point, but IF Turbine lowers the SR and the saves of the monsters spells like Finger of Death will be even more powerful. Will Turbine nerf such spells in update 4?

I think Turbine is again on a dangerous road where changing one central part of the game leads to many other effects...

If they used a mechanism like changing save rates, they could possibly even remove immunities from crowd control as the faster rate of saves would allow higher CR monsters to break free much quicker. Look at the air elementals as an example. The save rate is so high that even the best reflex save player can't avoid getting knocked down within a second or two. Just use the system DnD already has in place. It works, it uses the player and mob stats, and it's an easy timer adjustment that could be linked to difficulty. It also would work better to allow immunties to be removed since a save rate several times a minute would allow most high CR mobs to break much sooner than lower CR mobs while the heroic surge system allows a CR1 to break as quickly as a CR20.

Yep, that is exactly how blanket immunities should be replaced. Give bosses a save every second instead of an immunity.

[BoBoDaClown]

This is an extremely bad idea, a giant leap in the wrong direction.

I have long felt the real reason to the step by step nerfing of crowd control is to "improve" server performance.

There are many CC wizards & bards that will be left out in the cold with this change.

If they remove all the blanket immunities (except bosses), and allow the monster to have a heroic surge instead, I feel it would actually improve our endgame CC usefulness.

But I doubt that will happen...

[BoBoDaClown]

Good point, but IF Turbine lowers the SR and the saves of the monsters spells like Finger of Death will be even more powerful. Will Turbine nerf such spells in update 4?

I think Turbine is again on a dangerous road where changing one central part of the game leads to many other effects...



Yep, that is exactly how blanket immunities should be replaced. Give bosses a save every second instead of an immunity.

I'm not sure about being able to CC bosses - but all other mobs should be fair game.

[Zenako]

As I posted earlier, CC on higher settings, like EPIC gets the time cut to around 30 seconds or less vs the 1 minute or so on elite.

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...2&postcount=57

So even if the get rid of the immunity, it won't change things much. Especially if they get saves, since at those levels the saves are such that it is probably a 50/50 thing to save, meaning that you land the spell and within a few seconds it has saved and broken the spell. Whats the point. If their saves were in a 10/90 chance range, then you might even have the spells broken by surges first.

Sounds good in theory but the numbers end up telling another story.

[SableShadow]

Since we're still waiting on all the wishcrafting we did to justify the grazing hits/AC nerf, I'm doubting we'll see any of the cc nerf wishcrafting show up any time soon.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

So even if the get rid of the immunity, it won't change things much.

Blanket immunities is one of the biggest obstacles Turgrind has put into the game. Removing them once and for all and making it based on what it should be based on... spell resistance and dc, will allow properly build cc specialists to enjoy playing this game again.

[calvinklien]

funny. i was thinking of making a CC spec wizard or sorc or bard just out of curiousity (in turbines intere$ts)...

but now that i've read about heroic surge i don't think i will. (not in turbines intere$ts)

'cuz not all of us plan on making more than a couple of toons. i don't have the attention span for it. these sorts of changes can actually bite turbine in the butt. i'm thinking i'm not that unique (and i wont pay 15 bucks a month to swing an axe or dual wield whatever)

i have TWO toons, an archer, and a wizard. they both suck, sorta, but i love 'em in a sucky way.

a CC specialist (bard i WAS thinking) was probably going to be my last build.

now i consider just buying a couple adventure packs (w/my saved up favor tp) and canceling vip to wait out all these mods... why build anything when it might literally be overhauled and obsolete in the next update?

i have to side w/the CC'ers on this one. sounds like they are getting the shaft and the game is morphing into a DPS pvp fest.
melee' ftw ... ? ?

"This, is a test. It is only a test..."

[Borror0]

I wouldn't put in a change with anticipation of putting in a different change at a later time to balance it.

Depending on the specifics, I would. Ideally, you would want to get it perfect the first time through but an improvement is an improvement. If you replace something bad by something less bad, you've improved the game. Of course, replacing something really bad by something good is preferable but that cannot always happen when you have a budget and a deadline.

[...] you also appear to expect a change to immunties to go along with it.

I'm not expecting a change to immunities with it.

