Remove/Replace Fortification.

[Kromize]

Ummm, they do have a total develpoment budget to think about....

I'm gonna take a gander and say that they are salaried...

[Artos_Fabril]

Watch what happens when I take that and apply it to AC:

"If B, then:
Getting hit will happen.
Not dying from physical damage is desirable to (the vast majority of) players.
Therefore the only desirable (again, to the vast majority of players) builds will be those that are impervious to any physical hit."

The vast majority of builds, I would hazard to say in fact, the entirety of viable builds, are those which are not killed by a single attack. Most builds are designed to be able to withstand at least a few standard attacks, and since they're all currently immune to crits, that's good enough.

The baseless assumption you're continuing to make is that critical hits will be dropping characters like flies (which has been addressed over and over and over and over again to be false) and that complete immunity is the only way players will try protecting themselves from them.

Declared false and proven false are different things. Any hit that is dangerous to a 600HP build is lethal to a 300HP build.

Think for a moment: AC offers a massively higher benefit to players than heavy fort will ever offer, because rather than immunity to critical hit damage it immunizes them from all physical damage. And yet AC is clearly not comparable to HP and DPS builds. Why is that? Perhaps because by doing so, you take up HP and DPS slots, and skimping on either of them makes you vulnerable to big hits from magic and increases overall incoming damage because you can't kill enemies fast enough.

It is clear that AC is not even close to worth it against any toon that can't hit the requirements easily. Relaxing those requirements by 20 and severely crippling the actual value of attaining that relaxed value (immunity to critical hits isn't worth anything in a relative sense to immunity to damage) isn't going to make AC the be-all and end-all of a toon without some sort of actual evidence. I've already demonstrated that meeting these obligations are fairly tough but still entirely possible for anyone who wants to do it besides maybe barbarians.

Once more, from the top: If the relaxed value is attainable it will be compulsory, just like heavy fort is.

The onus is on you to prove how AC can go from so useless to practically mandatory when the goal is to reduce dependency on heavy fort and increase dependency on AC, especially considering the proposed changes.

First, and maybe this is a minor distinction, but I said that the sum of AC+anti-seeker would be practically mandatory, if it remains possible to become 100% immune to crits, and in all other cases, the ability to survive a full crit would become mandatory. One of the stated purposes of the proposed change (you even state it yourself) is to increase the value of AC.

Keep this in mind: Heavy fort is mandatory because it is cheap and offers great benefit. AC not because it is unbearably expensive and offers an even better benefit. I'm arguing that Heavy Fort will no longer be mandatory once it becomes harder to attain the required AC.

Middle of the die AC values are actually less desirable than low or high values, because they increase the likelihood of damage spikes. Steady incoming damage is easier to heal through, and thus easier to survive. Characters that only get hit on a 20 are only better tanks than characters who get hit on anything but a 1 because they can take that hit and still have enough HP to take as many more as the monster's attack speed dishes out in the time it takes to heal (in fact, they are pretty close to the same HP totals). This (or its closest equivalent) has been true across all MMOs at least since EQ.

What makes you say it still will be, other than "players will die more", which has, again, been addressed.

Indeed, it has been addressed, A_D addressed it pretty thoroughly when he said that was the point of the change.

[Emili]

These are good points about where Epic balance should be.

That said, who knows what's out there. I don't know if there are plenty of 70, 20/x4 crit enemies in Epic. If there are, I am doubtful Turbine would have made those damage profiles if they anticipated players wouldn't have 100%.
If Fort were modified and the 70, 20/x4 trash mobs do exist, those damage profiles would have to be brought in line. As you said, it's deeply unfair to spellcasters.

But in a mundane world of 70 20/x2s, though, it's less terrifying. You're looking at a 5% increase in damage per 20 swings. With a 5% reduction, you're looking at crits of 132.

I'd consider shaving -10% to -15% off Epic damage above and beyond whatever the crits require. The numbers really start looking less absurd, and the spikes kinda start looking even fun; those 800 HP players who would whine about Turbine making an "easy-button" will still have their triple-digit crits to pose a challenge.

