Remove/Replace Fortification.

[Vhlad]

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.

No Borror0, you're wrong. For reference, http://my.ddo.com/character/thelanis/vhlader/

You're looking at a 20 ranger with:
14 base dex
+2 dex tome
+3 dex ranger enhancements
+6 dex item
+2 exceptional dex TOD ring
+1 profane dex litany of the dead
// 28 dex for +9 bonus

DT leather armor grinded out with dodge +3
+1 alchemical armor
+2 max dex bonus from dwarven armor mastery II enhancements
// +12 AC from body slot

+5 deflection // helm slot
+4 insight // weapon slot
+2 dodge // bracers slot

+4 shield tempest III enhancement
+1 dodge feat
+1 two weapon defense feat

+5 natural // 20 ranger barkskin
+1 dodge // 30 second haste potion

54 self-buffed AC for a pure class ranger with substantial investment in AC, taking up many enhancement points, feats, and 7 item slots, with heavy investment in raid and crafted gear.

How exactly does requiring every class to slot for AC increase diversity?

This ranger, with some of the best gear available, is sitting at 54AC. And you want to tie heavy fort to AC when mobs in epic desert treat 80AC like it's nothing? Or when other builds (such as monk splashes) can reach 100AC? What the hell is a pure class THF kotc/hotd paladin, THF kensai, warchanter, barbarian, wizard, sorc, cleric, favored soul who cannot even reach the 54 AC of my ranger supposed to do? What is a new player without these items supposed to do?

[Matuse]

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

quote: For spellcasters to be less able to reliably survive monster attacks is an intentional benefit of the suggestion.

So, we know that spellcasters are already more fragile than others...fewer HP, no AC, really only have stoneskin going for them, which isn't much against monsters hitting for 50+ points, and the suggestion is for them to be less survivable.

In what way does that not mean what I paraphrased it?

It relatively common for raid bosses to have fortification.

And in what parallel universe does a thousandth of one percent of all monsters in the game not fit into the category of "hardly any"?

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.

How nifty for him, when we presume that he's got a pocket bard/paladin in every group he's in, and is able to grind up such trivial items as the chattering ring, icy rainments, a +4 insight shroud item, and carry around 10-15 shield clicky items to keep that spell up constantly.

And that everyone else is able to do all of those things too, regardless of class/race (sorry warforged, no icy for j00!).

And of course, ignoring that having to turn over 50%+ of your equipment list to AC items will tend to have catastrophic effects on the ability to kill things. So now players not only take more damage, but they also inflict less!

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

You really shouldn't speak out of ignorance. Because here's the direct quote:

AD: Except for creatures who naturally lack vital spots (like undead and constructs), Fortification is changed from percentages to an AC bonus on confirmation AC.

So yea, the monsters that rogues have the most trouble with WILL REMAIN THE MONSTERS ROGUES HAVE THE MOST TROUBLE WITH. Net problems solved: Zero!

That of course is leaving aside some sort of compelling reason why rogues should be equally functional against all opponents. No other class is. Did rogues get an "I'm SPECIAL!" button to wear on their lapels that I was not informed about?

Somewhat odd way to put it. While it's true that high AC characters would remain mostly unchanged, they would become more desirable

No they wouldn't. You -can- run a quest without a high-AC intimitank/whatever character, but it's usually easier with one. Their desirability would be basically the same as it is now.

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.

Well almost any change would make it MORE dangerous, since it's basically completely without danger right now, unless you're fighting a lot of spellcasters/archers.

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.

So we're also assuming the monster has a critical threat range of 14-20? Why don't we "assume" things which might have just a slight taint of realism to them, shall we?

Assumption: Kiter has an AC so pathetic the monster only misses on a 1, but would confirm a crit on a 1.
Assumption: Monster is 20 threat range, x3 crit multiplier
Assumption: Monster takes 20 swings at kiter

With current heavy fort: 19 hits at 40 points each = 760 points of damage
With modded heavy fort: 18 hits at 36 points each, and 1 hit at 108 = 756 points of damage.

Yea, that's definitely a lot more risky. I'm sure the kiters are SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS BABY! If you're going to suggest a change, please make into something that resembles actual change. Pretty please?

Of course, that's assuming we don't do other craziness like giving the monsters Khopeshes, or the Imp Crit feat (or both).

The funny thing? With the change, the player takes infintesimally less damage than before (about half of one percent), but that's not how it will feel to them. They'll feel like the game (and not at all by extension, Turbine) is out to get them. You and AD are suggesting this giant change which won't change anything, but will introduce copious new bugs and problems to go along with the change that won't change anything.

