Remove/Replace Fortification.

[Angelus_dead]

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

Often a lot of players with a D&D background wrongly complain that monster hp in computer games are too high, when really that is a necessary artifact of the conversion to a realtime multiplayer system. But DDO has often taken it too far in some recent content, such as with many of the humans around Dreaming Dark or the efreeti in Demon's Den.

(The earth elementals in Acid Wit are an interesting divergence from typical DDO monster stats, but the retain the problem of all earth eles: wasting their time Earthgrabbing someone who is immune)

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

You're leaving out the Paladin aura buff... and the light monk finishers, but those have less magnitude.

Long ago when the big list of future prestige enhancements was released, I suggested that many of them could be given lesser versions of class-specific buffs to help smooth out the difference between having that character or not.

It went something like this:
Knight of the Chalice- Inspire Courage damage
Purple Dragon Knight- Inspire Courage damage+hit, Aura AC
Shintao- Aura Saves
Henshin- Barkskin
Warpriest- Haste

In addition, what should be done is to relabel the Inspire Heroics AC bonus from "Dodge" to "Morale" (or something), and then create a few new abilities that provide that +1 to +3 Morale AC. Might not be bad to also give bard-like buffs to some cleric and FVS specialties while we're at it.

Note that the non-bard versions of Inspire Courage would tend to be lower in uses, duration, and targets, meaning that not only would they provide smaller bonuses than a real bard, but they also wouldn't be guaranteed to be up for 100% of the combat in a dungeon. For example, the KOTC might spend a Smite to give Inspire damage for 30 seconds at a time, making it a boss-only bonus (which is when you need it most).

It is interesting to see how Warcraft is de-exclusivizing buffs in their next expansion. They just gave Mages a copy of the powerful Shaman Bloodlust.

while remaining fairly free from danger because someone else has aggro.

Yes, the devs should try harder to make monsters swing at whatever opponent is blocking their movement, which is what happens automatically with player characters. If you target a monster and chase him around swinging, you'll inadvertently hit whatever other monsters get in the way. It would look goofy to have monsters start doing their attack animation when they don't have anything in reach, but that can be dealt with.

[sephiroth1084]

Often a lot of players with a D&D background wrongly complain that monster hp in computer games are too high, when really that is a necessary artifact of the conversion to a realtime multiplayer system. But DDO has often taken it too far in some recent content, such as with many of the humans around Dreaming Dark or the efreeti in Demon's Den.

My point was in a DDO-sense, not a PnP or video games in general sense. There are plenty of areas where monsters have much more HP than they should. The giants in Prey could have their HP cut in half without the gameplay suffering. Most raid bosses could stand to have their HP totals lowered a bit as well. I understand that part of the challenge in facing them is in pacing yourself and managing resources, but there are other ways that we can be challenged in these aspects without simply tacking a quarter of a million HP onto something.

(The earth elementals in Acid Wit are an interesting divergence from typical DDO monster stats, but the retain the problem of all earth eles: wasting their time Earthgrabbing someone who is immune)

I've only run Acid Wit once; what was the interesting divergence here? I somewhat recall the elementals having very high AC and some hefty DR, but don't recall much else about them, since the party caster was going hog wild with Banishment.

You're leaving out the Paladin aura buff... and the light monk finishers, but those have less magnitude.

Funny, since I play paladins so much, but I was trying not to be too verbose, of which I am often guilty, and so didn't expound upon all the unique buffs in the game, instead focusing on the bard for the reason you mention: greater magnitude of impact.

And I recall your list, and recall it being a pretty good idea then, just as it is now. I suspect that Purple Dragon Knight and probably the Warpriest will fulfill some of this need, but those are a long way off apparently, given the speed with which PrEs are coming out and that these are not of the highest demand.

Yes, the devs should try harder to make monsters swing at whatever opponent is blocking their movement, which is what happens automatically with player characters. If you target a monster and chase him around swinging, you'll inadvertently hit whatever other monsters get in the way. It would look goofy to have monsters start doing their attack animation when they don't have anything in reach, but that can be dealt with.