Keep in mind the whole system should be designed to make some level of effective Fort possible for most players, most of the time. The extremes having full fort or zero fort shouldn't be the mean.

How would that work? Just ask yourself what conceivable anti-seeker bonus would be "good enough" for minimally effective fort for most players that try without excessive twinking. Pre-Epic, I think +20/+25 would be in the zone; in Epic, you might need an item with +35 or +40 -- or with the direction they are taking Epic to-hits, +50 may turn out to be reasonable.

This would not capture everyone under its umbrella. Turbine will have to design content to be survivable for low fort characters. Barbs have such penalties to AC they probably wouldn't even try for Fort; but human barbs may become a little more popular due to the ability to snag a toughness feat. Meanwhile, a rogue should still be able to dump defense and push HPs to beyond the 500s if it wants, but it will be more difficult to get the same predictable survivability that the rogue would have with a more balanced offense and defense. But a rogue won't get hit as often, so its up to the rogue. Choice is good.




I actually think this is a good reason to attempt to rework the current Fort system. At present, easy Heavy Fort disproportionately benefits Barbs and DPS melees. Those classes are designed to soak massive damage with HPs and DR, and Heavy Fort relieves them of the largest share of that damage. They are at the most at-risk of crits, because they take the most hits. But they are crit-immune. Imagine any other level 9 item that increases the effective red bar of the 500+hp melee by anywhere from 5%-30%.

As for casters... I won't get into all the opinions I have about the role casters should play in Epic content design. They lack their best defenses, which traditionally has never been Fort but rather their offensive spells. In the absence of removing mob immunities, having access to damage mitigation is crucial for these casters. Rather than through items, though, I'm a fan of accessing Fort through spells like Iron Body (with Still Spell metamagics, of course) and abilities; that way, these "vulnerable" classes will have effective fort without creating easy-fort items for the melees to hoard.

Having written all this, though, I'm pretty sure the %-debuff system Eladrin spoke of is the wave of the future. Which has its own benefits, but mostly for no-defense, high-HP classes that can absorb the damage. I'll just wait til we hear more about it.

I am very sure mob damage is based on the weapon type they are using... The unarmed in particular seem well unarmed... I think such as they produce comparable damage to PC weapons slashing, piercing etc... and seem to coincide with like crit ranges and x values at lower levels... i.e. mob with scimi's seem to crit more than those with swords and those more often then mob with clubs.

Currently epic mob have what seem to be enormous strength bonus ... damage done is on weapon types - I am very sure of that... I was duoing "Bargain for blood" on epic the other day with a friend - two melee we were - just toying around... archers shooting he took notice I was holding up better ... he was running a 12 fighter/6 ranger/2 barb compared to my pure fighter (both builds are twf but I can turtle mine down for reasonable AC and dr)... He noted the arrows were doing some mixed elemental also ... I then turtled down with shieled and thus could knock damage down to due to DR. Had not thought about it but will look into testing such without fort to see if these numbers are x3 as a longbow would be. Would be quite simple to test.

[smatt]

I'm gonna take a gander and say that they are salaried...

Ummm what's salaried? I have no idea what that is ... Perhaps you should take a gander at a clock and see that there's a limited amount of hours on that little circle thingy on the outside of it....

Jeeezz.....

[gavagai]

Since AC characters aren't, as a rule, on the lower end of the HP scale, and what you're talking about is not any less dangerous to low HP low AC characters, the only people who are capable of preemptively avoiding instant death aren't at risk in the first place. You're advocating a change that will further restrict the number of viable builds, because fewer builds will be able to survive a single attack.

Being "disadvantaged at hit points" is the same thing as saying that mobs are "overadvantaged at damage." The fact that 100% Fort gives a lot more life to melees than casters is a part of that. As long as 100% Fort is easily accessible for all characters, it will require Turbine to release content with higher base damage numbers. The numbers are balanced to represent the average conflict, in which the caster must be assumed to be avoiding damage through jumping and twitching, not Heavy Fort. That's just one reason why most Epic parties are chocked full of melees, and casters are primarily support.