I'd really rather developer time be spent on fixing actual problems or creating new content, and not pandering to an issue which only exists in your head.

[Emili]

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.

Remind you that shield is a self only buff ... and that people standing around waiting for a bard or pally to join to run any quest is bad for the game. Quite simply put the beauty of DnD is -NO CLASS BE REQUIRED FOR SUCCESS. - while not all quests are built as such (obviously some are easier with a particular skill set or class ability) Build should not be a required means to the end. You wits and twitch shall prevale. Not some arbitrary item from some chest nor end reward!

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.

... again If I wish to short man VoD I do not require standing around waiting for Bards and Pallys to join ... that is ridiculas.

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.


You forgot punishes the party and it's leader as not we must be PICKIER on party guidlines.

I agree with many of your conclusions...

As stands I believe it is ridiculas to require splashed builds to attain decent stat attributes for such things as picking apart synergies of monk for 5-6 ac, splashing rogue for UMD etc... as it is today - seen as the bright thing to do - narrows build choices rather than expand them... I.E. Monster - the better Kensai then Kensai III, Exploiter - the better Tempest then pure Tempest ranger... the aire is not set forth for diversity as stands and yet the ideas of narrowing such more are being put forth.

80, 86, 90, 103/104

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%)

The investments made ... and the counter AC/Fort mechanisms ... entails those with 80 ac in course of battle do become critable eventually - even though they strived and pinched for the gear and scraped together along with others to MAX attainable AC for their build - they are still in the risk area as they get hit by the debuffing marks ... while those who are extreme AC build have little issue. So tell me - who has worked harder to aquire AC on the character? the Defender who gets it shoved on for nearly free since much comes from his PrE or the Ranger who had to Splash a dump more into dex and wisdom scattering more build points investing in more feats etc... FACT! anyone can build and itemize a PrE/Build for AC but there are PrE or class where such is just handed to them.

I am more impressed with the skill of a player vs a build ... build is bloody easy once you gather the information and outline what you intend to itemize. It actually takes more skill as a player to play DPS then any AC build - this is why I rerolled my - then 62AC tank - back in the early days proir mod 1. The game was boring on my part... I walked into TS and intimidated. I was indestrutable and realized I was also bored of my role. I wanted to use my brain and my twitch and the party resources however varied they be rather than set in motion the same tactic and strategies over and over again.

My opinion still stand... shall we remove fort ... criticals shall be reintroduced at high levels - I'm not against such. However I feel it not be tied to AC. It is far better than tying such as it places value for everyone rather then granulating it towards those seeking melee immunities - and entail a chance for risks for even those with the 103/104 AC readily. The high AC build already have a higher chance not to get hit. As it stands the AC builds have great survivability in AC/DR/Save and thus tying fort to such in essence places ALL defensive attributes relying on one attribute - AC is not a good thing - all attributes entailing survivability should not be dependent upon one another. Thus removing diversity when it comes to survivability.

[Emili]

Your ranger could reach something like:
10 base
+8 Armor (bracer)
+4 Shield
+9 Dexterity (from your MyDDO link)
+10 Dodge (IR, CR, Haste, Dodge feat, ritual)
+5 Deflection
+5 Natural (Barkskin)
+4 Insight
+1 Two Weapon Defense
56 self-buffed AC

S&B fighter:
10 base
+15 Armor (DT)
+9 Shield (Levik's)
+6 Dexterity
+9 Dodge (CR, CG, Dodge feat, Haste, rituals)
+5 Deflection
+3 Natural (Barkskin potions)
+4 Insight
+3 Stalwart Defender
+5 Combat Expertise
69 (or 73 with Defensive Stance)

A few buffs are missing, but both of you would gain equally from those (with the exception of Barkskin, but that's a mere +2 difference) so the gap would not widen any more than that. Considering that the gap is only of 13 points, a +20 bonus would bring your ranger higher than level of protection of a S&B fighter - not +50 like you claimed. Other less fortunate builds might fall under the dice but that's not the end of the world either. It just means they'll get critted, so what?

Allowing low AC characters to get hit by critical hits is one of the goals of the change, after all.

1. Introduce to me to one good 100 AC character.
2. The change wouldn't be perfect. That does not mean it's bad or isn't an improvement over the current situation.
3. One of the design of grazing hits was to make high AC characters not invulnerable. All that would mean is that the grazing hits formula has to be revised to be slightly more punitive of high AC characters.

Now then Borror make that Human pure ranger emphasised strength some and the fighter a pure human kensai...

