Remove/Replace Fortification.

[Borror0]

"Revamp all the monsters in the game"

If we assume that Eladrin believes that players should be hit by critical hits - all points that he does - then the criticism that an alternative suggestion to what Eladrin might be considering would require too much development time is moot or a plea for Turbine to procrastinate. Any change that would allow players to be hit by critical hits or sneak attacks should involve a review of several monsters' DPS in other to avoid one-shot situations on otherwise good characters.

Besides, the odds are that this is mostly a design job only and does not require much programmers' time, as most of the change consists of calculating new values and playtesting them, which means it wouldn't take much away from most things you might want to prefer over this.

And most of the design job wouldn't that hard to do either. Take a monster with too deadly critical hits, calculate his critical power ( (19 + threat_range * (critical_multiplier -1)) / 20*100%) and reduce the monster's base damage by whatever percentage exceeds 95%. (For example, a monster with 19-20/x2 criticals should see a reduction of 10% base damage ((19 + 2 * (2 -1)) / 20*100%). Then you playtest the monster and see if it plays well. Tweak if necessary.

After a few monsters, you'll be able to approximate if a good formula to cover all post-level 12 monsters without needing to playtest them all.

And like zealous said, maybe the process can be automatized at that point.

"Make the weakest characters die more...IT'S THE WHOLE OBJECTIVE!"

You're misinterpreting or misrepresenting our position.

The objective is not to kill "the weakest characters." While the change would make reckless behavior from character who valued DPS over AC more deadly, those characters are neither weak nor does it mean they will die more often. Those character are generally MUCH better characters than characters with high AC and, if they behave more carefully, they will not die more than they do now.

And the anti-fort people have not even made a serious attempt to explain WHY getting rid of fort is such a desirable goal.

That is blatantly untrue.

A few of the reasons previously named in this thread:

• Making AC debuffs, seeker bonuses, and to-hit bonuses more appealing (which makes many items/feats/enhancement better)
• Armor Class would matter to a larger percentage of the population than it is now
• Allowing rogues to bypass fortification without needing to add a new stat that would reduce fortification
• Improves, by proxy, high AC characters
• Reducing players' healer-dependency by lowering base damage
  
  • Reducing the spell points spent on healing
• Makes kiting more risky

[smatt]

I would be very, very carefull. Things like this can backfire.

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

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

Exactly..... And considering the onyl cookie clerics have gotten in years is mass heal, which is nice now that it's fixed, BTW... And with no chance of increasing mana pool o ror PrE's any sooner than a year out.. I can't understand why they'd start working something like this.... Finish the PrE's, fix the ToD sets, remove a leg from the rogue class, so they'll just /delete and put them out of their misery.... Put some major work into the DPS lag issue in the raids.... Fix MyDD-Slow so it doesn't bork up players who might want to change characters.... You now important things

Those items would make A LOT of people happy.... This uneeded "Fix" to fortification.... Well I don't see it going all that well.... Focus, Focus.... Focus!

[smatt]

If we assume that Eladrin believes that players should be hit by critical hits - all points that he does - then the criticism that an alternative suggestion to what Eladrin might be considering would require too much development time is moot or a plea for Turbine to procrastinate. Any change that would allow players to be hit by critical hits or sneak attacks should involve a review of several monsters' DPS in other to avoid one-shot situations on otherwise good characters.

Besides, the odds are that this is mostly a design job only and does not require much programmers' time, as most of the change consists of calculating new values and playtesting them, which means it wouldn't take much away from most things you might want to prefer over this.

And most of the design job wouldn't that hard to do either. Take a monster with too deadly critical hits, calculate his critical power ( (19 + threat_range * (critical_multiplier -1)) / 20*100%) and reduce the monster's base damage by whatever percentage exceeds 95%. (For example, a monster with 19-20/x2 criticals should see a reduction of 10% base damage ((19 + 2 * (2 -1)) / 20*100%). Then you playtest the monster and see if it plays well. Tweak if necessary.

After a few monsters, you'll be able to approximate if a good formula to cover all post-level 12 monsters without needing to playtest them all.

And like zealous said, maybe the process can be automatized at that point.

You're misinterpreting or misrepresenting our position.

The objective is not to kill "the weakest characters." While the change would make reckless behavior from character who valued DPS over AC more deadly, those characters are neither weak nor does it mean they will die more often. Those character are generally MUCH better characters than characters with high AC and, if they behave more carefully, they will not die more than they do now.

That is blatantly untrue.


A few of the reasons previously named in this thread:

• Making AC debuffs, seeker bonuses, and to-hit bonuses more appealing (which makes many items/feats/enhancement better)
• Armor Class would matter to a larger percentage of the population than it is now
• Allowing rogues to bypass fortification without needing to add a new stat that would reduce fortification
• Improves, by proxy, high AC characters
• Reducing players' healer-dependency by lowering base damage
  
  • Reducing the spell points spent on healing
• Makes kiting more risky

Unmitigated mess is what it will be.... Bugs will riddle through-out.... It'll be broken for a year, and it'll suck up so many Dev resources that the already broken stuff in the game will continue to go untouched for another year............... As it is, we're onyl gettting a mess or maybe 2 fixed with each update now.... There's a VERY long list left.... Create more... Yep good idea :/

[eonfreon]

Since the developers have stated that they are considering changes to Fortification I feel I should weigh in my opinion.
I've only read the first few pages. I'm sure that a healthy debate is going on about how to fix all the problems of changing the system, such as reducing Mob damage and all that stuff. I'm not here to engage in debate, just to give my gut feeling.

