Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 381
  1. #201
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    11,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    With the fact that clerics are so limited in their availble SP pools.. I can see all these mobs that already use sunder, knocking party fort down and then blam blam blam ..... SP's gone on cleric.. Oh darned there goes another pot.... and another.... and another...
    A goal of fortification as confirmation AC is to reduce the total spellpoint expenditure for healing. The suggestion is not only for Fortification to be changed, but also for monster damage to be reduced so that their total DPS against zero-AC targets remains about the same. For example, monsters that crit 19-20/x2 might have their damage reduced by 10%.

    That way a zero-AC character can continue to fight them with the total amount of healing, but his incoming damage will be less predictable so he'll be less desired as a tank. Meanwhile the people with enough AC so that Fortification makes them crit-immune may actually take less damage.

    The reason that today's high-level monsters do so much damage with each hit is that the developers had to build them to be dangerous against character who can never be critted. If characters could be critted, then they don't need as much raw damage.

  2. #202
    Community Member grodon9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    Hurry hurry hurry.... The sale will end
    Ooh, they're on sale?

  3. #203
    Community Member grodon9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelus_dead View Post
    The reason that today's high-level monsters do so much damage with each hit is that the developers had to build them to be dangerous against character who can never be critted. If characters could be critted, then they don't need as much raw damage.
    This is the point that many are failing to get.

  4. #204
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey_Archer View Post
    The idea of relating ac so heavily to fortification is just terrible (theres more then enough reasons already listed in this thread so i wont repeat them), and really has nothing to do with what Eladrin was talking about
    Under Eladrin's idea (which I also like, and which has the pleasant characteristic of being much easier to implement than the broad anti-seeker/AC design changes), you have nothing to mitigate criticals when you get hit. If Harry throws a -40% Fort on you, you will just have to take it.

    In that respect, someone who thinks the AC-based Fort design will make combat too risky should have the same qualms with the % method as well.

    The only real difference is that with an anti-seeker bonus fixed to ACs (instead of a flat % fort cut), you can actually design your character to take less damage, despite that -40% cut or whatever. D&D classes are already designed to handle damage mitigation in various ways, even though we tend to overlook those features. Rogues, monks, rangers, and fighters have a solid AC potential, for instance, without losing too much punch.

    In my experience with PnP, Fighters and Paladins in plate were the ones running around in Heavy Fort. Barbs and rogues rely on uncanny dodge to avoid sneak attack damage. Barbs rely on DR and huge hit point pools to survive the rest.

    We need to think of these changes, both in Epic and non-Epic terms. An 80 AC is good stuff pre-Epic, and +20 or +30 anti-seeker up to level 19 is probably going to offer virtual immunity. In fact, given the effectiveness of AC at lower levels, anti-seeker may be more effective than the current % Fort for most classes.

    No doubt the Epic side of the issue is more tough to balance. Epic mobs make mincemeat of things like Barb DR. But scaling down damage to accomodate critical spikes will benefit barbs; stackable DR for barbs would help even more.

    However, the nice thing about the % system is that it's easier for us when attacking other critters. Because we can be guaranteed a certain chance of getting a crit or a sneak attack. So I'm happy either way.

    Heh, too much forums. Time for a break
    Last edited by gavagai; 04-07-2010 at 01:20 PM.

  5. #205
    Community Member grodon9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,517

    Default

    Think about it - does it really make sense - magic helmet or not - for a 10 DEX character wearing a loin clothe to be immune to critical hits?

  6. #206
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grodon9999 View Post
    Think about it - does it really make sense - magic helmet or not - for a 10 DEX character wearing a loin clothe to be immune to critical hits?

    Magic is a wonderful thing you know.... I mean does it make snese that a halfling can carry 2,000 lbs? Or that you can wave a wand and that 3" deep slash accross your gut is gone?

    It does however make sense for things in this game to fundementally change, so that they can seperate our dollars from us though

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gavagai View Post
    The only real difference is that with an anti-seeker bonus fixed to ACs (instead of a flat % fort cut), you can actually design your character to take less damage, despite that -40% cut or whatever.
    Another often unmentioned benefit is that players would also be able to work around monsters' fortification, via AC debuffs or to-hit and seeker bonuses. In other words, changing fortification to an anti-seeker bonus would mean that certain classes (like rogues) could be better at circumventing fortification and that many currently useless abilities would see at least some usefulness.

    All of that without Eladrin ever needing to change any of those abilities.