Casters face a "Syllogism of Pain"* in which easy access High Fort is traceable to at least one factor:
-- You can't summarily avoid damage with innate class abilities such as spells, high AC, or insta-killing.
-- You have inferior HPs.
-- You face increased base damage so melee are challenged.

Keeping Heavy Fort as is isn't saving low HP classes. Heavy Fort is one of the factors that encourages the trivialization of low HP classes. The occasional death-from-crit might be unfun for a caster, but casters aren't taking hits to begin with. It's the melee player who should be worried about that increased chance of taking a crit, and who benefit disproportionately from 100% Fort.

Arcane casters are glass cannons; damage avoidance is ending the conflict with magic. Heavy Fort is squallid protection when you can't insta-kill of effectively CC mobs; those spells, over time, provide better damage avoidance than Heavy Fort does. But to the extent casters have to go through oceans of enemy hit points like melees, they are disadvantaged.

Clerics in plate-armor and a shield should likely have higher Fortification than a robe-wearing Barb. Easy Fort items remove those "natural" balance issues, which lead to somewhat bizarre results -- including the fact that there is no defensive advantage to being a Cleric over a Favored Soul.

*Not actually a syllogism, but I thought we could all appreciate the dramatic tone.

One of the benefits of the system Eladrin hints at is that in order to be susceptible to crits, you have to take a special attack, and then at least one additional attack which can crit. More if you can push fort high enough that it won't be worn off in a single attack. That means that most characters are not constantly at risk of dying instantly from an unlucky crit, but that those who absorb the bulk of attacks from a monster with a fort-reduction ability are going to fall into a critable fort range at some point, dependent on how much "overfort" they have and how much a single sunder (or other fort reducing special) attack reduces it. And it's more fair, because every class can attain a significant level of fortification, while not every class can attain a significant AC.

I agree it could be fun -- if, in addition to adding crits, they reduce base damage. It's a losing game for non-HP classes as long as easy 100% Fort leads to inflated damage.

If Turbine views Heavy Fort as easy and the debuff as a penalty to the player, they may just let current damage/crits stay as they are. Which again, is fine for everyone who doesn't need to justify their place in Epic (Barbs, Kensai) but might well end the melee Rogue and Bard.

The "penalty" for being crit should be the variability of the damage over time, not "more" damage against the player over time. That creates a way to introduce challenge that allows for even less damage over time, and doesn't gimp non-HP classes.

But as a larger picture, Turbine does need to deal with the fact that inserting criticals isn't changing how avoidable damage is, merely how variable it is.

Where damage is unavoidable (player's AC is too low) and static (100% Fort), more hit points will always be favored.

Where damage which is unavoidable and variable (%-debuffs against a player), more hit points will always be favored.

What is lacking is a dimension to make damage more avoidable for non-HP classes, beyond the 10/- DR that everyone and his mother can get through class features or Stoneskin spells. And I think the solutions for those will have to be different, depending on the classes.

Arcanes: Magic! Better defensive spells, fewer immunities to their offensive spells.
Divines: more correlation between armor and defense.
Melee Rogues, Monks, Rangers: Any concept which (like the anti-seeker) rewards them for naturally high AC.
Bards: more powerful songs and effective CC.

[Borror0]

Maybe it would be, if those changes were made first. Why are we talking about this one now instead of those other changes?

Because this is the topic of this thread.

[...] that you thought the AC system was broken [...]

I said it so often on these boards that I forget to mention it now. Let me said it clearly: the AC system is ****ed.

If we're going to change them all, why not just make a new game with new code from scratch?

Because it's more costly (20ish+ million kind of costly) and would do nothing to improve the current game.

But wait, then we have to re-tune not just monster damage, but also monster HP, saves, and AC.

Over the last four years, players have received a large number of buffs at lower levels (like PrE) that were not there when the content was originally designed. We now have more DPS, HP and saves while leveling that most players had at that level.

Besides, this not a tightly balanced game where changing one thing will suddenly messed up a beautiful and fragile balance. The game is filled with imbalances and the difficulty of each quest is not carefully chosen to be just appropriated for the quest level - we have some level 16 quests that are tougher than some 19 quests. Having the quests becoming slightly tougher won't have any significant effect on the game.

[Tarnoc]

"Over the last four years, players have received a large number of buffs at lower levels (like PrE) that were not there when the content was originally designed. We now have more DPS, HP and saves while leveling that most players had at that level."


notice you only mention half of the story.....you have forgotten to mention the fact they have nerfed alot of good weapons a ton of other abilitys and many good spells and increased monster ai to the point that on elite they spam hold monster before people would have fom if they tried........those changes were changed over the past 4 years before PREs....and then secondly in 4 years how many years have you actually played and how many different classes have you played borror?

[Angelus_dead]

Since AC characters aren't, as a rule, on the lower end of the HP scale

False. Within those kinds of characters that would reasonably be expected to stand up to sustained monster attacks they are somewhat lower in hitpoints.

Since your intent is to one-shot/one-round these characters

That is not true, as is apparent from reading what I've written here. To say that could indicate a dearth of nuance.

And it's more fair, because every class can attain a significant level of fortification, while not every class can attain a significant AC.

A classic fallacy. It is unjustified to claim that something is "fair" just because it applies equally to all persons. To say that means ignoring what "fair" really means.

As already repeatedly explained, a monster ability to temporarily reduce Fortification is much more damaging to characters who max hitpoints are not on the high side, and whose attack style is not based on kiting. They'll have to either shy away from those combats, be much less effective in them, or acquire expensive new gear (such as Chimera's Fang which gives stacking Fort by costing a weapon slot, three feats, and your race). But the higher hitpoint characters are in position to continue fighting as they do now and not react to the change, except by demanding an even higher rate of incoming healing during battle.

Would anyone claim that it's a good idea to further increase the importance of hitpoints compared to other defensive stats?

[Angelus_dead]

Clerics in plate-armor and a shield should likely have higher Fortification than a robe-wearing Barb. Easy Fort items remove those "natural" balance issues, which lead to somewhat bizarre results -- including the fact that there is no defensive advantage to being a Cleric over a Favored Soul.

Very true, and a Cleric in fullplate and heavy shield would seem to be a good starting target for the lowest AC that is beneficial.

The Cleric's ability to cast in heavy armor was supposed to have been a concrete benefit over Wizards and Sorcerers.

[Beherit_Baphomar]

As already repeatedly explained, a monster ability to temporarily reduce Fortification is much more damaging to characters who max hitpoints are not on the high side, and whose attack style is not based on kiting. They'll have to either shy away from those combats, be much less effective in them, or acquire expensive new gear (such as Chimera's Fang which gives stacking Fort by costing a weapon slot, three feats, and your race). But the higher hitpoint characters are in position to continue fighting as they do now and not react to the change, except by demanding an even higher rate of incoming healing during battle.

Would anyone claim that it's a good idea to further increase the importance of hitpoints compared to other defensive stats?

Quoted for emphasis.

I may even report this post to make sure it gets Dev attention!

[Artos_Fabril]

A classic fallacy. It is unjustified to claim that something is "fair" just because it applies equally to all persons. To say that means ignoring what "fair" really means.

Not only does the example you site specifically refer to something which does not apply equally to all persons, it also doesn't do anything to prove or explain why what I wrote was a fallacy. In fact, a monster ability that reduces fortification has more in common with a progressive tax, since those characters who receive more attacks and are more likely to have their fortification reduced, are also generally build to have higher HP, higher AC, or both and may, in the future, also be built to have higher fort.

If any hit or linked series of hits is dangerous to a 600 hit point character, it will be lethal to a 300 hit point character.

Yes, that's the point.

Since your intent is to one-shot/one-round these characters

That is not true, as is apparent from reading what I've written here. To say that could indicate a dearth of nuance.

Where is the nuance that I'm missing?

Would anyone claim that it's a good idea to further increase the importance of hitpoints compared to other defensive stats?

I don't know that anyone would come right out and make that claim, but it is what you are, in effect, advocating. Any shift towards spikes in damage increases the value of HP, regardless of the amount you reduce the base by.

As already repeatedly explained, a monster ability to temporarily reduce Fortification is much more damaging to characters who max hitpoints are not on the high side, and whose attack style is not based on kiting.

I don't know where you think this has been explained, if it's in this thread we've got different views on what constitutes an explanation versus a declaration. A monster ability which temporarily reduces fortification is a greater danger to characters that are routinely targeted by monster abilities, while a removal of fortification, even coupled to a lowering of base damage across the board, has a high impact on anyone who is ever the target of monster attacks.

In any event, what we're doing here is mental masturbation. The devs have already selected a method and begun implementing it and the first item has already shown up, which means that the design, balancing, and coding are all underway. I doubt we're going to change their minds at this point.

[Xaearth]

To be honest, this thread gives me a migraine, so I'm just gonna say this:

Have you not noticed how long it's taking to get DA working right?
What makes (any of) you think that, after making high level players susceptible to critical hits, Turbine would actually balance mob damage right in any respectable amount of time?

And the intermediate result would likely be a much, much less playable game than any problem DA has introduced.
Especially when the two start making horrendously hideous bug-babies together.

[Scraap]

Might help if we could get some dev-clarification that monster damage is at least partly based on strength, and that that would be reduced with the re-introduction of the crit-mechanic for higher levels. I do know when I initially made my statement on the matter, that was the underlying assumption, since it's DnD based... *If* that's the procedure followed, reducing strength also reduces to-hit (unless it's a dex-critter of course), which would bump up the utility of ac to a degree as well, not to mention making dr more useful since the baseline per-hit would be a bit lower... but that is of course, presuming that the numbers we see are in fact DnD derived... Can we get a clarification that that *is* in fact the case? Because if not... well, that's a whole other ballgame...

[Angelus_dead]

Where is the nuance that I'm missing?

Not really allowed to answer that, sorry.

I don't know that anyone would come right out and make that claim, but it is what you are, in effect, advocating.

That is completely untrue.

[Artos_Fabril]

That is completely untrue.

Then please, demonstrate, or at least explain, how a shift towards spiked damage from steady damage does not emphasize the value of high HP totals. Claiming a thing is untrue does not make it untrue, regardless of how often, or how loudly, you make the claim. That is in fact a logical fallacy, specifically the fallacy of Proof by assertion. The whole thing is rapidly approaching an Argumentum ad nauseam, however.

[Xaearth]

Then please, demonstrate, or at least explain, how a shift towards spiked damage from steady damage does not emphasize the value of high HP totals. Claiming a thing is untrue does not make it untrue, regardless of how often, or how loudly, you make the claim. That is in fact a logical fallacy, specifically the fallacy of Proof by assertion. The whole thing is rapidly approaching an Argumentum ad nauseam, however.

I think:
1) what he's saying is that the devs are going to do something about fortification either way.
2) your stance is against changing fort.
3) his stance is against changing fort the way the devs seem to be planning.
4) you both are arguing against the dev's original plan that would result in emphasis on high hp totals.

All that said, remember I get a migraine reading this thread.

[Borror0]

Then please, demonstrate, or at least explain, how a shift towards spiked damage from steady damage does not emphasize the value of high HP totals.

You accused him to be a proponent of a change that would "further increase the importance of hit points compared to other defensive stats". It's quite obvious, when you look at the proposed change, that the change improves the desirability of Armor Class. Since his position would improve the worth of AC while status quo would not, it is not logical to conclude that he supports a change that would further diminish the value of defensive stats other than HP: he wants the direct opposite.