I find A_D's idea to be very elegant and well-thought out, at least the one I read in the beginning of this thread and on other threads he's started.

It's a very good idea but I don't like it. Basically, I prefer ideas along Eladrin's considerations of Mobs with special debuffs that can temporarily lower Fortification.

The reason I don't like A_D's idea is that it is too sudden. Everything else being equal being critted is not fun. Yes, the game can be completely modified to accommodate something like A_D's idea.

But I would prefer a Mob ability, like Sunder or something that caused a visible debuff. To me getting critted with no warning is not fun. However, a debuff that pop-ups on your screen like when you get hamstrung or Sundered might be interesting. When it happens and it reduces your Fort from 100% to 75% and you then know that your vulnerable for those seconds that the debuffs ticks away. You can decide consciously whether you need to get out of the fight quickly or if you have enough hit points to risk a crit.

That type of system is what I would prefer. Not another type of AC grind. Not another reason to constantly have to overheal because you never know when someone might get critted and killed.

Remember, that's all things being equal. A system of a temporary and visible debuff is preferable to a system that introduces too much randomness and will force even more gear dependency. Under A_D's proposal everyone will need AC as well as Fortification, the way I read it. And it will require a lot of modification of the current game, it seems.

So, I would prefer a visible and timed debuff that allows me to take evasive action when I know that I'm vulnerable,smarter, rather than just gear up my highest AC + Fortification items and wade in at the mercy of the dice and every little boo boo is over healed by Clerics in mortal fear of Crits.

Because, no, being critted-dead at any level is not fun. It doesn't need to be taken out at lower levels just because of that. The lower level game is already balanced around crits. However, the higher level game is not.

Of course, that can be re-balanced. But I would still prefer a visible and timed debuff so that a player can act on the moment and decide on further actions (back off, turtle up, etc- heck I'd even go so far as to say that "turtling up" should make you immune- after all, someone turtled up is effectively out of the fight until the debuff passes- he's giving up all his dps - except for guards - to protect himself).

That's just the way I feel. Maybe if I read more posts I'll change my mind, but I doubt it.
Well, come what may, it's likely a ways off before any changes are implemented and I'll deal with them when they come.

[grodon9999]

I do like the ideas presented here but if they aren't 100% bug free forget it, don't touch it.

[Tovenar]

Maybe make gear actually scale like it does in PnP?

I'm sure some people remember what the cost for a shield or armor with 100% fort was? it was a +5 bonus. +5. That is Unholy expensive. In Pnp, you MUST have a +1 already on your shield, so even a +1 100% fort shield (+6 overall bonus) would cost 36,000 GP. That is the ENTIRE net worth of a level 9 character. At level 12, it's half your net worth, at level 14 a quarter of your worth. That's still pricey. And that's if you DM is kind enough to allow you to find one (don't expect any treasure for awhile) or let's you buy one (don't expect to be buying any treasure for awhile).

The problem with DDO is that the most prized magical items, the ones that caused your rogue to have his soul stolen, and you lost an arm trying to get, and even THEN ****ed off some other creature which resulted in a side quest to escape his/her wrath, are the most mundane of finds in DDO. And those "Epic" items, well they are equivalent to artifacts, and really no one should have them, because there should never be more then 1 of the same artifact, generally speaking.

However, in DDO EVERYTHING is OP. From character classes to Monster classes. You are just lucky they don't include death by massive damage in this game. Fortification doesn't prevent that. And it only takes 50 damage in 1 hit to cause that.

The way the game is designed, you need fortification because otherwise some mob will crit you and you will die. And saying that "well that's part of the game, get rid of fort" is much like saying "Well Wizards NEED spells to be effective, that ruins the game, so give them unlimited spell points".

Ohhhhhh lunch time! Bye bye!

Wait actually. Just IMPLEMENT a scalable death by massive damage into the game. Now that would **** people off! Every thing that hits you will be a save or die! Now that's EXCITEMENT!

[Borror0]

Unmitigated mess is what it will be.... Bugs will riddle through-out....

Bugs? Unless I am wrong, Eladrin's idea is more prone to bugs than A_D's.

Like I said in the post you quoted, this is mostly a design job. The only time a programmer will come into play is to rewrite how most bonuses to Fortification work. And that should be the only thing QA will test for bugs. The rest of the change - changing the base damage of monsters - would most likely be done by a designer via an interface made for designers to tweak monsters' stats for balance without having to harass programmers constantly. That process has most likely a very low likelihood to produce bugs.

On the other hand, Eladrin's idea will entail reworking several abilities in the game (Sunder, Destruction, etc.). And, they would most likely still involve retouching a good number of monsters if he intends to allow monsters to use those abilities on us.