    It might be a broader change that might require more work, but it's also significantly better in the long term
    DDOwiki.com, #1 source for DDO information.

  8. #208
    Community Member grodon9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smatt View Post
    Magic is a wonderful thing you know.... I mean does it make snese that a halfling can carry 2,000 lbs? Or that you can wave a wand and that 3" deep slash accross your gut is gone?

    It does however make sense for things in this game to fundementally change, so that they can seperate our dollars from us though
    But if it could stop critical hits - why couldn't it stop normal hits?

  9. #209
    Community Member Emili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gavagai View Post
    Under Eladrin's idea (which I also like, and which has the pleasant characteristic of being much easier to implement than the broad anti-seeker/AC design changes), you have nothing to mitigate criticals when you get hit. If Harry throws a -40% Fort on you, you will just have to take it.

    In that respect, someone who thinks the AC-based Fort design will make combat too risky should have the same qualms with the % method as well.

    The only real difference is that with an anti-seeker bonus fixed to ACs (instead of a flat % fort cut), you can actually design your character to take less damage, despite that -40% cut or whatever. D&D classes are already designed to handle damage mitigation in various ways, even though we tend to overlook those features. Rogues, monks, rangers, and fighters have a solid AC potential, for instance, without losing too much punch.

    In my experience with PnP, Fighters and Paladins in plate were the ones running around in Heavy Fort. Barbs and rogues rely on uncanny dodge to avoid sneak attack damage. Barbs rely on DR and huge hit point pools to survive the rest.

    We need to think of these changes, both in Epic and non-Epic terms. An 80 AC is good stuff pre-Epic, and +20 or +30 anti-seeker up to level 19 is probably going to offer virtual immunity. In fact, given the effectiveness of AC at lower levels, anti-seeker may be more effective than the current % Fort for most classes.

    No doubt the Epic side of the issue is more tough to balance. Epic mobs make mincemeat of things like Barb DR. But scaling down damage to accomodate critical spikes will benefit barbs; stackable DR for barbs would help even more.

    However, the nice thing about the % system is that it's easier for us when attacking other critters. Because we can be guaranteed a certain chance of getting a crit or a sneak attack. So I'm happy either way.

    Heh, too much forums. Time for a break
    That I tend to agree with... One thing annoying the heck out of me is that attaching Fort to an AC compells the use of an AC tank which turns this to near any other MMO in compliance. I prefer the diversity DnD has in offering by far - there shall be more than one best way to skin the cat per-say.

    Last edited by Emili; 04-07-2010 at 02:04 PM.
    A Baker's dozen in the Prophets of the New Republic and Fallen Heroes.
    Abaigeal(TrBd25), Ailiae(TrDrd2), Ambyre(Rgr25), Amilia(Pl20), Einin(TrRgr25), Emili(TrFgt25), Heathier(TrClc22), Kynah(TrMnk25), Meallach(Brb25), Misbehaven(TrArt22), Myara(Rog22), Rosewood(TrBd25) and Sgail(TrWiz20) little somethings with flavour 'n favour

  10. #210
    Community Member grodon9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Emili View Post

    That I tend to agree with... One thing annoying the heck out of me is that attaching Fort to an AC compells the use of an AC tank which turns this to near any other MMO in compliance. I prefer the diversity DnD has in offering by far - there shall be more than one best way to skin the cat per-say.

    But do we really have any diversity in ubber-high level stuff when the one best way is SO much better than anything else? I'm talking about the 800 HP no-AC barbarian "tank." They are SO effective it's bordeline broken.

  11. #211
    Community Member Emili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grodon9999 View Post
    But do we really have any diversity in ubber-high level stuff when the one best way is SO much better than anything else? I'm talking about the 800 HP no-AC barbarian "tank." They are SO effective it's bordeline broken.
    ... are they really? Now that depends on who you ask. Yes the barb is tanking with 800hp with a healer strapped to his back ... and the defender is tanking with 80+AC - and does not need the healer so much both options here work and are effective - now the premise put forth that only the denfender play effective role.

