Remove/Replace Fortification.

[Matuse]

There is little incentive to answer questions from someone who does not read what has already been written.

There's little incentive to debate with someone who can't even provide a solid basis for his idea. And there's even less incentive for someone who just dismisses everyone who disagrees with him out of hand without coming up with a valid reason why.

You also responded to a pre-edit version of my post. I found your "idea" for fortification numbers, and they were just as bad as I thought they would be.

Your system won't work. At all. There are only 2 outcomes to your idea:
1) The anti-seeker of fortification is so high that people remain immune to crits.
2) People with high AC remain immune to crits, everyone else gets reamed in the backside with a rusty bandsaw blade by crits.

Even assuming we accept your basic premise that immunity to crits is a bad thing (and I don't), neither of those two outcomes are in any way better.

I find your entire position essentially indefensible. Your entire argument seems to boil down to "Fortification is bad because I say it's bad", and that is somewhat less than entirely compelling.

Plus, players don't like random. They might think they do, but they don't. Not the kind of random you're talking about. They like random loot, or Diablo's random dungeon layout. They do not like being "randomly" triple critted by a bounding ogre/troll and insta-gibbed with no way to defend against it. Go read/watch the keynote address from GDC 2010 by Sid Meier. Everything he says is exactly right, and he monumentally disagrees with your position. http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6253529/

So far, the only thing you've said so far that I agree with is that getting fortification is not enough of a sacrifice. Minos, Mineral II accessories, and any other piece of equipment that has heavy (or moderate) fort and other bonuses should lose the fortification. Make it the only modifier that can be found on a piece of equipment (like the nightforge gorget), so that if someone wants heavy fort, they actually have to give up something significant to get it.

[Borror0]

They do not like being "randomly" triple critted by a bounding ogre/troll and insta-gibbed with no way to defend against it.

Angelus_dead does not think that's fun either, and his suggestion would not create such a result.

[Judo]

My question, and im sure a lot of others have the same one, is *** for?

do we not grind as it is?

Are they really willing to change the entire combat system in DDO?

What is the real reason this is even being bloody entertained?

Most vets i know are hanging on by a thread...

So why? Why bother?

[Cyr]

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.

Eladrin this would drastically change combat dynamics. That said if done properly this is certainly a change I could support. The key here is that it has to be done carefully and will require massive changes to base mob statistics. There are a few potential issues here that I see right off the bat.

*The removal of sunder/improved sunder as AC debuffs would do very little, but the removal of destruction/improved destruction would make some epic content way harder for many builds. I hope if this sort thing if implemented would leave our main AC debuffs alone OR adjust mob AC's to compensate (fully).

*This would drastically increase spike damage potential versus pc's. This could result in a much more interesting game. However, the current game has been heavily balanced to assume that PC's of a decent level have 100% fort. As such mobs currently do a steady stream of fairly high damage per hit attacks. This of course means that having crits be possible again for high level PC's would mean a massive buff to mobs if nothing else was changed. Therefore, the second potential problem is that mob base damage (and I would argue to hits also) at the upper end will need to be completely overhauled to take crits into account. A wholesale lowering of mob base damage would have to be undertaken.


EDIT: After more thought.

*The main issue with this idea is the following. It would require tons of balancing to get right. Historically Turbine has been incredibly bad at doing this. There is a reason why many players question if any Turbine devs really play the game at the top end. This means that the odds of this being done right are incredibly low. While an interesting idea on paper for sure, this consideration certainly gives me nightmares for yet another ill thought out game wide mechanic drastically reducing my game play fun.

*The final consideration for me is the weighting decision. What would this change if done perfectly require and what could we have gotten for the same developer resources. Well as already mentioned I can not see this change being done even remotely right without a massive re-balancing of mob statistics. That would require tons of developer time. The same developers who are responsible for things like PrE's, new classes, new races, and loot. That means less time spent on loot (omg can we get a new loot dev already???), new classes and races, and most importantly the incredibly slow to roll out PrE's. So I look at this as well even if they did this change perfectly it slows down some of the highest priority things on my list of things I want to see.

So all things considered /not signed. Let's get all the PrE's out before we even consider another major game mechanic change.

[Emili]

The idea is to force characters to pick the amount of defense and offense they want.

Visibly, a barbarian will have less defense against critical hits than a fighter: the barbarian loses -6ish AC by using rage while the fighter have heavy armor proficiency, Fighter Armor Mastery and more feats to pick Dodge. However, the barbarian should have more DPS (emphasis on should). This would force the player to chose between a character that has more DPS but is more likely to get hit by critical hits or a character that does less DPS but that is better protected versus critical hits.

You seem to assume that a character would become useless without good fortification, but there is no basis for that assumption: it's clearly stated in the suggestion that some monsters should have their DPS revised in other to avoid being too deadly.

What are you speaking about ... The barbarian is more than -6 AC that of a defender ... such PrE as Berzerker|Defender have an AC moreso 30:80... Defender have 266% that of the Berzerker...

The Defender PrE's and Monk SPlashed are all that you have left... You wish to be a TWF and havd some AC = Ranger/monk, monk or Defender ... you wish to have THF abd some AC ... just Defenders can do it... Even fighter - do you assume Kensai have any real meaningful AC? A Defender built fighter in turn has +8 on them and then more usually because the defender will be itemized even more for AC. Are you giving Kensai a ton more DPS too?

Warchanters are totally out... Meleeing clerics out, <- you giving these PrE's and classes a ton more DPS too?

The Berzerker - are they going to make it 266% more damage than a defender? ... the kensai are they going to give them a DPS boost also? ... a warchanter DPS boost too?... but the defender can walk thru the quest with nothing touching him because AC is not only more meaningful but is GOD like. You've just turned Fort into a supreme part of the AC build and meaningless for all builds who do not have the TOP AC.

They would have to figure out a way so to make AC builds do little damage... and only a small fraction of the DPS PrE's of a Berzerker, Kensai or pure Tempest build even...

Mob damage basis is due to thier low rate of attack and the fact that every once in a while they need to hit that character with high AC plus the current 100% fort... you're taking fort out of the equation for everyone but the AC build.

So you go figure - you walk into any quest .... the tank runs up into 8 Orthons - mobs now hits like a whimps the 80 AC guy gets hit on a 20 and is not crit so take 22 damage ... because he cannot be crit but the tank has 27 DR so ... no damage - he never takes ANY damage ... the kensai or barb walks up and is crit 66 damage in such case - and near all the time in a group of 8 orthons. Now you tell me this is right?

[Borror0]

The barbarian is more than -6 AC that of a defender

I said that the barbarian loses 6ish AC by using Rage. I didn't say it had only 6 AC of difference from a defender. In fact, I didn't even mention the defender PrE in any of my posts in this thread so I have no idea where you're getting that from.

The Defender PrE's and Monk SPlashed are all that you have left... You wish to be a TWF and havd some AC = Ranger/monk, monk or Defender ... you wish to have THF abd some AC ... just Defenders can do it...

Warchanters are totally out... Meleeing clerics out

All of that is wrong. I already explained why and you have never even attempted to refute it; you just state that what you believe is true and don't back it up with anything close to an argument. If you are going to bother replying, at least explain elaborate a little more than "you're wrong."

[Drakos]

** However, I suppose that's a bit too radical for a game that is trying to stick to an already made set of rules. Even if I think those rules are...obsolete. I suppose it's better for this game, with it's unique standing, that fortification stays in. It's still needs to be tweaked tho, to allow for more versatility, and fun.**

This isn't a concern because they have never conformed to those rules.

As to the rest, I agree that they need to reevaluate the thinking on high-end and Fort required. It;s getting to be if you don't have a specific set of equipment, you will suck at end game, because that is what the code too.

[gavagai]

What are you speaking about ... The barbarian is more than -6 AC that of a fighter ... such PrE as Berzerker have no AC within them ... ...

The Defender PrE's and Monk SPlashed are all that you have left... You wish to be a TWF and havd some AC = Ranger/monk, monk or Defender ... you wish to have THF abd some AC ... just Defenders can do it...

Warchanters are totally out... Meleeing clerics out,

The AC reachable by defender over say even Kensai is +9 - near 50% of a d20 and Kensai run so thin in enhancements the gap grow even wider ... are you stating they're going to give Kensai 100% more damage over Defender? Are they going to give Berzerker 400% more damage ... they would have to if your saying it should be proportional ACPS ... So make it that AC Character never can hit a mob ... that evens them out.

Each class is designed with some sort of damage mitigation, so it's not like making them suffer for a low AC is completely unfair:

Barb -- > designed with low AC but with higher hit points and a DR 9/- (or whatever)
Warchanter --> low AC but minor self healing, displacement, and DR
Cleric --> major self healing

Clearly 9/- and 5/- DR aren't enough to solo content easily. But getting a 80+ AC isn't easy, either. There's enough room in DDO for high DPS to be GODLY, and for high AC to be GODLY too.

The point is: if they made these changes, Turbine would probably change other things accordingly. Mob damage and t-hits would be altered accordingly. Maybe one of the Barb PrEs would offer increased DR; Virtuoso III a song that increased Fort; or whatever.

[Borror0]

Each class is designed with some sort of damage mitigation, so it's not like making them suffer for a low AC is completely unfair:

That's a good point, but it's completely unnecessary to make. It seems that a lot of Emili is concerned about how a character without Heavy Fortification would get one-shotted all the time. It's as if she completely forgot that low levels characters don't have Heavy Fortification and yet don't get one-shotted all the time.

If Heavy Fortification was nerfed, monsters' base damage could be nerfed without lowering the damage output. For example, if we assume a monster that hits 50 damage per hit and has 19-20/x3 critical hits, the base damage could be reduced to 43 and thus the critical hits would be 21 points lower (129 vs 150) but the DPS output would be the same. (You'd probably want to lower the DPS output even more, though, because critical hits make combat deadlier even though the DPS output is the same.)

[Vhlad]

I hope Eladrin can respond to A_D's bad idea, so that we can stop discussing it and start discussing Eladrins not as bad, but still bad, idea.

If players being crit end-game is something that the devs really want to look into, then:
Develop new content where player fort can be reduced and specifically balance around those individual encounters, rather than revise & rebalance the whole game.

Players currently rely upon sunder/destruction type effects to hit inflated AC's in epic, and many mobs in pre-existing encounters currently use these abilities. It would save dev time to create a new attack or effect that applies fort reduction and carefully choose where to apply it, rather than alter an in-use and widely used ability that would require the devs to revisit, revise, and rebalance old content.

If dev time is being spent on this "feature", then creating new content with this kind of different gameplay gives each player more options, is safer, and is a better use of time than revising & rebalancing old content. Players want new content, and something like reduced fort is easier to swallow if it is handed to us in new content. The devs can then see if players respond favorably to this mechanic without changing the whole game.

Ultimately I think the idea is fundamentally bad. Sid Meiers thoughts on randomization in the GDC 2010 keynote address where he discusses psychology of game design are sound. To quote Sid Meier:

Players want to be in control. They don't like randomisation so much. Any kind of randomness needs to be treated with a lot of care. Great natural disasters. Wouldn't that be cool? Plagues. Volcanoes. Randomly. No. It wouldn't be cool. Again when something random happens, PARANOIA strikes. The computer did that just to make your life more difficult just when you're about to win. Randomness at a low-level helps with replayability and variety, but be careful with it at a significant level.

Matuse linked the video at the top of this page. A link to a written transcript of Sid Meiers' talk is here: http://www.wonderlandblog.com/wonder...ote-notes.html

[Aaxeyu]

Plus, players don't like random. They might think they do, but they don't. Not the kind of random you're talking about. They like random loot, or Diablo's random dungeon layout.

Not really on topic, but people don't like Diablos random dungeons in general.

[Vhlad]

Not really on topic, but people don't like Diablos random dungeons in general.

I didn't mind them, but they wearnt truly random. They had a bunch of pre-set build patterns that they put together. I played that game so much that I could recognise which version of a dungeon I was in, and reach the objective quicker than players who relied on maphack. Maphack was super super widespread though, so yeah, players generally preferred to have more control over their travel direction.

[Matuse]

Angelus_dead does not think that's fun either, and his suggestion would not create such a result.

Yea, it really would. His "suggestion" would make it so the people who were already most vulnerable to that kind of instant death would be unprotected against it. What good is taking a 25 AC, and bumping it to 45 against a monster with an AB of +50?

ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD AT ALL.

His idea is horrifically bad. Stupendously bad. What-were-you-thinking!? bad. Without any redeeming qualities whatsoever bad.

[Borror0]

Ultimately I think the idea is fundamentally bad.

If so, why are you not petitioning for the developers to remove critical hits from the game?

Like A_D said:
1. For player characters to take critical hit damage is either fun or not fun.
2. If it is not fun, then low-level characters should not get critted.
3. If it is fun, then high level characters should be able to be critted.

Sid Meiers thoughts on randomization in the GDC 2010 keynote address where he discusses psychology of game design are sound. To quote Sid Meier:

I don't disagree with anything I've read about Meier's GDC 2010 keynote address (have not watched the full video yet), including that quote. Like he says, "Randomness at a low-level helps with replayability and variety, but be careful with it at a significant level." It's exactly where I stand: a good amount of randomization improves the replayability of a game by avoiding monotony but too much is as worse as too bad.

The reason why too much randomization is too bad is related to what Meier calls the Winner's Paradox: in a video game, every player wants to win; everyone must be "above average." As a result, you much avoid randomization having too much power over the players' success or you might make them lose.

But a lack of randomization is as bad. Things become too predictable and thus easy. And there's a reason the latest Civilization game has nine difficulty levels.

Since you quoted Sid Meier, I'll quote Greg Street:

Mitigation also has a risk from a design-perspective that when fights get too predictable they become too easy and unexciting. Imagine a tank with 75% damage reduction and no avoidance. You could calculate from the moment of the first attack whether you will survive the encounter. Heck, you might be able to not even heal the tank and know you'll survive depending on the specific abilities used by the boss.

http://blue.mmo-champion.com/26/1736...lock-rate.html

instant death

5. Powerful monsters, especially raid bosses, have their combat stats reevaluated to allow for the fact that they can now score critical hits.

Critical hits wouldn't result in an instant death under A_D's suggestion..

[Vhlad]

If so, why are you not petitioning for the developers to remove critical hits from the game?

It is fun for players to crit monsters, not the other way around. Sid Meier discusses this thought behaviour using a similar example in his psychology of game design speech.

Like A_D said:
1. For player characters to take critical hit damage is either fun or not fun.
2. If it is not fun, then low-level characters should not get critted.
3. If it is fun, then high level characters should be able to be critted.

This is an oversimplification and misses many points. For example, current game balance and itemization is appreciably different end-game vs low-level. At low level, the difference between incoming damage (base damage, crit damage, monster hit rate) and consumable store-bought healing is not so great. Also, the disparity between monster to-hits and player AC is not so great at low level, where mobs aren't hitting players (even low AC players like barbs/casters) 95% of the time.

I don't disagree with anything I've read about Meier's GDC 2010 keynote address (have not watched the full video yet), including that quote. Like he says, "Randomness at a low-level helps with replayability and variety, but be careful with it at a significant level."

Players being crit end-game is a significant level of negative randomness, having too much power over the players' success. Combine with stacking death penalty, and A_D's suggestion will create a very unfun end-game experience for many players.

[Emili]

Each class is designed with some sort of damage mitigation, so it's not like making them suffer for a low AC is completely unfair:

Barb -- > designed with low AC but with higher hit points and a DR 9/- (or whatever)
Warchanter --> low AC but minor self healing, displacement, and DR
Cleric --> major self healing

Clearly 9/- and 5/- DR aren't enough to solo content easily. But getting a 80+ AC isn't easy, either. There's enough room in DDO for high DPS to be GODLY, and for high AC to be GODLY too.

The point is: if they made these changes, Turbine would probably change other things accordingly. Mob damage and t-hits would be altered accordingly. Maybe one of the Barb PrEs would offer increased DR; Virtuoso III a song that increased Fort; or whatever.

My concern here ... is how do you make it so the game is a challenge to the 80 AC DR27 character while not gimping the lower AC builds? As stated AC builds also have DR, AC builds can also add healing, AC Builds also have reasonable HP ... I know 600HP Tanks with 80 AC plus DR27, UMD and with 38 standing pre buff str they're not exactly hurting in outputing DPS either...

[gavagai]

Players being crit is a significant level of negative randomness, having too much power over the players' success.

Technically, if everything is balanced, monsters will still have the exact same DPS against us including crits as now. Lower normal damage + possible x2 or x3 damage isn't going to ruin things, especially now that we have mass heal.

In fact, since base damage would go down for average non-crit attacks, those builds that achieve even a 25% crit reduction will see an overall drop in the damage that they take compared to present damage. That is, fortification would actually provide a bonus if you could work it.

I sympathize to an extent that this kind of change would create a whole new mess of item balancing and inventory management. But the only players who would suffer from this are those that refuse to put any effort into fortifying themselves.

My concern here ... is how do you make it so the game is a challenge to the 80 AC DR27 character while not gimping the lower AC builds?