But, I could always be wrong.

[gavagai]

It's important to point out that, however Fort is changed (fixed %s or variable anti-seeker boni) there are two sides to it: delivering pain and receiving pain.

Much of the criticism and discussion is revolving around the "receiving pain" aspect, because most players a sick and tired of taking massive damage.

But it's overlooking how much love these changes offer rogues, Kensai IIIs, Smiting Paladins, and virtually any DPSer that relies on crits to deliver pain.

Eladrin said they are still discussing whether they will give undead a high fort level (150%) that can be reduced below 100%; that suggests at least that they are considering more than just a Sunder effect, but other stacking effects.

If these stacking Fort debuffs are offered as class-specific features, it will be create a new DPS-boosting mechanism for parties. Could be cool.

For instance, consider if HotD had a special ability (tied to Turning) that imposed a -25/-50/-75% fort penalty on undead in an area for 25 seconds. Suddenly HotD has a very interesting DPS-enhancing role in a party which synergizes with, for instance, those Undead F.E. Rangers, justifying that slot in a high-DPS party doing Epic Undead quests. That benefit may even surpass the KotC's (admittedly bugged) 10d6 damage versus undead in raid parties, where enabling crits will have fairly sizeable DPS consequences.

[Angelus_dead]

But I would prefer a Mob ability, like Sunder or something that caused a visible debuff. To me getting critted with no warning is not fun.

"My AC is low" is a warning, and it was available hours or months in advance.

However, a debuff that pop-ups on your screen like when you get hamstrung or Sundered might be interesting. When it happens and it reduces your Fort from 100% to 75% and you then know that your vulnerable for those seconds that the debuffs ticks away. You can decide consciously whether you need to get out of the fight quickly or if you have enough hit points to risk a crit.

That's part of the problem with that method: Increasing the emphasis on high hitpoints.

With that approach, existing characters with moderate hp and moderate-high AC will be further excluded from participating in melee combat. Less diversity in character building, blah blah etc. Remember, Eladrin's hints didn't say anything about reducing the damage from monster attacks or crits. So what would happen is that for those encounters involving Sunderer monsters, high hp builds can go in and keep on fighting, while medium hp characters are forced to either run in and out of battle when they see icons, or just not even play at all.

That's a key distinction with my suggestion: My way would still allow some characters to be 100% crit-immune situationally.

Note: We don't have full information on Eladrin's hinted approach, so there are other ways it could go. In particular, he mentions more powerful items that might be well over 100% Fortification. It could turn out that those items allow players to get Sundered and still be 100% crit-proof. That would be bad for different reasons:
1. It has little impact on gameplay results. Like, why even bother if everyone is just gonna get crit-immune again?
2. It further consumes inventory slots, as characters start carrying traditional Heavy Fort items for normal battles but switch to Double-Heavy Fort when they know the enemy has Sunder.

Not another reason to constantly have to overheal because you never know when someone might get critted and killed.

The system you are advocating would cause that problem.

Say the Frenzied Berserker gets Sundered- it's gonna happen frequently, even if he passes 95% of Fortitude saves. What does he do then? Do you really think he's going to decide to get out of combat for 30 second? With all the aggro he has, could he even do that if he tried?

No. He's gonna think "I have 700 hp, you should just HEALZ MEA". But now it's not OK to let him get down to under 50%, as that would be too risky. The cleric needs to keep him well above that point, which means there will be a lot of overhealing. And that'll happen even when the barb is not Sundered, because you can't really be sure if he is or not.

Do you think it would be fun (or even possible) for the cleric to try keep himself updated on which of the 4-10 melee teammates are Sundered right now, and whose Sunders have expired yet?

A system of a temporary and visible debuff is preferable to a system that introduces too much randomness and will force even more gear dependency. Under A_D's proposal everyone will need AC as well as Fortification, the way I read it.

People like typical Sorcerers and Barbarians would not start trying to boost AC; instead, holding aggro would punish them with relatively higher incoming damage than AC folks get. If their own DPS is high enough to outweigh that penalty, fine: but they can no longer take crit-immunity as a given by simply spending one item slot.

They would have to make a choice: Do I go for AC or accept the possibility of crits? Currently there is no choice: If a caster or barb tries to get AC, he's just being stupid.

[justagame]

While A_D's suggestion sounds elegant at first, IMO it would be disaster unless accompanied by a drastic change to the way AC is built. There is a fundamental problem when AC at endgame can vary from 15 to 80+ for characters of the same level, IN A D20 system. It means that except for a very small range, AC is irrelevant. Only a select few classes and builds, who have grinded for the rarest of equipment, can have an AC that is relevant at end-game.

Accordingly, tying fort to AC (or some kind of bonus) would then mean that the above would apply to fortification as well. Add a little fortification bonus (for the purpose of avoiding crits) to a class that does not have access to the most uber AC, and it too would be irrelevant.