    What is crazy here ... when I'm on my cleric I actually prefer the Barb - do you know why? Even though that barb is sucking up my mana it becomes more of a team effort - I am not a heal-bot I am a casting cleric and I do cast offensive spells on top of healing that barb. With the tank along though my efforts and the dependancies the party bestow me with change I am in fact less an asset and less effective in roles I can pike a little instead of actually play the game.
    Last edited by Emili; 04-08-2010 at 02:41 PM.
    A Baker's dozen in the Prophets of the New Republic and Fallen Heroes.
    Abaigeal(TrBd25), Ailiae(TrDrd2), Ambyre(Rgr25), Amilia(Pl20), Einin(TrRgr25), Emili(TrFgt25), Heathier(TrClc22), Kynah(TrMnk25), Meallach(Brb25), Misbehaven(TrArt22), Myara(Rog22), Rosewood(TrBd25) and Sgail(TrWiz20) little somethings with flavour 'n favour

  12. #212
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grodon9999 View Post
    But if it could stop critical hits - why couldn't it stop normal hits?

    You can...... Displacement More powerful magic..... But the Gods are fickle.... They only allow others to use certain types of magic.. Lest they become the target of their very own minions...

  13. #213
    The Hatchery Scraap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eladrin View Post
    We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

    A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

    All still under debate at the moment.
    Tack on a small % for acid based damage on say... what *would* be a crit, and I'm sold. Would make trap-type matter more, as well as give a decent boost to that line of arcane casters without devolving into another 'just make em bigger numbers' tweak.

  14. #214
    Founder Matuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    I just love the suggestions...

    "Revamp all the monsters in the game"
    "Make the weakest characters die more...IT'S THE WHOLE OBJECTIVE!"

    There are so many things that dev time could be spent on which would be more productive than this. Total waste of time and resources.

    And the anti-fort people have not even made a serious attempt to explain WHY getting rid of fort is such a desirable goal. Why make this change? What benefit does the game get from it?

    Getting rid of mandatory equipment to promote diversity? Ok, but now you're forcing everyone into piles of AC-oriented raid gear. Everyone will be wearing the SAME AC-oriented raid gear. How is that an improvement? And if everyone is wearing the same AC-oriented raid gear, why even create any other gear? "****, another epic shard of the SoS, what useless garbage!"

    Not everyone should have an effect like this? Ok, so how about getting rid of Potency or (Arch)Magi? I mean, spellcasters all use those things. How un-diverse. Let's change it!

    Because I said so! Ok, why should I care what your opinion (and yes, it is your opinion, please do not delude yourself into thinking you have some ironclad factual basis for your position) is?

  15. #215
    Community Member Tarnoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    0

    Default Wow

    Quote Originally Posted by Matuse View Post
    I just love the suggestions...

    "Revamp all the monsters in the game"
    "Make the weakest characters die more...IT'S THE WHOLE OBJECTIVE!"

    There are so many things that dev time could be spent on which would be more productive than this. Total waste of time and resources.

    And the anti-fort people have not even made a serious attempt to explain WHY getting rid of fort is such a desirable goal. Why make this change? What benefit does the game get from it?

    Getting rid of mandatory equipment to promote diversity? Ok, but now you're forcing everyone into piles of AC-oriented raid gear. Everyone will be wearing the SAME AC-oriented raid gear. How is that an improvement? And if everyone is wearing the same AC-oriented raid gear, why even create any other gear? "****, another epic shard of the SoS, what useless garbage!"

    Not everyone should have an effect like this? Ok, so how about getting rid of Potency or (Arch)Magi? I mean, spellcasters all use those things. How un-diverse. Let's change it!

    Because I said so! Ok, why should I care what your opinion (and yes, it is your opinion, please do not delude yourself into thinking you have some ironclad factual basis for your position) is?
    SOMEONE WHO GETS IT....

    ill add this also you all miss the whole point on why the devs would introduce this in the first place isnt because anyone wants it ............it is so they can one shot us often and make all thier mobs have heavy fort and blanket immune them to fort reducing effects.......as is the history of ddo....i wonder if the devs play without /godmode on

    P.S. 10% less damage ona hit of 200 non crit is only 20 points less so the hit for 180 damage and have x3 x4 x5 crit ona 15 not 19to20 x2 like you always site as examples
    Last edited by Tarnoc; 04-07-2010 at 11:30 PM.

  16. #216
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matuse View Post
    And the anti-fort people have not even made a serious attempt to explain WHY getting rid of fort is such a desirable goal. Why make this change? What benefit does the game get from it?
    I don't think heavy fort is doing us much good. Creatures are designed to do more damage as a baseline.

    The idea isn't to force people into a uniform Exploiter AC mode or to make weak characters die more; the idea is to reduce the pressure for all classes and builds to build themselves into a uniform Barb mode.