Pure human Khopesh strength ranger with 32 str and 30 dex and pure human Kensai TWF 40 str 26 dex 22 int become a "Bad" Build - Thus AC and the fort which come with it are out of reach unless one purposely applies racial attributes, splashing and entails particular PrE's you pit survivability even moreso entirely in MAX/MIN tweaking - you are limiting possible build potentials.

TWF human kensai fighter:
10 base
+15 Armor (DT)
+3 Dexterity
+9 Dodge (CR, CG, Dodge feat, Haste, rituals)
+5 Deflection
+3 Natural (Barkskin potions)
+4 Insight
+5 Combat Expertise
54

Put it in PA mode and am at 49... I done a shield amd am at 63 drop healing amp by 20% for my chaos bracers as I scamper for +2 more turn back on PA and am 65 totally raid buffed am in 70's (yes a drop in the bucket for some) under great conditions turtling down now that may seem decent enough but to do so to a dwarf who's a defender and they're pushing 100... fact be they're in the 60's without a shield in hand and still doing more dps then when I try to reach thier AC - one handed SnB in that mode.

Then in come ten mob sundering and fort debuffing... you removed my ability to effectively function as a light tank you also poised me as a possible dead duck while I'm in DPS modes... my AC even at 10 below the Stalwart becomes little desired by me as I get hit twice as often than a defender to start and in combat my AC/Fort becomes useless much more quickly.

You are not introducing diversity and versitility ... you are proposing narrowing the scope of it. So I once again ask - how is such good for the game? If you wish a three tier Tank, DPS, Healer type game - maybe WoW be more approriate?

[TheDjinnFor]

I disagree with your interpretations.

“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”!

True, the player wants to feel as though their own personal abilities allows them to overcome long odds, and they generally don't want the AI to have the same behavour. An inherent trait of humans is to want to feel as though they've contributed something; part of the fun comes from feeling as though you've defeated a tough foe (even if everything was still in your favor to begin with). Generally they don't want the same concept reciprocated. For critical hits, lowering base mob DPS yet increasing the variety through random critical hits provides enough of a danger threshold to feel as though you're facing long odds even though the mob DPS output is the exact same as before (under A_D's suggestion). Thus, you would create a feeling of 3v1 and yet the actual challenge is still weighted in the players favor.

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

Or you're just misinterpreting it.

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.

That replacement doesn't make sense. Sid is talking about the age old distinction between depth and complexity; depth makes the character have to think harder or play smarter or react faster in order to succeed, while complexity just acts as a barrier that the player must pass before they can have fun. In the case of flight simulators, they were so overcomplicated and had so much pointless stuff in them that players had to jump through hoops and learn boring things and memorize meaningless concepts before they could enjoy the game. A better method is to create a control scheme and an overall game that makes the player feel as though they are contributing to their success with every action they take rather than having to sleep through pointless things to do so. In this case, removing heavy fort supports this idea, as it gets rid of a meaningless complexity (mandatory item slot) and adds in depth by forcing decision making and effort by the player (determining if the build could hit an AC threshold and then assembling the gear).

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.

Take it up with turbine. They set the hp values and the dps numbers. However, the whole point, I think, of epic, is to have players face things that are actually a challenge to them (think of it as globally nerfing the level scale, so that level 20 = pnp level 5, or something). Running away can be an important mechanic and is entirely realistic for a level 20 barbarian facing a superior foe to do.

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.

Check my post. They wouldn't be obsolete, you'd just have to make them more well-rounded. You can hit relevant, no crit-confirm AC on any non-epic caster. Also, following A_D's idea, you'd just adjust base mob DPS so that they're the same as they are now even though they can crit.

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.

Sid Meier is misusing the term randomness, in this case (or you are). See, there's pure, coin-toss randomness, which I'm sure nobody would have fun with, and then there's predictable simplicity, which I'm sure is equally as boring. The proper way to design a game is to provide enough unpredictability that the game has some semblance of variety, yet allow the character to do something to control it. The classic concept of 'man over beast', in this case, applies the best.

Humans have it in their nature to want to tame the wild, the 'untamable', and the desire that their actions and choices can actually affect the outcome of an important event is the cause of feelings of control, power, and dominance. The opposite feelings occur (feelings of injustice and spite) when a purely random event punishes a player through no fault of their own, as Sid identifies, and will make a player want to quit. On the other hand, something that rewards a player for their actions and legitimate choices (i.e. increasing AC in order to avoid criticals or playing in such a way that you limit critical hits inflicted on you) creates a feeling of congratulations, and it is this feeling of congratulations for their actions that motivates a player to play. This assumes that the choice is actually relevant and not forced (as players are now forced to wear heavy fort).