So, short of completely revamping AC (which I suspect would be more problematic), I would suggest leaving it at-is. Mobs hit plenty hard at endgame as it is, even with fortification. Changing it would not, as suggested by some, inject diversity into builds, it would remove it. Nearly every build would either have to LR into an AC build, through a monk splash or PRE if available. The game would then gravitate ever moreso into the stale stereotypes found elsewhere: the AC tank who doesn't damage much, but just takes a beating; the dps who cannot mitigate damage at all; and the healbot that does nothing but keep them alive. It would greatly reduce the flavor and variety of builds we see today.

On the other hand, I really hope this isn't a case of "heavy fort is to hard to get -- so let's change it." While we're at it, why not get rid of DR, because metalline or holy weapons are hard to get. And let's get rid of aoe damage as well, so that evasion won't be so important.

[gavagai]

There is a fundamental problem when AC at endgame can vary from 15 to 80+ for characters of the same level, IN A D20 system. It means that except for a very small range, AC is irrelevant. Only a select few classes and builds, who have grinded for the rarest of equipment, can have an AC that is relevant at end-game.

Most people have low ACs because they dump it. My first Sorc -- before I learned the game, really -- was sitting at a 32 AC at level 8 in +5 padded armor. I actually spent the AP on the silly ASF enhancements. Even without an anti-seeker bonus I would rarely get crit in level-appropriate content.

The thing to remember is that you can give bonuses to anti-seeker that don't exist for AC. If a level 20 Epic Fort item gives a +35 anti-seeker, that means you only effectively need to hit a 55 AC for a 90 AC crit-confirm equivalency. No classes except pure casters and barbs will have much of a problem in a proper Epic party -- which is the only time where you would even consider calling a 90AC "inadequate."

[Angelus_dead]

But I would prefer a Mob ability, like Sunder or something that caused a visible debuff. To me getting critted with no warning is not fun. However, a debuff that pop-ups on your screen like when you get hamstrung or Sundered might be interesting. When it happens and it reduces your Fort from 100% to 75% and you then know that your vulnerable for those seconds that the debuffs ticks away. You can decide consciously whether you need to get out of the fight quickly

Oh, and I should add that if gameplay like that is something fun and desirable, it can be added as a custom system without changing anything related to crits or fortification.

Just create a new special ability for certain monsters which says "For 20 seconds you take 25% more damage from slashing attacks". That way you can still have the enjoyment of watching for debuffs and making a choice about if it is worth it for you to stay in combat or try to retreat, but without adding the possibility of of unpredictable instant death if you do stay in. (With the fort-reduction version, the player never feels any concrete effect of the debuff until it is too late)

An ability like that probably wouldn't be used often: it would be something added only to special named monsters. That turns out to be better than the alternative of tying it to Sunder, because this kind of debuff-watching gameplay is not fun outside of small doses.

[eonfreon]

"My AC is low" is a warning, and it was available hours or months in advance.


That's part of the problem with that method: Increasing the emphasis on high hitpoints.

With that approach, existing characters with moderate hp and moderate-high AC will be further excluded from participating in melee combat. Less diversity in character building, blah blah etc. Remember, Eladrin's hints didn't say anything about reducing the damage from monster attacks or crits. So what would happen is that for those encounters involving Sunderer monsters, high hp builds can go in and keep on fighting, while medium hp characters are forced to either run in and out of battle when they see icons, or just not even play at all.

That's a key distinction with my suggestion: My way would still allow some characters to be 100% crit-immune situationally.

Note: We don't have full information on Eladrin's hinted approach, so there are other ways it could go. In particular, he mentions more powerful items that might be well over 100% Fortification. It could turn out that those items allow players to get Sundered and still be 100% crit-proof. That would be bad for different reasons:
1. It has little impact on gameplay results. Like, why even bother if everyone is just gonna get crit-immune again?
2. It further consumes inventory slots, as characters start carrying traditional Heavy Fort items for normal battles but switch to Double-Heavy Fort when they know the enemy has Sunder.


The system you are advocating would cause that problem.

Say the Frenzied Berserker gets Sundered- it's gonna happen frequently, even if he passes 95% of Fortitude saves. What does he do then? Do you really think he's going to decide to get out of combat for 30 second? With all the aggro he has, could he even do that if he tried?

No. He's gonna think "I have 700 hp, you should just HEALZ MEA". But now it's not OK to let him get down to under 50%, as that would be too risky. The cleric needs to keep him well above that point, which means there will be a lot of overhealing. And that'll happen even when the barb is not Sundered, because you can't really be sure if he is or not.

Do you think it would be fun (or even possible) for the cleric to try keep himself updated on which of the 4-10 melee teammates are Sundered right now, and whose Sunders have expired yet?


People like typical Sorcerers and Barbarians would not start trying to boost AC; instead, holding aggro would punish them with relatively higher incoming damage than AC folks get. If their own DPS is high enough to outweigh that penalty, fine: but they can no longer take crit-immunity as a given by simply spending one item slot.

They would have to make a choice: Do I go for AC or accept the possibility of crits? Currently there is no choice: If a caster or barb tries to get AC, he's just being stupid.

Thank you A_D.
I'm sure you've said all these things so many times you're tired of it, but you've helped me see where you're coming from.
You've addressed my concerns very well and brought up much I hadn't considered.
It would indeed be a nightmare to introduce the ability to take crits on high level characters based on a debuff if all things stayed equal.