I think that having them temporarily aggro on whatever is impeding their movement would be an okay solution in general, while giving more monsters some sort of ability to clear out blockers, such as with knockback (giants), trip, teleport... It would serve to preserve some of the challenge planned into encounters, maintain a sense of verisimilitude and make a lot of encounters quite a bit more dynamic and interesting.

[Artos_Fabril]

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.

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.

I said it would further increase the value of HP, not that it would decrease the value of other defensive stats, Gavagai explains why:

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.

This concept is well understood and mathematically demonstrable. Shall I lay out the math?

[samthedagger]

I'll add my two coppers to this thread and then gracefully bow out.

The more randomness there is in the game, the more it hurts players. Critical hits are great for players. It adds to the excitement when they score a deadly blow when it matters. But when such a blow is scored on a player, it grinds the game to a halt. The party has to pull back, regroup, cast raise dead/resurrection, renew buff spells, etc. Giving players tools, like heavy fort., to help lessen the impact of randomness help the players keep playing the game.

When I run pencil and paper D&D, I have, on several occasions, cut critical hits out of the game completely at low levels, or at least lessened their impact by reducing threat ranges and multipliers. That's because when you are fighting 1st level orcs and you score a critical hit against one of them, all that happens is that the game keeps moving. The orc was supposed to die. That's pretty much the only reason he was there. When the orc scores a critical hit against the player character, on the other hand, it's a much different story. The player dies. The game grinds to a halt as you wait for the player to roll up a new character. Or the game can go on without him/her while a new character is rolled, but the player didn't come to the game just to roll up new characters. Character death is part of the game, and I don't think you can keep the game as exciting without the threat of death looming around the corner. But it helps if death isn't purely the result of some random freak incident. Heavy fort. helps reduce those random freak incidents. That way, when death does happen, it is a more often learning experience because it was due to some mistake by the player (a mistake that hopefully will not be repeated), not because some random number was rolled.

I'll crawl back into my hole now.

[noinfo]

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.

This implementation concept is starting to grow on me...

However I would suggest the following:

Lower to-hit of monsters since the above should be used tactically more often.
Lower base damage since while crit spikes would be a nice challenge instant death isn't nice

Only and this is possibley the most important part- Allow addional fortification on shields and armour types starting with the smallest bonus on light through to the heaviest on Full plate.

It should not be implemented on other items at all...

*** Maybe its also now time to reconsider grazing hits as well, as in getting rid of.

[Borror0]

I said it would further increase the value of HP, not that it would decrease the value of other defensive stats

You seem unaware of what you've said, so let me remind you:

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.

[Angelus_dead]

The giants in Prey could have their HP cut in half without the gameplay suffering.

That's only true if you assume the players do not have weapons on the power level of tier 3 greensteel. If the party has good DPS, then to reduce the giants' hp very much would make them seem wimpy and pointless.

When Prey on the Hunter first came out it was above the level cap, so of course players would tend to have lots of strong greensteel (Shroud had been endgame for a long while previously). But today with a level cap of 20 and many new players, it is easy to advance to level 18+ without getting a 4-shard weapon. This illustrates the game balance problems of introducing items that are too big a jump up from the next-lower tier of equipment.

(There are other serious game design flaws in Prey, particularly relating to respawn conditions of those same giants. The party's success in melee against them is too dependent on knowing when it is appropriate to either fight the giants or run past, which cannot be learned except by repeated trials. There's no in-character explanation for where they keep coming from)

Most raid bosses could stand to have their HP totals lowered a bit as well.

That would also reduce gameplay enjoyment, unless it was in conjunction with other huge changes (such as bringing the party size down to six).

I think that having them temporarily aggro on whatever is impeding their movement would be an okay solution in general, while giving more monsters some sort of ability to clear out blockers, such as with knockback (giants), trip, teleport...