What I am saying is, keep arguments against the change to the inherent flaws. If it does make crowd control too weak, there are tons of ways to adjust the power level of those spells and some of them would lead to an improved gameplay (namely, removing immunities, lowering saves and lowering SR) on top of being balancing. In other words, what I am saying is to look at whether the flaws you see in the current build (like CC spells being too weak) can be fixed rather than say, "This sucks. Don't put it in."

Good point, but IF Turbine lowers the SR and the saves of the monsters spells like Finger of Death will be even more powerful. Will Turbine nerf such spells in update 4?

I've suggested, before, that Turbine changes Death Ward or Death Block to a bonus to saves against [Death] spells. If done so, it could be used as a way to give monsters better saves against instant-death spells and lower saves against other crowd control spells. Another point to remember is to realize that those usually are Fortitude saves while most CC spells are Will saves.

[Aashrym]

If CC'ing the players is an issue, lower the DC to save. That sounds a lot simpler.

I don't mind recurring saves for the effects similar to hold person/monster. There are a lot of references in books regarding effects broken by nearby danger. Recurring saves simulates that fairly enough in an MMO environment.

I have never agreed with blanket immunities on boss mobs (possibly with the exception of insta-death effects). Give them better saving throws and recurring saves more often.

My bard already takes a hit with bosses. He CC's, buffs, and back up heals. Cutting back to buffing and healing takes a lot away from him. This change takes more CC away.

I doubt I'll play him if with the changes to crowd control as is.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Anything short of gimping or removing monster "blanket immunities" will not satisfy the crowd control specialists. This has obviously angered many people. Good CC is an art. Takes practice to master. And an understanding of what to use, where, when, and against who. There's a lot of game time involved.

I cant understand any further nerfing that would hurt the CC community at this point in the world of DDO. The CC community of toons needs more good options. Not less.

[Arctigis]

It depends by what you mean as "tactical advantage" in your post. If you mean "the possibility to render an encounter ridiculously easy by using the right spells and applying the right cheesy tactic", then yes that is being eroded in order to make the game more challenging and the combat more active.

That's poor quest design which is a different root cause. FtS usage is just fine, IMO, in quests where there are no
respawns.

However, if you mean "requiring us to think" then it's not being taken out unless Turbine nerf the spells more than necessary.

Think about it:

• Which requires most thinking, monsters that fight you back or monsters that are immobilized for several minutes by one spell?
• Which requires most thinking, players that can't fight back or players that are immobilized for several minutes by one spell?

I think this only stands if the premise is to kill all opposing monsters. It's supposed to be a D&D based MMO which
currently does give several options to dealing with the threat of opposing monsters rather than just DPS'ing
them down. L20 casters should be able to immobilise monsters for several minutes. High CR monsters
should be able to immobilise players in similar ways.

Think about it, if you are currently an enchantment or conjuration focused caster with heavy reliance on
dominate and suggestion, would you be happy? Spells listed with a fixed duration (e.g. suggestion) no
longer are. It's a very radical change, I'd really like a more thorough explanation of why it's being implemented.

[Visty]

anyone tested if this change affects the charm in the hound of xoriat?

if so then that raid gets broken with update 3

[Borror0]

I think this only stands if the premise is to kill all opposing monsters.

No. Nothing I said suggested that stealthily avoiding a group of enemy was wrong.

It does rely on killing all mobs that you encounter, yes. You've got to realize that the only two other alternatives to that are to allow forward retreat (the act of running past mobs so they leave you alone) and long duration CC effects.

The first one makes no sense in the game world, most of the time. Why would a monsters not run after you if you entered deeper into its lair? There can be a few justifications, in some dungeons, but rarely. The second one, however, means that you're allowing players to overcome a threat through the means of one spell. This mean that the dungeon becomes significantly easier if you have that one spell (or two spells) and that there is less tactics involved because it's "push a button and run." I,ll remind you that you complained about reducing the need for tactics.

L20 casters should be able to immobilise monsters for several minutes. High CR monsters should be able to immobilise players in similar ways.

Unsupported claim. The only argument you hint at is "It's a D&D game." but that does not translate into "This is fun."

Think about it, if you are currently an enchantment or conjuration focused caster with heavy reliance on dominate and suggestion, would you be happy?

I would be neutral, like I should be. The change is not on live yet, and it will not necessarily lead to a nerf if Turbine decides to adjust the spell power/monster resistance ratio. Eventually, maybe Turbine will end up nerfing CC spells too much and I'll complain that those spells are too weak. But, no, I would not be unhappy because my spells are not unable to immobilize opponents for several minutes. My spells do not need to do that to be fun or effective.