Personally, of course I would rather it stay the way it is. But if developers are piping up then it's an indication that something will likely change somewhere down the line. If they think crits will make the game more exciting then it's best we know sooner rather then earlier. And I hope they put as much thought into why crits can be considered "fun" (or at least an engaging part of the game to build and watch out for) and how it will impact game-play.

[eonfreon]

Oh, and I should add that if gameplay like that is something fun and desirable, it can be added as a custom system without changing anything related to crits or fortification.

Just create a new special ability for certain monsters which says "For 20 seconds you take 25% more damage from slashing attacks". That way you can still have the enjoyment of watching for debuffs and making a choice about if it is worth it for you to stay in combat or try to retreat, but without adding the possibility of of unpredictable instant death if you do stay in. (With the fort-reduction version, the player never feels any concrete effect of the debuff until it is too late)

An ability like that probably wouldn't be used often: it would be something added only to special named monsters. That turns out to be better than the alternative of tying it to Sunder, because this kind of debuff-watching gameplay is not fun outside of small doses.

Yes, as a special ability rather then an internal game mechanic type of debuff would make more sense.

However, we're basing this on the assumption that the Fortification-Debuff the Devs are considering will be prevalent among Monsters and not a special ability that will be used sparingly and startegically.
A variation on the "take out the casters first" scenario- take out the Fort-Debuffers first - which yes, I can see as being tiring too.
Slowly convincing me, I will admit.

[Matuse]

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it haven't been explained. It only means that you are ignorant.

Well, that sure was a compelling argument. I'm sold. Dump fort!

You're misinterpreting or misrepresenting our position.

Actually, that's almost a direct quote from Angelus. Sorry if you don't like your own position.

Those character are generally MUCH better characters than characters with high AC and, if they behave more carefully, they will not die more than they do now.

Maybe you should start a new suggestion thread revolving around the topic of why DPS characters are able to survive better than ones oriented towards defense. Seems somewhat self-contradictory, does it not?

That is blatantly untrue.

It's really not. But let's just go on a dissection tour, shall we?

Making AC debuffs, seeker bonuses, and to-hit bonuses more appealing (which makes many items/feats/enhancement better)

Spurious, since hardly any monsters have fortification anyway (barring things like undead and constructs, which Angelus specifically excluded from being able to be critted), and player to-hit is so astronomically high compared to monster AC, that the net change would be zero.

Armor Class would matter to a larger percentage of the population than it is now

Great, so it'll go from 1% to 2%. What a useful change! We'll just ignore those legions of characters who simply cannot get meaningful AC at all (like say, anyone who relies on arcane spellcasting and therefore can't use a shield), and hey, why not make Combat Expertise mandatory for everyone! I mean, so many classes just have WAY too many feats, that it would be nice of us to give them something to spend one on.

Allowing rogues to bypass fortification without needing to add a new stat that would reduce fortification

Since under Angelus' plan, the monsters who are most vexxing in this regard will remain immune to crits, this suggestion isn't just specious, it's outright laughable. As in: What a joke.

Improves, by proxy, high AC characters

Translation: Changes, not at all, high AC characters. They barely get hit now, and this change will make confirming crits against them (since a natural 20 on a confirmation roll is not an automatic success) just the same as it is with heavy fort: Impossible.

So, a big change that actually changes nothing. Sadly, this DOES sound like something an MMO developer would go head over heels about.

Reducing players' healer-dependency by lowering base damage
o Reducing the spell points spent on healing

So, we lower their base damage by 10%, but at the same time, 10% of their hits do 100% damage. And this will...REDUCE the amount of healing required? I see you failed at math. Badly.

Makes kiting more risky

I'm not entirely certain how this even becomes a "why" for removing fortification, but let's roll with it! Let's see...your previously stated reason was lowering base damage, which would mean lowering it against kiters. So they'd take LESS damage than they do now, in a combat tactic that already results in taking almost no damage at all. And you were saying something about risk? Intriguing.


So yeah...not a single decent reason to change fort, and some of the reasons are even contradictory to their own stated purpose. You fail. Badly.

Bugs? Unless I am wrong, Eladrin's idea is more prone to bugs than A_D's.

You are wrong, they will both be riddled with bugs. You know what won't be riddled with bugs? Doing nothing.

"My AC is low" is a warning, and it was available hours or months in advance.

It's not a warning. It's designing your character to fit into the game world in which he exists. People without ridiculous AC may as well not have any. That's the reality. Suddenly causing everyone to need ridiculous AC will invalidate almost every character in the game. It's not our fault that the game has been designed the way it has. We simply react to the changes that Turbine has made. You might suggest that everyone who should be able to predict such changes months (or years) in advance should reroll or reincarnate to compensate...that's not what will happen. People will just quit. There's the straw the breaks the camel's back, and then there's dropping a steel I-beam on the camel from 30 stories up.