    Imagine you just got rid of Fort entirely, and lowered damage. Lower the baseline damage so that after the changes a Zero-fort Barb is taking roughly the same damage per minute as now (albeit DPS comprised of lower base damage and crit spikes). The damage patterns are different -- but the underlying challenge hasn't changed much. People shouldn't be dying more often, though naturally they will at the confluence of too many unlucky crits.

    Next, add to this scenario the "new" fort which acts as an anti-seeker bonus on top of AC. With an investment in AC, you've got an interesting way to reduce the damage spikes and take less damage. Getting a high enough AC would be easy for most non-Barb, non-Wiz classes until Epic, if they put any thought into it. It adds a new dimension to character design, that is actually just doing what the AC system should be doing but can't.

    But I admit its unlikely. Mob damage would have to be retooled with great precision and good judgment, and I don't think many of us have much confidence that it would be pulled off smoothly. And as Tarnoc has said a few times, its reasonable to be hesitant when Turbine's primary goal is to butcher us brutally and all that.

    If nothing else, the discussion is always interesting.
    Last edited by gavagai; 04-08-2010 at 01:12 AM.

  17. #217
    Founder Matuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    But I admit its unlikely. Mob damage would have to be retooled with great precision and good judgment
    And that retooling would need to take place for -every- monster past about level 10. Angelus and Borrow0 have been intimating that it would just be a couple of raid bosses and maybe a tiny number of other "problem" monsters. Pfft. Everything would need to be tweaked.

    I'm forcibly recalling the whole Heroic Surge business...would seem like this idea would go exactly like that one did. A giant, convoluted, excessively complicated, bizarre change to a problem which either doesn't exist at all, or whose real solution lies in a completely different, simple, easy fix.

  18. #218
    Community Member zealous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matuse View Post
    And that retooling would need to take place for -every- monster past about level 10. Angelus and Borrow0 have been intimating that it would just be a couple of raid bosses and maybe a tiny number of other "problem" monsters. Pfft. Everything would need to be tweaked.
    That everything would need to be fixed doesn't necessarily imply that it has to be done by hand.

    e.g.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelus_dead View Post
    For example, monsters that crit 19-20/x2 might have their damage reduced by 10%.
    This could be done in an automatic fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarnoc View Post
    P.S. 10% less damage ona hit of 200 non crit is only 20 points less so the hit for 180 damage and have x3 x4 x5 crit ona 15 not 19to20 x2 like you always site as examples
    Is extremely silly since if the crit was x5 ona 15, the damage would have to be reduced by some 50% to fit Angelus example.

    It does however highlight that you might want to take some care to avoid one-shotting. This could be done either by limiting the maximum damage for monsters based on character hitpoints, which would be doable to construct rules for doing in an automatic fashion.

    Another option would be to tie the possibility and magnitude of crits to certain animations. I.e. Knowing when a mino charges and managing to either block or get out of the way is quite doable.

    One of the biggest perks as I see it would be to increase mob variation. Some mobs might hit moderately and steadily, some might crit hard, some might crit often.

    Healing being involving enough not to get bored enough while healing to start thinking of how easy it would be to write a script to read the color of a certain ranges of pixels and depending on the composition send specified keystrokes is a good thing.

  19. #219
    Community Member Aaxeyu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matuse View Post
    And the anti-fort people have not even made a serious attempt to explain WHY getting rid of fort is such a desirable goal. Why make this change? What benefit does the game get from it?
    Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it haven't been explained. It only means that you are ignorant.
    Put your thinking cap on and re-read the thread.

    Disagree all you want though, but make sure you actually understand what you are disagreeing with if you want to be taken seriously.

  20. #220
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eladrin View Post
    We've been debating something similar to this, actually. Sunder, Improved Sunder, Destruction, Eagle Claw Strike, and the like would be fortification modifying effects instead of (or in addition to some of) their current effects, and we'd add other abilities that add to or lower fortification percentage as well. (We'd also likely add more possible treasure effects than the current 25/75/100%)

    A secondary thing we're considering to go along with that is changing undead, constructs, and other similar creatures to having a base 200% fortification, and if you bust it down below 100%, rendering them vulnerable to critical hits and sneak attacks.

    All still under debate at the moment.
    I would be very, very carefull. Things like this can backfire.

    Change Fortification from "chance to avoid additional critical damage" into "% damage reduction of additional critical damage".

    But TBH i'd just leave things the way they are and work on something else. I sense fire and my cleric will not like it. Somehow cleric is allways the one that gets "punished"

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload