Remove/Replace Fortification.

[Aesop]

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.

Are you saying that you don't see the difference between making a wider range of AC is useful and making not having AC lethal?


On the one side of this coin you have Armor Class (or rather Defensive minded)being a valid playstyle.

On the other you utterly cripple a different playstyle and don't actually improve the defensive nature of any playstyle.

No one actually gains anything from the change per se. They gain an illusion.

The Mid AC people say... Hey I don't get criticalled very often because my AC (with Fortification) is really high. As opposed to now in which they say they don't get criticalled at all, but they still get hit 97% of the time.

The low AC people say, I get Criticalled ALL the time because even with Fortification my AC isn't high enough to be worth a ****. As opposed to right now where they say. I get hit all the time but I don't get criticalled.

The high AC people say I get criticalled very rarely, because my AC is so high, and I only need a little fortification. Currently they say, I don't get criticalled at all.


So in what way is the proposed system, which is based on a currently non working system accomplish making Defensive Characters more viable without utterly crippling Offensive characters.

It won't even address the Rogue issue of Crit Immune mobs, because they are specifically omitted from this conversion to notn Fortification.


The Dev mentioned system gives the Devs options to have critters reduce targets Fortification in certain key battles (and likewise for players) while not crippling lower AC characters in others.

Will this dramatically help mid to high AC characters? nope... but it does have the benefit of more options and it doesn't work on the system that really isn't working well right now.

So, while I do want defensive characters to be improved, this is not the system that will do that.

Regarless of which idea is employed Fortification change will not "improve" any character defensively and really only crit and sneak attack focused characters will gain true benefit from it.

Aesop

[Aesop]

See red.

You can not design a system on the premise that people won't need to use it. Its counter productive.

Yes people who are not in the fray aren't liely t oget hit as often as people who stand toe to toe with demons.

How is that relevant to whether a system, which assumes people are getting hit, is useful or not?



Its raining out. So you open an umbrella and say ... hey I'm not getting wet. The problem is you are still inside so the umbrella didn't matter to that to begin with.


Aesop

[Slap_Happy]

"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?

look up borror on myddo on thelanis. Seems like he really wants this change because it would help him. People are listening to a dude that hasnt played in 2 years and is mad that his ac is garbage. HE posts 20 posts a day doesnt play at all has a 60 ac and a lvl 17 toon. He wants turbine to fix his toon instead of fixing it himself. Maybe u shoudl play and true rez dude instead of posting all these posts.IM not sure about the other guys pressing for this change but i bet they have ac toons with near 60 ac too.

[Kriogen]

look up borror on myddo on thelanis. Seems like he really wants this change because it would help him. People are listening to a dude that hasnt played in 2 years and is mad that his ac is garbage. HE posts 20 posts a day doesnt play at all has a 60 ac and a lvl 17 toon. He wants turbine to fix his toon instead of fixing it himself. Maybe u shoudl play and true rez dude instead of posting all these posts.IM not sure about the other guys pressing for this change but i bet they have ac toons with near 60 ac too.

Old truth. People allways have a "motive" when they suggest so called "game improvements".

This goes for both, players and developers.

In case of players, it's not "game improvement", but "buff my toon". In case of devs it's "nerf".

[sephiroth1084]

Old truth. People allways have a "motive" when they suggest so called "game improvements".

This goes for both, players and developers.

In case of players, it's not "game improvement", but "buff my toon". In case of devs it's "nerf".

That's garbage. I want a nerf to fortification (and most other things that grant immunity), despite the fact that it would likely result in a lot of my character being squishier.

People always present a skewed perspective when trying to discredit others' opinions and suggestions, and are usually merely being selfish, at least in the case of making adjustments to the game.

[noinfo]

look up borror on myddo on thelanis. Seems like he really wants this change because it would help him. People are listening to a dude that hasnt played in 2 years and is mad that his ac is garbage. HE posts 20 posts a day doesnt play at all has a 60 ac and a lvl 17 toon. He wants turbine to fix his toon instead of fixing it himself. Maybe u shoudl play and true rez dude instead of posting all these posts.IM not sure about the other guys pressing for this change but i bet they have ac toons with near 60 ac too.

Get over it. Most of the people suggesting this are after variety in the game and looking to make improvements in play style. And yes I have ac toons, I have dps toon and many other types. Personally and game design wise I don't think your 0 ac toons should be able to stand out there and get hit the same as a 60 ac toon free from any critical issues, those toons who have dropped any consideration of ac for massive hp and dps should be good at soaking up damage and dishing it out but be concerned when they take those occasional big hits.

What I would expect is:

My Barb can out dps consistently my 2 weapon fighting ac melee but get hit and critted far more often but capable of handling the damage, my 2 weapon fighter may have the same ac as my ac turtled up tank but should be more vulnerable to critical hits (get rid of grazing). The choice of tanking should ideally be that of the those built to with S/B not just for ac but for fortification as well.

Do you honestly believe that the current strategy of having a high hp high dps 0 ac toon standing out there holding agro is working as intended?

The change will allow for a greater variety of options.

As for Borr, of course he has a vested interest in s/b and ac types, just as you apparently have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, this does not make him wrong.
While I don't particulary like his posting style and have had more than one arguement with him, slamming his toons because of the way the game has escalated since their creation is not appropriate.

[grodon9999]

Do you honestly believe that the current strategy of having a high hp high dps 0 ac toon standing out there holding agro is working as intended?

Actually I do. The intention is utterly ******** but I think stuff is working exactly how Turbine wants it. If Turbine wanted AC to be effective they would have made the difference between good and ubber small enough to work on a D20. They are either morons or don't care about game balance at all.

There are some logical changes proposed here but there is NO WAY it'll happen. Changing fort like this is too big. Logic and reason are good but it's not enough to move this mountain.

The only thing I think they actually could do to make more AC useful is expand the broken 'grazing hits' BS so that cover a wider range with the damage progressive decreasing the higher your AC is. If a 70 and a 65 was a graze, I'm pulling these numbers out of the air as I honestly am not sure how it actually works, maybe a graze should go all the way down to 60.

[muffinlad]

There is no doubt the game has changed. Changing fortification would be the wrong way of correcting the AC imbalance currently in the game from my perspective. It seems to me that the Dev's have already experimented with other changes that have not worked as intended and eventually they are going to "jump the shark"/"mess up the Jedi".

That does not mean that they should not roll out changes, but testing them long and hard with complete bug fixes prior to release would be manditory.

I am not advocating that we keep AC "meaningless" at all...but that the change may be simpler and less impactful on other parts of the system. For example, put 70 as the maximum AC that ANYONE may have. Make it so the toughest boss in the game has a 50/50% chance of hitting that AC, and everyone else scales down from there.

Are those the exact-right numbers? Not sure...test to see how it plays. It makes AC meaningful, lets folks build to a goal (like 100% fort) and use their rest of their skills on other things. I am sure others may not like that as a game design choice, but it's a start.

BTW....my only agenda here is for folks to enjoy the game, and not create issues that would cause other people to leave based on the desires of other groups. I have seen that happen from City of Heroes (and their Stupid Enhancement Diversification) to Star Wars. Eventually changes to a game that is currently succeeding can break it's back, esp. if done in a highly unpopular way like reduction of fortification to improve AC focus.

muffinthoughts

[Angelus_dead]

They are either morons or don't care about game balance at all.

You're being too harsh. Game design is a difficult task, especially when you have to expand to levels beyond the original scope and without interrupting the game in-progress. And of course Turbine's inconstant budgeting and business model hasn't helped.

It is probable that the developers do not actually approve of all the ways the game works now, and instead they simply let it get away from them. Old decisions had consequences they did not forsee, and they couldn't find a way to change them back to how it was wanted.

Changing fort like this is too big.

Of course it's always realistic to predict that Turbine won't make changes (even to obvious problems). But what's important to take away from the suggestion is that to allow monster Sunder to reduce player Fortification is in some ways a bigger change. The negative effect on gameplay could be large. Logic and reason are good but it's not enough to move this mountain.

The only thing I think they actually could do to make more AC useful is expand the broken 'grazing hits' BS so that cover a wider range with the damage progressive decreasing

Improving grazing hits could be a viable approach to helping balance.

[noinfo]

Actually I do. The intention is utterly ******** but I think stuff is working exactly how Turbine wants it. If Turbine wanted AC to be effective they would have made the difference between good and ubber small enough to work on a D20. They are either morons or don't care about game balance at all.

There are some logical changes proposed here but there is NO WAY it'll happen. Changing fort like this is too big. Logic and reason are good but it's not enough to move this mountain.

The only thing I think they actually could do to make more AC useful is expand the broken 'grazing hits' BS so that cover a wider range with the damage progressive decreasing the higher your AC is. If a 70 and a 65 was a graze, I'm pulling these numbers out of the air as I honestly am not sure how it actually works, maybe a graze should go all the way down to 60.

Fortification needs a major overhall, it needs to be thoughtout and different concepts tested but needs to happen.

Grazing in general was based around 2 issues.
1. Some people were having trouble hitting kobolds at low levels, so to make it fun for those people they decided to let them graze them and make them feel like they were achieving something.

2. To nerf ac based toons particulary 2 weapon fighters who were at that stage almost invulnerable and dishing out good damage while tank based could match the ac but suffered from much lower dps (though generally had more hp)

This change supposedly allowed them to lower the to hit of mobs (not really noticing it) and allow shield users to take less grazing damage. The reality of this is that it just made high hp/dps toons all the more viable because those pesky high ac toons were now getting grazed to death and they just continued as is.

Grazing needs to go.

Reballance it so that the only ones who have to potential to be 100% immune to crits are heavy armour s/b users
You can drop overall damage and to hit to scale damage taken over a period of time to be similar better allowing for more diverse playstyle options.

The key is ballance drop ac required (have mobs use ac reducing effects and fort reducing effects) drop base damage (it is only this high because everyone is expected to have heavy fort) by how much is what significant testing is for.

[noinfo]

That does not mean that they should not roll out changes, but testing them long and hard with complete bug fixes prior to release would be manditory.
muffinthoughts

This part is key to any change with ac and fortification type ballance.

[gavagai]

So in what way is the proposed system, which is based on a currently non working system accomplish making Defensive Characters more viable without utterly crippling Offensive characters.

It won't even address the Rogue issue of Crit Immune mobs, because they are specifically omitted from this conversion to notn Fortification.

The Dev mentioned system gives the Devs options to have critters reduce targets Fortification in certain key battles (and likewise for players) while not crippling lower AC characters in others.

Will this dramatically help mid to high AC characters? nope... but it does have the benefit of more options and it doesn't work on the system that really isn't working well right now.

One argument among the many floating here is pretty simple: Cheap and easy 100% fort is a major -- but indirect -- cause of bad design and balance in endgame. Cheap and easy damage mitigation is only "mitigation" when the game presumes a reasonable player could take the regular damage.


1: Cheap and easy 100% fort indirectly leads to content designed with high base damage.

2: Cheap and easy 100% fort indirectly leads to mobs with swelled HPs, since players dumping defense for DPS are viable.

3: Cheap and easy 100% fort favors frontline melees with 800hps, no armor, and full aggro benefits. An AC Tank character would already have the benefit of tougher crit confirmations; while for all others the benefit of high fort is reduced because they should be avoiding aggro to begin with. People are rational; they will prefer the cheaper, more effective protection. Which is why so many 6HP / level rogues that can jack its DEX for a decent AC and still command excellent situational DPS, great evasion saves, &c. will still go CON/STR and try to beat the 600hp mark for Epic.


So what would an AC-based Fort system do, beyond screw with AC-dumped builds?

a: Directly: Tying fort to AC would have the direct effect of making those classes that can focus on AC want to do so by making those who ignore it more vulnerable.

b: Indirectly: Tying fort to AC might have the effect of getting Turbine to rescale mob damage (so all dump-defense melee builds don't go splat), and mob HPs (since the presumption that a cleric would tolerate a party full of pure DPSers) would go down.

While all the complaints hone in on (a) (sort of a "homeless shelters are a good thing, but not in my backyard!" response), the "purpose" of this proposal is (b).

IMO Turbine will not take rescaling damage seriously while 100% Fort remains cheap and easy. How could they? Content that is designed to be challenging with less than 100% fort is trivial when all characters can easily carry 100% fort. Only when they get to the point where they assume folks are running with 0% Fort will you see sensible balance on damage/HPs return.


Now the upside with Eladrin's proposal to modify fort is that it causes the least splash: you keep your Minos Legens, your Heavy Fort robes and rings, &c. The downside is that mob damage is less likely to be rescaled, since 100% fort is still cheap and easy on any toon. If 100% fort remains the norm, expect those occasional crits to be utterly horrific on the lines of what critics like Artos_Fabril have been citing -- 400-600 hp smackdowns.

Another upside of Eladrin's %-based approach is that players can be guaranteed a % reduction in mob fort when they land a sunder even against high AC mobs, rather than having to worry about whether their +x "sunder seeker bonus" will even increase their actual chance of critting at all. Of course, the low AB character still has to confirm, so the difference between the seeker/anti-seeker method and the +% method won't really be that big in practice.

At least my 2.5 cents

[Borror0]

As for Borr, of course he has a vested interest in s/b and ac types, just as you apparently have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, this does not make him wrong.

It's pretty funny that someone accuses me of being biased, because I want to improve a toon that I have not played in months.

Are you saying that you don't see the difference between making a wider range of AC is useful and making not having AC lethal?

If we exclude all overpowered changes, there is no difference. The only way to get people to care about a defensive stats is to make the trade offs worthwhile. That translates into making investing in your defensive stats necessary. In MMOs, the most popular approach is always the quickest. In regards to character construction, it means trying to fit in the highest amount of DPS that you can. As a result, players will always prioritize DPS over defensive stats unless ignoring your defensive stats will kill you.

And that applies to all defensive stats: HP, saves, Armor Class, etc. A sorcerer or wizard dies more often than a barbarian, because the barbarian has much more hit points. The same logic applies to Armor Class, a fighter will take less damage than a barbarian because the barbarian rage decreases the barbarian's Armor Class.

EDIT: Note that I say "defensive stats", not "AC". One high defensive stat can make up for another low one (high AC for low HP, high HP for low AC, etc.).

On the other you utterly cripple a different playstyle

When a playstyle whose drawback is supposed to be lesser survivability can survive easily most encounter while having aggro 100% of the time, it's only logical that a change to restore balance will make that character die more frequently.

DPS does not become underpowered, it's being rebalanced. Why would anyone spec for high AC when no AC characters do just fine?

[grodon9999]

The key is ballance drop ac required (have mobs use ac reducing effects and fort reducing effects) drop base damage (it is only this high because everyone is expected to have heavy fort) by how much is what significant testing is for.

It comes down to the nuts and bolts, the devil is in the details. Whatever changes made cannot make things worse than the status quo.

The status quo right now is no AC, a ton of HP, and a ton of healing is so effective is upper-end content that it's borderline broken. Too many people have invested in this style that many will scream NERF if there previously over-balance style is anyway altered.

Specifically - what do you guys think should be the ACs needed for various areas to be effective?

[sephiroth1084]

are you saying the change u are askin for wont greatly help your toon? and if u are saying you havent played in months why do u care so much about this subject?

Maybe because he cares about the game? Is any of this relevant to the discussion? Are you some sort of politician? Because mudslinging in order to avoid actual debate seems incredibly inappropriate here.

[sephiroth1084]

I kind of hate to keep harping on this, but rebalancing heavy fortification would make a lot more sense if it were tied to an AC rebalance as well. Again, the ideas of rolling for AC and of giving monsters iterative attack penalties would expand the range of potentially useful AC by up to around 60 points. That would allow even characters incapable of hitting high AC numbers to gain some benefit by investing in AC, not as much, obviously, but enough that simply ignoring AC would be a poor decision. From there, adjusting heavy fort makes more sense because the damage curve between low-AC and high-AC characters would be smoothed.

[noinfo]

It comes down to the nuts and bolts, the devil is in the details. Whatever changes made cannot make things worse than the status quo.

The status quo right now is no AC, a ton of HP, and a ton of healing is so effective is upper-end content that it's borderline broken. Too many people have invested in this style that many will scream NERF if there previously over-balance style is anyway altered.

Specifically - what do you guys think should be the ACs needed for various areas to be effective?

Ok I will differentiate myself from AD in that while I would not mind seeing Fort tied to AC I believe that the % system offers an easier to ballance solution however it would be essential that monster to hit and damage be rescaled as part of the process.

I would suggest that fortification be tied directly to armour and shield being worn.
Heavy Fort Item allows the following

Tower Shield +50% fortification | Normal Shield +30% | Light Shield +20%
Heavy Armour (including MFP) +50% | Medium Armour 30% | Light Armour 20% | Robes etc 10%
Heavy Fortification Item +25%


These percentages could be modified by lower types of fortification, eg Medium being 70% of those bonuses and Light being 30% etc (others may be introduced however)

This would give the heavy tank in fullplate with Heavy Fort 125% [bonus vs dbuff]
Your standard pally with FP and shield 105%
Your barb in medium armour 55% or if he decides to pick up a shield 85% (note he gains a benefit not tied directly to ac for droping dps in certain situations)
Your 2 weapon fighter in IR of 35% yep your super reflexes will protect you from almost everything but hey if they are gunna hit you, you will pay the price
Your 2 weapon fighting kensai in heavy armour 75%, your are not as agile as your super reflexed IR wearer but you are less likely to be critted when you are hit

For this to work Monster to hits would need to be lowered particulary on levels above normal, with little or no raising on other difficulties however crit confirmation bonuses may be increased instead this would result in

No change for the S/B tank who should still be almost crit free
2 Weapon ac will still be less likely to be hit normally, possibly only on a 20 but gee it may hurt when it lands
Barbs no change confirmation was going to be almost automatic anyway if fortification doesnt block

Monster damage MUST be dramatically reduced with less scaling on higher than normals using increased critical confirmation instead.