[Zenako]

I would be neutral, like I should be. The change is not on live yet, and it will not necessarily lead to a nerf if Turbine decides to adjust the spell power/monster resistance ratio. Eventually, maybe Turbine will end up nerfing CC spells too much and I'll complain that those spells are too weak. But, no, I would not be unhappy because my spells are not unable to immobilize opponents for several minutes. My spells do not need to do that to be fun or effective.

Well on the contrary, MY spells DO need to do that to be fun and effective. Opinion. Not fact. Opinion likely shared by most of those who have spent feats and enhancements to build an Enchanter.

This change is also removing consequences to builds.

Low Save builds, don't worry those effects will pop off you real soon. No Balance, no worries, you'll pop up soon anyway. Currently to get someone largely immune to the effects of spells requires certain builds and using some gear. If the downside is no longer there, just ignore it and amp up your DPS even more. This is clearly pointing towards reducing effective options in the game.

Borror0, do you have anyone you actually play that focused on using Enchantment type effects? The way you are talking does not seem like it. I guess we should just give all mobs (instead of just a handful) Improved Evasion while we are at it, since REF based spells are too powerful too. This change is not affecting some mobs, it is affecting ALL mobs in the game. It is affecting ALL Grunts. IF you were to limit it to the mob heroes (mini bosses and more) then it might be palitable, or at least tolerated. BUt not, it is every little mob in the game.

[zealous]

It depends by what you mean as "tactical advantage" in your post. If you mean "the possibility to render an encounter ridiculously easy by using the right spells and applying the right cheesy tactic", then yes that is being eroded in order to make the game more challenging and the combat more active.

However, if you mean "requiring us to think" then it's not being taken out unless Turbine nerf the spells more than necessary.

Think about it:

• [A]Which requires most thinking, monsters that fight you back or monsters that are immobilized for several minutes by one spell?
  [B]Which requires most thinking, players that can't fight back or players that are immobilized for several minutes by one spell?

A. Choosing what monster(s) to immobilize and in what way depending on own/monster/group capabilities, how much mana to spend in this encounter. It being possible to immobilize monsters for longer than 30s opens up more options, more thinking.

B. Finding ways to cope with one member getting locked out for a while obviously requires more thinking. Additionally, there are ways to remove the negative effects of most spells. If players being immobilized is a problem, adding the ability for players to remedy the situation would be sufficient. If monsters being immobilized is a problem adding the ability for monsters to remedy the situation is...probably more than the AI can handle.


I think heroic surges are a good ide, but not a good change in it's current form.

The problem, as stated, is two fold. It creates disparities between spells as well as unrealistic scenarios, such as the lvl20wiz vs the lvl1 kobold.

For balancing surges we clearly have time until surge kicks in and duration. As far as I tell from the thread the only thing affecting it is the difficulty level of the quest.

One obvious thing to add would be chance for surge to occur. This would be a simple check and should probably be easy to add to the white/orange/red/purple templates. E.g. 25%/50%/75%/100%. That way when you e.g. fascinate a bunch of whites, all will not break at the same time. [edit:]Could possibly retain differences between mass sugg. and mass charm.

Now preferably you would have the spells themselves affect the surge, e.g. longer time until surge kicks in and shorter surge duration for hypnotism than for hold person. This would probably require quite substantial dev time to tweak all the spells and possibly needing to rewrite the way surges work.

Another possible change would be for the surge to not break the cc but only to suppress it. I.e. held for 10s, fight for 10s etc. Might be a bit chaotic though. This would make longer duration cc not lose as much.

A good change would imo be to make the time until surge kicks in dependent on how failed the save was. I.e. the kobold rolling a 10 thus failing dc 35 by 20+ would be controlled longer than the devil rolling a 2 thus failing by say 8.

On a related note, making death effects work off of how failed the save coupled with changing instant death to massive damage would be an alternative to blanket immunities.

In my wild fantasies they might add debuff portions to cc spells akin to enthrallment, primary cc effect + retained debuff.

[Arctigis]

It does rely on killing all mobs that you encounter, yes. You've got to realize that the only two other alternatives to that are to allow forward retreat (the act of running past mobs so they leave you alone) and long duration CC effects.