Take off your heavy fort item, and play for a week. You'll have to picture in your head that they are hitting 10% harder than they should be, but that's workable. I mean, 10% isn't even that big a difference anyway (50 point hit drops to 45...big deal). See how you like the "randomness". Come back and tell us all about it.

[eonfreon]

Well, that sure was a compelling argument. I'm sold. Dump fort!



Actually, that's almost a direct quote from Angelus. Sorry if you don't like your own position.



Maybe you should start a new suggestion thread revolving around the topic of why DPS characters are able to survive better than ones oriented towards defense. Seems somewhat self-contradictory, does it not?



It's really not. But let's just go on a dissection tour, shall we?



Spurious, since hardly any monsters have fortification anyway (barring things like undead and constructs, which Angelus specifically excluded from being able to be critted), and player to-hit is so astronomically high compared to monster AC, that the net change would be zero.



Great, so it'll go from 1% to 2%. What a useful change! We'll just ignore those legions of characters who simply cannot get meaningful AC at all (like say, anyone who relies on arcane spellcasting and therefore can't use a shield), and hey, why not make Combat Expertise mandatory for everyone! I mean, so many classes just have WAY too many feats, that it would be nice of us to give them something to spend one on.



Since under Angelus' plan, the monsters who are most vexxing in this regard will remain immune to crits, this suggestion isn't just specious, it's outright laughable. As in: What a joke.



Translation: Changes, not at all, high AC characters. They barely get hit now, and this change will make confirming crits against them (since a natural 20 on a confirmation roll is not an automatic success) just the same as it is with heavy fort: Impossible.

So, a big change that actually changes nothing. Sadly, this DOES sound like something an MMO developer would go head over heels about.



So, we lower their base damage by 10%, but at the same time, 10% of their hits do 100% damage. And this will...REDUCE the amount of healing required? I see you failed at math. Badly.



I'm not entirely certain how this even becomes a "why" for removing fortification, but let's roll with it! Let's see...your previously stated reason was lowering base damage, which would mean lowering it against kiters. So they'd take LESS damage than they do now, in a combat tactic that already results in taking almost no damage at all. And you were saying something about risk? Intriguing.


So yeah...not a single decent reason to change fort, and some of the reasons are even contradictory to their own stated purpose. You fail. Badly.



You are wrong, they will both be riddled with bugs. You know what won't be riddled with bugs? Doing nothing.



It's not a warning. It's designing your character to fit into the game world in which he exists. People without ridiculous AC may as well not have any. That's the reality. Suddenly causing everyone to need ridiculous AC will invalidate almost every character in the game. It's not our fault that the game has been designed the way it has. We simply react to the changes that Turbine has made. You might suggest that everyone who should be able to predict such changes months (or years) in advance should reroll or reincarnate to compensate...that's not what will happen. People will just quit. There's the straw the breaks the camel's back, and then there's dropping a steel I-beam on the camel from 30 stories up.

Take off your heavy fort item, and play for a week. You'll have to picture in your head that they are hitting 10% harder than they should be, but that's workable. I mean, 10% isn't even that big a difference anyway (50 point hit drops to 45...big deal). See how you like the "randomness". Come back and tell us all about it.

I don't want to see Fortification changed. Because I know how it stands right now and I'm comfortable with it (it's hard not to be comfortable with the "highest fortification available at current level").
However, we've gotten a glimpse from a Dev that there may very well be a change somewhere in the horizon.
The OP's idea of simply removing Heavy Fort without rebalancing the game, as it sounds in the OP, is not what folks are really talking about.
The fact is that the Devs are considering changes. I wish I could "shout down" people who want changes too, but I can't. However, I will listen to people who have ideas, even if I don't agree with them, and will hope that the Devs will read these suggestions and consider the best of them (whatever that may be).

Changes are likely. Will people leave? Of course. People leave for just about any reason.

It's time to go beyond "Stop making suggestions that affect my game-play" and go to "Why are the Developers considering these changes and what would we like to see come of it all".

That's the way I feel anyway.

[Borror0]

Actually, that's almost a direct quote from Angelus. Sorry if you don't like your own position.

The exact quote does not mean what you paraphrased it as.

Maybe you should start a new suggestion thread revolving around the topic of why DPS characters are able to survive better than ones oriented towards defense. Seems somewhat self-contradictory, does it not?

I did not say "more survivable" I used the expression "weaker" which is the word you used.

It's a known fact that S&B characters are neatly inferior to DPS TWF characters.

Spurious, since hardly any monsters have fortification anyway

It relatively common for raid bosses to have fortification.

Great, so it'll go from 1% to 2%.

It's been demonstrated that it is possible a large amount of builds to have decent Armor Class, simply by trying. See my exchange with Vhlad, where I showed him that his ranger wasn't even 20 points away from an equally buffed S&B character.

Since under Angelus' plan, the monsters who are most vexxing in this regard will remain immune to crits

I have no idea why you think so since you didn't outline your reasoning, but this is false.

Translation: Changes, not at all, high AC characters.

Somewhat odd way to put it. While it's true that high AC characters would remain mostly unchanged, they would become more desirable because other characters would be exposed to critical hits while they would not. In that sense, it's incorrect to conclude that it's "a big change that actually changes nothing" since things do change - just indirectly.