It may be possible to drop Monster base damage by 40% (figure off the top of my head and yes there would need to be extensive testing and number crunching) this is to try and keep overall damage the same but with the added danger imposed by getting critted at the wrong time.

Under this system there is motivation at times for all to pick up a shield from time to time or the heaviest armour possible without having to always worry that ac won't be enough.

Arcanes would be able to receive bonuses to spells that provide ac, though I would suggest several new spells be introduced at higher levels to provide better ac and fortification protection to prevent splashes using the lower level ones to overcome the above limitations.
eg
shield level 3 [+7 ac as light shield]
mage armour 3 [+6 ac as light armour]
scaling up, this gives arcane casters a bump in ac and ability to protect themselves with higher level defensive spells which currently there are virtually none anyway.

[Lleren]

It comes down to the nuts and bolts, the devil is in the details. Whatever changes made cannot make things worse than the status quo.

The status quo right now is no AC, a ton of HP, and a ton of healing is so effective is upper-end content that it's borderline broken. Too many people have invested in this style that many will scream NERF if there previously over-balance style is anyway altered.

Specifically - what do you guys think should be the ACs needed for various areas to be effective?

If I talk about what I feel should happen to the system to bring more balance, the screams would probobly come from a few sides =D
Shortlist Follows:
Eliminate most buff stacking

Cap Everything. Caps need not be the same numbers across the board, up and down the levels, or in difficulty levels, though that would be easiest.

Scale/Balance Mobs to the new number system.

Rework Grazing hits to hit different AC ranges over time... first one might hit a 20 AC, next a 60 AC, next a 40 AC, next an 80 AC...( if AC was Capped at 80 for this scale, well the high AC person is barely getting hit at all )

Want that mob to hit 10% of the time at minimum, plug in the new numbers and there you go.

That piece of gear is awesome and has a stacking mod? So what, the maximum is still capped, just means the character needs less buffs to hit the cap, and maybe is slightly more resistant to debuffing.

Rework Fortification: I like several of the ideas in this thread. my favorite is having Fortification act as Antiseeker when mobs roll a "crit" on you. Which would have to be matched by a change in the ways mobs currently hit and a reduction in thier base damage output, and possibly crit multiplier, as discussed. All of which is much easier when the Game Developers have hard numbers to work with.

-----------
Edit: they might as well have thier own NGE if they tried to do all of this at once, and that is about what it would take. =/

[Borror0]

Eliminate most buff stacking

Cap Everything. Caps need not be the same numbers across the board, up and down the levels, or in difficulty levels, though that would be easiest.

Rework Grazing hits to hit different AC ranges over time... first one might hit a 20 AC, next a 60 AC, next a 40 AC, next an 80 AC...( if AC was Capped at 80 for this scale, well the high AC person is barely getting hit at all )

Those are unnecessary. While something has to be done with buffs, I lean toward de-exclusivifying them. Like A_D, changing Inspire Heroics' dodge bonus to Morale and adding new sources of lesser buffs, typing the bonuses by the paladin's aura and giving some PrE's lesser version of it, etc. Like that, the gap would usually be smaller if you don't have a paladin and a bard in your party.

As for the other two, I don't see them as necessary.

Edit: they might as well have thier own NGE if they tried to do all of this at once, and that is about what it would take. =/

If thety start by those with lesser ramifications and slowly put the other more controversial/drastic changes, it wouldn't happen. For example, they could start with giving monsters quasi-iterative attacks. That would be a welcomed addition by most or be easily defensible on the ground that it's making the game closer to 3.5 D&D rules and that it's a change requested many times in the past. Then, in a latter update, the change to buffs mentioned above.

Finally, the Fortification change at last - coupled with the rebalancing of DPS.

[grodon9999]

All the changes you are proposing look good to me, if I were the DM I'd likely use your proposed house-rule.

Unfortunately or "DM" is a power-mad lunatic who's idea of making things challenging is giving us CR22 rats with thousands of hit points. if any of the above is done I'd be pleasantly surprised, it'd make the game more "D&D" and less "MMO."