Another useful approach would be to give some monsters a good ranged attack, and then have them use it when conditions prevent them from reaching their chosen target.

Obviously that change would also be beneficial in enabling player character ranged combat to be improved, because one of the current obstacles to strengthening players at ranged is the fact that few mobs have much way to fight back against someone at a distance.

[Emili]

I think that having them temporarily aggro on whatever is impeding their movement would be an okay solution in general, while giving more monsters some sort of ability to clear out blockers, such as with knockback (giants), trip, teleport... It would serve to preserve some of the challenge planned into encounters, maintain a sense of verisimilitude and make a lot of encounters quite a bit more dynamic and interesting.

Currently certain mob have an ability to to adjust threat... i.e. the shroud lieutenants - as people pin one down - shall they take a blocking stance with them they will begin to change scope and fight those blocking ... funny though is once the blocking is let up the mob returns to agro on the PC which had the agro previously... Thus the idea would be to expand this to just a PC standing in the way rather than just those with the shift key held down.

imo, Sulu and Harry have the better AI in the game when it come to agro... still not correct but an aire to randomizing agro is what make those battles more unique. Temporay breaks from a player attempting to control them allows for more diverse outcome...

[Emili]

That's only true if you assume the players do not have weapons on the power level of tier 3 greensteel. If the party has good DPS, then to reduce the giants' hp very much would make them seem wimpy and pointless.

When Prey on the Hunter first came out it was above the level cap, so of course players would tend to have lots of strong greensteel (Shroud had been endgame for a long while previously). But today with a level cap of 20 and many new players, it is easy to advance to level 18+ without getting a 4-shard weapon. This illustrates the game balance problems of introducing items that are too big a jump up from the next-lower tier of equipment.

(There are other serious game design flaws in Prey, particularly relating to respawn conditions of those same giants. The party's success in melee against them is too dependent on knowing when it is appropriate to either fight the giants or run past, which cannot be learned except by repeated trials. There's no in-character explanation for where they keep coming from)


That would also reduce gameplay enjoyment, unless it was in conjunction with other huge changes (such as bringing the party size down to six).


Another useful approach would be to give some monsters a good ranged attack, and then have them use it when conditions prevent them from reaching their chosen target.

Obviously that change would also be beneficial in enabling player character ranged combat to be improved, because one of the current obstacles to strengthening players at ranged is the fact that few mobs have much way to fight back against someone at a distance.

Prey, Etk and even Monestary when first introduced were actually a counter to GS. Prey itself the prefered weapon of any character became a WoP ... even those with moderate to high DPS went to stat damage vs outright DPS - only the fully loaded DPS character could take down a giant within reasonable time - and that was thru bursting it and utilizing the time bursted as wise as possible - thus speed is delivering damage of the essense while stat damage being a constant let the group set a pace rather than one character in group set the pace. Etk at first required those who spent time farming fire resistance and protective means or some simple evasive characters with stat draining weapons...

[Artos_Fabril]

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.

Now I'll grant that without seeing the actual implementation, I can't make a concrete claim that the value of HP would go up more than the value of AC. The value of HP does go up relative to all other defensive stats, and unlike AC it applies in all cases where a character takes damage, so it is my supposition that it will be the most favorable option. So yes, unless AC becomes much more meaningful to all characters, and effective AC+anti-seeker is just as attainable as fort, the value of HP goes up relative to the value of all other defensive stats.*

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.

Here's where you change what I said from a relative increase in the value of HP, to an absolute decrease in the value of all other defensive stats. It is not logical to claim that the status quo changes anything, since by definition the status quo changes nothing.

In addition, A_D proposes leaving racial and monster-type fortification as is.

1. Except for creatures who naturally lack vital spots (like undead and constructs), Fortification is changed from percentages to an AC bonus on confirmation AC. (This means WF retain a racial 25%, which is separate from all changes)

So what really happens at the end game is that the preferred tank becomes the 100% fort WF barbarian, because he's got the highest base HP, his DR is more effective versus the lower base hits, and he is still not susceptible to crits regardless of his AC. Unless we remove WF racial fort enhancements too, but no has bothered to consider that yet.