So, we lower their base damage by 10%, but at the same time, 10% of their hits do 100% damage. And this will...REDUCE the amount of healing required? I see you failed at math. Badly.

You're ignoring two important factors:

1. Armor Class will increase in desirability
2. Part of the damage will be critical hits, which can still be prevented by the new form of fortification

So, although the total damage potential of monsters remain unchanged (increase by 10% because of critical hits and loss of -10% because of developer nerf), players will be better protected against them and thus will take less damage, not more nor the same amount.

[..] your previously stated reason was lowering base damage, which would mean lowering it against kiters. So they'd take LESS damage than they do now, in a combat tactic that already results in taking almost no damage at all. And you were saying something about risk? Intriguing.

Many kiters (like wizards and sorcerers) will probably have Armor Class so low they'll end up taking as much damage as they used to (ie +10%-10%=0 chance). However, because they can be affected by critical hits, kiting becomes more dangerous.

Let's assume a monster that hits for 40 damage and has a critical multiplier of x3. If the kiter gets hit three times, he'll take 120 damage. However, if critical hits are enabled, he'll take 200 damage instead. As a result, kiting becomes more risky.

[TheDjinnFor]

So, let's see how fort -> anti-seeker could work.

Assuming the following general tiers for 'tank' AC

Gianthold (level 10-15): 45 no-hit AC
Shroud AC (level 16-19): 70 no-hit AC
Epic AC (level 20): 95 no-hit AC

For the following characters: Caster (robes), Squishy Melees (Light armor), Tough Melees (Heavy Armor), Heavy Armor + tanking

Gianthold (level 10-15)

Base 10
+5 armor bracers (+5 AC)/+5 Chain Shirt (+9 AC)/+5 Fullplate (+13 AC)
+4 shield spell/+5 tower shield (+9 AC)
Deflection +3 item/Shield of Faith spell/Shield of Faith potion (+3 AC)
Barkskin +3 potion (+3 AC)
1base dex (+1 AC), 14 base dex (+2 AC), 12 base dex (+1 AC)
dex +6 item (+3 AC)
=29, 29, 33, 42

+heavy fort item (+20 anti-seeker)
= 49, 49, 53, 62

Easy no-crit AC while SELF-BUFFED. Add a couple party members (a ranger here, a pally there, a wizard to cast shield) and nobody is going to get critted, ever.

Shroud (level 16-19)

Base 10
+6 armor bracers (+6 AC)/+5 Mithril Breastplate (+10 AC)/DT Fullplate (+15 AC)
Icy Raiments (+4 AC)
haste spell (+1 AC)
alchemical armor bonus (+1 AC)/alchemical shield bonus (+1 AC)
Shield spell (+4 AC)/+5 tower shield (+9 AC)
Deflection +5 item/Divine's Shield of Faith spell (+5 AC)
Ranger Barkskin spell (+5 AC)
Divine's Recitation spell (+2 AC)
+4 insight/+4 insight
12 base dex (+1 AC), 14 base dex (+2 AC), 12 base dex (+1 AC), 14 base dex (+2 AC)
dex +2 tome (+1 AC)
dex +6 item (+3 AC)
chaosguards (+2 AC)/chaosguards (+2 AC)
dodge feat (+1 AC)
combat expertise (+5 AC)
=45, 50, 55, 67

+bard song (+4 AC)/paladin aura (+5 AC)
+heavy fort item (+20 anti-seeker)

= 67/68, 74/75, 79/80, 91/92

Sure, requires some effort. Those who invest will be rewarded. Raids will require a bard or paladin (both is even better), and casters should be wary of jumping into battle recklessly. Tanks don't even need to be tank-specced.

Epic (level 20)

Base 10
+8 armor bracers (+8 AC)/+8 armor bracers (+8 AC)/DT Fullplate (+15 AC)
Icy Raiments (+4 AC), Icy Raiments (+4 AC)
haste spell (+1 AC)
alchemical armor bonus (+1 AC)/alchemical shield bonus (+1 AC)
+3 Stalwart Defender
Two-weapon defense
Shield spell (+4 AC)/Leviks (+9 AC)
Deflection +5 item/Divine's Shield of Faith spell (+5 AC)
Ranger Barkskin spell (+5 AC)
Divine's Recitation spell (+2 AC)
+4 insight/+4 insight
14 base dex (+2 AC)
exceptional +2 dex (+1)
dex +4 tome (+2 AC), or +3/2 tome with: litany/exceptional +1/enhancements/etc.
dex +6 item (+3 AC)
chaosguarde (+2 AC)
chattering ring (+3 AC)
dodge feat (+1 AC)/dodge feat (+1 AC)
combat expertise (+5 AC)
monk splash(+1 base 12 wis, +3 wis +6 item, +2 wis +4 tome: total +6 AC)
=51, 57, 61, 79

+bard song (+4 AC) + paladin aura (+5 AC)
+heavy fort item (+20 anti-seeker)

= 80, 86, 90, 103/104

It's only about here that the AC crunch hits, and players who want to avoid crit damage really need to start upping dex and maybe splashing monk. Even then, these are basic builds available to just about any character with proper min-maxing. Besides, anyone running epic probably has all the best gear and the most min-maxed items. One change will fix this, though, and that's +30 anti-seeker instead of +20; all of a sudden, each build I listed above is perfectly viable, and doesn't require much of an end-game revamp.