That's actually a pretty tough question. Making heavy fort +20 or +25 to help the Wizards and Sorcs would also make high AC characters fully immune to crits. Given the lowered damage from scaling, it may make AC tanks pretty resilient.

But resiliency isn't everything.

The enemies still have high HPs and high to-hits. A group of S&B warriors may over time suffer more damage with their low DPS than a group of with one S&B and a few Barbs

[Emili]

I said that the barbarian loses 6ish AC by using Rage. I didn't say it had only 6 AC of difference from a defender. In fact, I didn't even mention the defender PrE in any of my posts in this thread so I have no idea where you're getting that from.

All of that is wrong. I already explained why and you have never even attempted to refute it; you just state that what you believe is true and don't back it up with anything close to an argument. If you are going to bother replying, at least explain elaborate a little more than "you're wrong."

My point is exactly this... while we are currently dependent on fort to remove criticals completely ... tying it to AC places it as an "only" AC for of defense. As it stands currently the low AC build get hit all the time and the high AC build gets hit seldom... lower the mob damage and the high AC build get hit - but because the high AC build entails DR it never is damaged. On the flip side the low AC build is still getting hit - under new rule for less under normal hits - but may receive spike damage now ... thus mob seems the same ... the only difference here is now a high AC becomes impervious from mob melee yet the low AC damage remains the same... you solved nothing but to create a set of builds which cannot be meleed by the mob while others play risk.

If the concern is heavy fort is ruining the game... then remove it entirely the AC build does not need it, the DR and HP of an AC build is not that high in comparison to the damage/dps ratio a low AC build takes... Should you attach it to the AC build then the AC build is only ever scratched yet the non AC build is still dealing with health issues.

[Borror0]

It is fun for players to crit monsters, not the other way around.

Let me rephrase that question: why are you not petitioning for the developers to make players inherently immune to critical hits?

My concern here ... is how do you make it so the game is a challenge to the 80 AC DR27 character while not gimping the lower AC builds?

It depends, is that 80 AC DR 27 character good, bad or overpowered?

If that 80 AC DR 27 character is a bad build, then the designers don't have to bother with it: it's a bad build. If it's overpowered, then it should be nerfed. If it's actually a good build but is not overpowered, then it has weaknesses that matches its strengths. As for the no AC characters that has given up everything for DPS, it might be a good build, in which case things balance for its low defensive capabilities, or it might be a poor build in which case it's a poor build.

If the character that has zero investment in Armor Class ends up being a bad build, then he'll have to invest some more in it: reserve a few item slots for AC, invest points in Dexterity, etc. That's not a bad thing, honestly. It just means that AC matters a little now.

It's impossible for all possible builds to be good. Asking for that to be the case is asking for an unreasonable standard.

It's only if a class becomes underpowered because of this.

[Vhlad]

Let me rephrase that question: why are you not petitioning for the developers to make players inherently immune to critical hits?

Because I'm having fun playing end-game where I have heavy fort, and I'd rather see dev time spent on other things.

As mentioned in my prior post: At low level the difference between incoming damage (base damage, crit damage, monster hit rate) and consumable store-bought healing is not so great, and the disparity between monster to-hits and player AC is not so great. Therefore, at low level, the negative randomness from critical hits is not as significant, and has less power over the players' success.

Try playing an epic quest as a melee DPS with 0% fort Borror0, and let me know how much fun you have. Thanks to this thread, I have tried it, and it's not fun -it's ********.

If the character that has zero investment in Armor Class ends up being a bad build, then he'll have to invest some more in it: reserve a few item slots for AC, invest points in Dexterity, etc. That's not a bad thing, honestly. It just means that AC matter a little now.

When monks with 80 AC are hit 95% of the time in epic desert, how exactly is a pure sorc, wizard, cleric, favored soul, bard, barbarian, kensai THF fighter, etc, able to invest enough in AC for it to matter? With certain races/classes I can try to go all out investing purely in AC and still not get it high enough for it to make any difference whatsoever end-game, unless A_D's suggestion is implemented with a +50 modifier. And in that case, I'm investing all these slots, feats, attributes, enhancement points, reducing my itemization options, making all my characters wear the same stuff in every slot, just to emulate heavy fort. That would be a terrible mistake for the devs to implement.

And if new players complain about being declined for not having something as simple as heavy fort now, wait until the **** hits the fan when they're declined for not having all the extreme raid/grind oriented AC gear.