I also don't agree with the former. However, are you saying that you disagree with the latter? The difference,
currently, between immobilizing or killing a mob is purely semantic. If this goes live then the balance will
be tipped toward having to kill the mob. Charm/Dominate/Suggestion now look too risky to be viable.

The second one, however, means that you're allowing players to overcome a threat through the means of one spell. This mean that the dungeon becomes significantly easier if you have that one spell (or two spells) and that there is less tactics involved because it's "push a button and run." I,ll remind you that you complained about reducing the need for tactics.

That's almost a straw man. At no point did I mention any desire for "push a button and run". What I indicated was
that making CC effects less viable you are actually giving players fewer tactical options. I think you have to
accept that this is major, major nerf to certain builds with very little justification. You seem to be conflating my
position with a desire for some sort of easy button or 'cheese' tactic. That is not my position at all.

Unsupported claim. The only argument you hint at is "It's a D&D game." but that does not translate into "This is fun."

All completely supported by the spell descriptions. You just need to read them. I can suggest the ddowiki
- it's an excellent resource ;-)

[JPDefault]

Low Save builds, don't worry those effects will pop off you real soon. No Balance, no worries, you'll pop up soon anyway. Currently to get someone largely immune to the effects of spells requires certain builds and using some gear. If the downside is no longer there, just ignore it and amp up your DPS even more. This is clearly pointing towards reducing effective options in the game.

I agree with this.

I did only little experimenting, and only at levels up to 10, but as far as I can see monsters can be immobilized just long enough to zerg past them, while they cannot be immobilized/charmed long enough to allow a tactical fight.
Unless your strategy is: kick them to death in no particular order and don't care about your red bar or enemy casters. That works, often... which may be fun for a lot of players, but is not for me.

[Arctigis]

well On The Contrary, My Spells Do Need To Do That To Be Fun And Effective. Opinion. Not Fact. Opinion Likely Shared By Most Of Those Who Have Spent Feats And Enhancements To Build An Enchanter.

This Change Is Also Removing Consequences To Builds.

Low Save Builds, Don't Worry Those Effects Will Pop Off You Real Soon. No Balance, No Worries, You'll Pop Up Soon Anyway. Currently To Get Someone Largely Immune To The Effects Of Spells Requires Certain Builds And Using Some Gear. If The Downside Is No Longer There, Just Ignore It And Amp Up Your Dps Even More. This Is Clearly Pointing Towards Reducing Effective Options In The Game.

Borror0, Do You Have Anyone You Actually Play That Focused On Using Enchantment Type Effects? The Way You Are Talking Does Not Seem Like It. I Guess We Should Just Give All Mobs (instead Of Just A Handful) Improved Evasion While We Are At It, Since Ref Based Spells Are Too Powerful Too. This Change Is Not Affecting Some Mobs, It Is Affecting All Mobs In The Game. It Is Affecting All Grunts. If You Were To Limit It To The Mob Heroes (mini Bosses And More) Then It Might Be Palitable, Or At Least Tolerated. But Not, It Is Every Little Mob In The Game.

+1

[Borror0]

A. Choosing what monster(s) to immobilize and in what way depending on own/monster/group capabilities, how much mana to spend in this encounter. [...]

B. Finding ways to cope with one member getting locked out for a while obviously requires more thinking. Additionally, there are ways to remove the negative effects of most spells.

All of that still happens and happens more often if the effects have a shorter duration which means that the players have to think more because to have to adapt to ever changing battle conditions rather than having a more stable and slower paced combat.

If players being immobilized is a problem, adding the ability for players to remedy the situation would be sufficient.

If you are immobilized, you can't free yourself. it's the irony behind the potions of Paralysis Removal.

EDIT:

The difference, currently, between immobilizing or killing a mob is purely semantic.

It's not: in one case you cast a spell and the challenge is overcame; in the other, there has to be damage management, crowd control, healing, and damage given to defeat the mob. It's not possible to put them on an equal level as they are completely different.

At no point did I mention any desire for "push a button and run".

That is what you are asking for when you say that there has to be other options other than killing monsters. Perhaps you simply meant that crowd control should retain usefulness but that's not how you had articulated your argument, if not only for the fact I already said CC spells should remain useful.

[Cedrica-the-Bard]

/snip

How much are they paying you???