In conclusion, this change will do the following:

-Promote more diversity in builds: just about any build can get relevant no-crit AC, but it requires some DPS sacrifice; players can choose their level of survivability and DPS
-Add variety to combat by varying the incoming damage and providing both characters and monsters with new options
-Reward players who make the effort to build and play their character more conservatively and defensive-oriented (and act as a reward mechanic, 'controllable randomness', rather than a punishment mechanic, 'pure randomness')

Side effects include:

-Punishes barbs the most, rewards tank-option builds (Kensai fighters or monk splashes) the most
-Isn't as balanced for epic; the DPS loss is probably too much.

[Vhlad]

People will just quit. There's the straw the breaks the camel's back, and then there's dropping a steel I-beam on the camel from 30 stories up.

Yep. Unless Turbine gives me a +3 lesser reincarnate + alignment change token for every single one of my characters, the implementation of A_D's suggestion will result in me finally putting this game down for good. To make such a drastic change to character design and itemization without showing respect for the time players have invested in their current characters will result in mutually assured destruction.

Fundamentally, being critically hit as a player is not fun. But being able to crit monsters is fun. Why? It has to do with player psychology. Sid Meier's psychology of game design speech gives us a good example of this when he discusses the design of the battle system in Civ:

“I had this battle, it was 3:1 and I LOST!” The player would say, “no no you don't understand. 3 is big, 1 is small. I had the big number, I should have won!”
So we adjusted our system to make the battles more like what the players expected. This time the player had 1, and the AI had the big gigantic 3. And lo, the player won. And I said “doesn't that feel wrong to you”? And the player said, “no? Not at all? I had tactics”!

There are many aspects of A_D's suggestion that, in implementation, will end up going against Sid Meier's "unholy alliance."

i.e.

One thing we pretend as designers is that the player is good. You're really good. We want you to feel good about yourself while you're playing. This went off the tracks with Flight Simulators: early on they were accessible and easy to play. Then we got to every iteration where they went more complex, more realistic.. and pretty soon the player went from I'm Good to I'm Confused. My plane is falling out of the sky. The fun went out of it. Keep your player feeling good about themselves.

Replace "plane" with "pure sorc/wizard/favored soul/cleric/THF: barb/bard/fighter/paladin" and replace "falling out of the sky" with "being ***pwnt, 1-shotted, unable to have aggro, becoming squishy as hell, unable to kite, unable to tank", and we'll have A_D's suggestion. It will totally suck the fun out of so many class/race combos.

The player's role in this: they need to suspend their disbelief. Take on the mantle of king, or pirate, or whatever it is. That's part of the bargain. I think in some ways those of us that are old-time designers have a bit of an advantage because we worked in the good old days of 16bit graphics, we really had to work hard to get the player to believe they were building an empire or whatever and that helps a lot in the challenge of getting the player to suspend their disbelief.

Replace "take on the mantle of king/pirate/whatever" or "building an empire" with "playing a hero of stormreach". Having a 20 sorc or barbarian run away from 1 single epic monster (that has 20x more hp than the player) because they don't want to be triple-crit 1-shotted again is a good way to make me lose my suspension of disbelief, especially when death penalty starts stacking.

Mutually Assured Destruction is another thing to think about: who remembers the Cold War? We didn't blow each other up because we knew the other side also had nuclear weapons. The player can destroy the game experience any time they like: they can cheat, quit, play wrong. As a game designer, we can mess up the game as well: lose the thread of fantasy... at Microprose years ago, there was an adventure game, you adventured down to the castle to see the king, and when you got to the king it was revealed to you that the king wasn't the good guy, but the Bad Guy, and you had to go back to the beginning to do it "right". That was us messing up the game. "Imagine the look on the player's face when all this work they've done was in vain!" No: they're going to think, I just wasted 8 hours on this stupid game.

Yeah, obsoleting most of my characters (which are pure, non monk splash) in one fell swoop would sure as hell make me think, I just wasted X hours on this stupid game.

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.

Critical hits against players at end-game is a significant level of randomness, akin to a great natural disaster in Civ. Monster HP and damage is so high, and store-bought healing is so low, that the critical hit discussion is appreciably different when talking about low-level vs high-level. At end-game, it doesnt feel good when you are critically hit for 400 and all you have is a cure serious pot for 24. It especially doesnt feel good if it happens multiple times in a row, or consistently because fortification is now tied to AC, and your class/race combo is incapable of obtaining meaningful AC. Such a change would make it seem like the game (or the dev) is out to get us.

[Judo]

well said Vhlad

I for one, will leave simply because the veil has been lifted, I will have lost
interest in the growth of my characters.


It would be comparable to a 3 year rollback.

Sorry everyone, everything you've done no longer counts...deal with it...but
please, enjoy the silly hats we've provided at the store.