*If AC+anti-seeker is just as attainable as heavy fort, nothing changes in the long run. In the short run, you'd better pair this change with free respec for all characters.

[Lleren]

I said it would further increase the value of HP, not that it would decrease the value of other defensive stats, Gavagai explains why:

This concept is well understood and mathematically demonstrable. Shall I lay out the math?

No, you appear to be basically, quote sniping, and ignoring the rest of the thread/post to do so. For example A_D quoted me and elaborated a bit on my understanding of the thread, and his responce to me makes sense, even considering the lines that where cut out.

You quote me, and respond. Considered in context with the rest of my post however, your responce is nonsensical. It is only when you take the quote out of context, that your responce makes sense.

[Tarnoc]

Often a lot of players with a D&D background wrongly complain that monster hp in computer games are too high, when really that is a necessary artifact of the conversion to a realtime multiplayer system. But DDO has often taken it too far in some recent content, such as with many of the humans around Dreaming Dark or the efreeti in Demon's Den.

(The earth elementals in Acid Wit are an interesting divergence from typical DDO monster stats, but the retain the problem of all earth eles: wasting their time Earthgrabbing someone who is immune)


You're leaving out the Paladin aura buff... and the light monk finishers, but those have less magnitude.

Long ago when the big list of future prestige enhancements was released, I suggested that many of them could be given lesser versions of class-specific buffs to help smooth out the difference between having that character or not.

It went something like this:
Knight of the Chalice- Inspire Courage damage
Purple Dragon Knight- Inspire Courage damage+hit, Aura AC
Shintao- Aura Saves
Henshin- Barkskin
Warpriest- Haste

In addition, what should be done is to relabel the Inspire Heroics AC bonus from "Dodge" to "Morale" (or something), and then create a few new abilities that provide that +1 to +3 Morale AC. Might not be bad to also give bard-like buffs to some cleric and FVS specialties while we're at it.

Note that the non-bard versions of Inspire Courage would tend to be lower in uses, duration, and targets, meaning that not only would they provide smaller bonuses than a real bard, but they also wouldn't be guaranteed to be up for 100% of the combat in a dungeon. For example, the KOTC might spend a Smite to give Inspire damage for 30 seconds at a time, making it a boss-only bonus (which is when you need it most).

It is interesting to see how Warcraft is de-exclusivizing buffs in their next expansion. They just gave Mages a copy of the powerful Shaman Bloodlust.


Yes, the devs should try harder to make monsters swing at whatever opponent is blocking their movement, which is what happens automatically with player characters. If you target a monster and chase him around swinging, you'll inadvertently hit whatever other monsters get in the way. It would look goofy to have monsters start doing their attack animation when they don't have anything in reach, but that can be dealt with.

SO DO YOU LIKE ANYTHING IN THIS GAME??......SEEMS TO ME YOU SHOULD JUST LEAVE AS ALL YOU WANNA DO IS CHANGE EVERYTHING TO YOUR WAY.......

BARDS HAVE NOT MUCH OF ANYTHING TO BRING TO THE TABLE BUT THIER SONGS AND THEY HAVE TO SPEND ENHANCEMENTS TO GET FULL TO HIT AND DAMAGE>>>>BUT THATS RIGHT THEIR OVER POWERED BECAUSE THEY SING A SONG EVERY 9MINS and PIKE THE REST OF THE TIME LOL

[Aesop]

/sigh

Not sure I like the AC boosting way that A_D is advocating. Seems like it would dramatically weaken a number of builds and making a lot of people unhappy... (Shade for instance ... wait that may be ok )

however I'm not seeing much else that would make a much better system either.

Overall I think the one the Devs are talking about is the one that I like best.

A_D's idea has definite merit ... but I'm not sold on it

Aesop

[Borror0]

Seems like it would dramatically weaken a number of builds and making a lot of people unhappy...

Anything that would make AC more valuable would accomplish that, directly or indirectly.

It is logical for characters who don't focus on Armor Class to take more damage.

So what really happens at the end game is that the preferred tank becomes the 100% fort WF barbarian

It would be an horrible character because it would be immune to healing spells.

[Artos_Fabril]

It would be an horrible character because it would be immune to healing spells.

That is a horrible character in current content where base damage is so high DR barely plays a role and crit immunity is easily attainable without a significant drawback. But you're talking about changing all of those things. So you have to take an arcane (or anyone who can UMD a reconstruct scroll) to heal your new raid tank that takes a steady stream of low damage hits? What do you think is going to happen here?

[Borror0]

What do you think is going to happen here?

Most characters are going to start increasing their Armor Class. You know, the intended goal as has been established 15 pages ago!

Perhaps high AC character will be worth using as main tanks now, which would be an added bonus.

[Aesop]

Anything that would make AC more valuable would accomplish that, directly or indirectly.

It is logical for characters who don't focus on Armor Class to take more damage.

In the current game dynamic this would do effectively nothing for higher AC people while crippling low ac people completely.

High AC people will go from getting hit occassionaly and not suffering Critical Hits
to
getting hit occassionally and rarely suffering critical hits


while low ac people will go from getting hit all the time and not sufffering critical hits
to
getting hit all the time and getting critically hit all the time


which is why I'm leaning towards the Devs option (wihch is good cause that's the one we will likely get)

with that a low AC character can build for getting high critical resistance and suck up regular hits

and a high ac character can rely on their high ac to twart the critical hits (or grab Fort items to make doubly sure)

Aesop

[Artos_Fabril]

Most characters are going to start increasing their Armor Class. You know, the intended goal as has been established 15 pages ago!

Yes, I understand that's what you want to have happen, my point has been that you are not looking at the actual most likely effects of the change that you propose, you've already decided that it's the best choice, and have been defending it to the exclusion of predictably likely scenarios.

The only chance for your idea to work, as you have half-acknowledged previously, is to make all of these sweeping changes at the same time and couple it to a free respec for all characters. Even then I don't think it's particularly likely to have the effect you desire.

[Borror0]

which is why I'm leaning towards the Devs option (wihch is good cause that's the one we will likely get)

It would be good if you at least explain why you think the described scenario is bad. It's particularly confusing considering you've been asking for something very close to that outcome for literally years now. So, I'm not understanding what you dislike exactly.

[TheDjinnFor]

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.

Point is your argument sucked, because you pulled your premises out of your rear, and only at least attempting to back them up now.

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

Fair enough. Still though, builds can be designed to not be one-shotted by critical hits; part of that involves standing off to the side of a fight (like, you know, someone with a semblance of intelligence?). You're acting as though half-decent players who CAN be one-shotted actually ever will.

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

Once more, from the top: Why? Just because you can die easily if you're mentally challenged enough doesn't mean everyone is going to try to do so.

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.

Right, and decrease the value of fort. How again does that make Heavy Fort mandatory for, say, barbarians? Just because people can die from it does not make it mandatory to be immune to it. Case in point damage in general.

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.

Less damage is less damage. Do I need to say any more? Spike damage just requires the healers to be a little more attentive, which has the benefit of making their job less of a chore..

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.

Yes, because you're the authority on all things MMO. Right. DDO isn't EverQuest, or WoW, or what have you; talk about DDO.

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

Reading comprehension fail. Quote me where he said 'the point is to make people die more often, just because we want to annoy them, durr hurr', or whatever you're arguing. No, indeed he was very specific about things feeling more lethal and yet not actually killing more often; to paraphrase, the point is to make low-AC toons act more like low-AC toons. Again, the onus is on you to demonstrate how people will have no ability to stop themselves from dropping like flies, or at least enough to feel 'frustrated' that the game is 'out to get them'. Nothing like a little bit of fear to make people more attentive, focused, and ultimately more interested in the game that they are playing.

See red.