[Lleren]

Then please, demonstrate, or at least explain, how a shift towards spiked damage from steady damage does not emphasize the value of high HP totals. Claiming a thing is untrue does not make it untrue, regardless of how often, or how loudly, you make the claim. That is in fact a logical fallacy, specifically the fallacy of Proof by assertion. The whole thing is rapidly approaching an Argumentum ad nauseam, however.

You appear to have not read this thread.

Roughly, If incoming damage under a spikey incoming damage system is on average < incoming damage to the same character under the currrent system. Then it will both feel more dangerous, and be safer over time.

The ideas discussed also include methods to lower mob to hit, single hit damage, damage multiplier on a crit, and widen the range of usefull AC from a 20 point spread to a 40 or more point spread.

You appear to be having a knee-jerk reaction to the thread, not a reasoning one.

P.S. I don't think incoming critical hits on player characters are fun, outgoing critical hits on the other hand are =D
Whenever the option was discussed in the pen and paper groups I would give my points against them. Here in DDO though we are stuck with them until level 9, and then they go away. Unless we play Warforged, then they go away earlier.

[sephiroth1084]

The biggest problem I see with the hinted at alteration to fortification is that it doesn't appear that the devs are taking into account the big picture. A comprehensive rebalancing of the combat system is looong overdue; the devs need to look at how the different combat statistics interact with each other (HP, attack bonuses, damage, AC, DR, fortification).

Currently, a lot of monsters have too much HP, too little AC, and either attack bonuses that are much too low or much too high, and as a result we have the warped combat that has typified DDO's endgame, where spell damage is nearly useless, where hitting a monster on a 2+ is almost a given, where an entire range of quests treats even minor monsters as significant obstacles by giving them thousands upon thousands of HP. Meanwhile, AC is very much an all or nothing venture that is increasingly more difficult to sustain, and which is nearly pointless in the very top tier of play, and players' emphasize HP almost every other defensive stat.



Another aspect that needs to be considered is that of exclusive buffs (bard buffs mostly) that make balancing incredibly difficult since the difference between having the exclusive buffs and not is so huge (9 damage, 7 attack, 4 AC, etc...). Almost every non-bard-exclusive buff can be replicated to a lesser degree by another class: barkskin comes in potions, recitation on wands, etc... This gives us a great deal of flexibility in constructing a party, but also means that the developers can take into account many of these buffs when designing challenges, since it is reasonable to expect that a group at X level will be able to obtain Y buff. The same is not true for the buffs a bard provides with their songs. If the exclusive buffs were smaller (+1, +2, maybe even +3 if they don't stack with much) then this wouldn't be as significant a problem, but there's just no way to balance a group with +7 attack, +9 damage and one without, not as the way the system works now.



Also, and on of a somewhat different realm of development, monster AI needs some further tuning. It's gotten better, but it still isn't where it needs to be in order to meet the demands of the DDO combat system effectively. For example, despite several apparent attempts to fix this issue, it is still far too easy for a few players to block a doorway or surround a monster, immobilizing the threat while remaining fairly free from danger because someone else has aggro. This has been addressed in a few ways (Harry does the teleport thing in part 5, the Knight in VoN 6 just runs through everyone, etc...), but we still have a lot of places where encounters are just too easily overcome by such cheesy tactics.

[Angelus_dead]

Roughly, If incoming damage under a spikey incoming damage system is on average < incoming damage to the same character under the currrent system.

Another important point to recognize is that it's inaccurate to say that DDO's current system doesn't include very spikey damage, particularly at the (new) top end. Most of the time that fact is too subtle to notice, but if you play a cleric in elite TOD or epic desert you'll see what I'm saying.

Melee damage from those monsters is characterized by mainly either hitting for heavy damage, or making no attack roll at all due to CC, aggro, displacement, or player movement. Players can avoid a whole lot of attacks by those means, but when they do get hit it doesn't take many to kill someone. Thus, the damage is literally "spiking", as would be apparent if you had a line graph of hp-vs-time (hopefully the devs have graphs like that).

The suggestion to change Fortification into confirmation AC would make that damage less spikey for the subset of characters with moderate to high AC. The slope from 100% hp to 0% would literally become gentler.