In the end, variety prevents players from shutting off their brain at the game, and this variety can only be introduced by either inserting a human element or creating systems that have random tendencies. The key thing is, the game should be designed in such a way that they can see it coming (dangerous looking mob), protect against it ahead of time (go for high AC), and avoid it while it is happening (evade the mob, break aggro, or stay back). So yes, pure randomness, sucks, but so does simplistic monotony, and the best is a balance that empowers the player with meaningful choices and creates a feeling of 'man over beast'.

So my point is, Sid agrees with me, not with you
Or maybe you can take it both ways.

[TheDjinnFor]

Remind you that shield is a self only buff ... and that people standing around waiting for a bard or pally to join to run any quest is bad for the game. Quite simply put the beauty of DnD is -NO CLASS BE REQUIRED FOR SUCCESS. - while not all quests are built as such (obviously some are easier with a particular skill set or class ability) Build should not be a required means to the end. You wits and twitch shall prevale. Not some arbitrary item from some chest nor end reward!

*cough* heavy fort *cough*... But anyways, low AC toons becoming more squishy goes along with what you've said here, since they'll have to make a more conscious effort to avoid aggro and damage.

... again If I wish to short man VoD I do not require standing around waiting for Bards and Pallys to join ... that is ridiculas.

You forgot punishes the party and it's leader as not we must be PICKIER on party guidlines.

Nobody said it was necessary to become pickier. You only need to do that if you want your party to be less squishy. By changing the dynamic from 'easy to get, very useful', to 'hard to get, very useful' you've completely changed how players will think of it.

As stands I believe it is ridiculas to require splashed builds to attain decent stat attributes for such things as picking apart synergies of monk for 5-6 ac, splashing rogue for UMD etc... as it is today - seen as the bright thing to do - narrows build choices rather than expand them... I.E. Monster - the better Kensai then Kensai III, Exploiter - the better Tempest then pure Tempest ranger... the aire is not set forth for diversity as stands and yet the ideas of narrowing such more are being put forth.

The monk splash was only included as a reference; it's not actually counted in any of the AC calculations (it's why it was in pink, but I guess that's not obvious). In any case, the point still stands that AC will not become mandatory after the implementation of this idea. Heck, change nothing but the fortification effect into anti-seeker and you will still see tons of AC-less builds who are willing to take the damage increase in exchange for better damage output. However, the option still exists, like it does for a wizard thinking about splashing rogue, for the player to choose a more generalist, defensive approach. There is no reason why players will go all out to fill 7 item slots in order to get fortification again (you implied so yourself) so there is little chance of this change decreasing versatility; you're still assuming that fortification will be mandatory once it becomes harder to get, when the whole point of the change was to stop it from being mandatory; you have to reframe your mind.

The investments made ... and the counter AC/Fort mechanisms ... entails those with 80 ac in course of battle do become critable eventually - even though they strived and pinched for the gear and scraped together along with others to MAX attainable AC for their build - they are still in the risk area as they get hit by the debuffing marks ... while those who are extreme AC build have little issue. So tell me - who has worked harder to aquire AC on the character? the Defender who gets it shoved on for nearly free since much comes from his PrE or the Ranger who had to Splash a dump more into dex and wisdom scattering more build points investing in more feats etc... FACT! anyone can build and itemize a PrE/Build for AC but there are PrE or class where such is just handed to them.

Your problem is that mobs might render mid-AC toons meaningless if they can debuff them into crittable range, correct?

...Well what's wrong with that? It's another thing to watch out for; perfect opportunity for adding in some more of those twitch skills that you place importance in. And the squishies who can't even hit a relevant AC will be even more so inclined to get better aggro management abilities.

I am more impressed with the skill of a player vs a build ... build is bloody easy once you gather the information and outline what you intend to itemize. It actually takes more skill as a player to play DPS then any AC build - this is why I rerolled my - then 62AC tank - back in the early days proir mod 1. The game was boring on my part... I walked into TS and intimidated. I was indestrutable and realized I was also bored of my role. I wanted to use my brain and my twitch and the party resources however varied they be rather than set in motion the same tactic and strategies over and over again.

Right, which is why making sunder a relevant gameplay mechanic, adding in the chance of big critical hits, and tying fortification to AC should be something you'd support. It vastly increases the importance of twitch skills for low-AC toons.

My comments.

[Artos_Fabril]

Other less fortunate builds might fall under the dice but that's not the end of the world either. It just means they'll get critted, so what?

The opposite feelings occur (feelings of injustice and spite) when a purely random event punishes a player through no fault of their own, as Sid identifies, and will make a player want to quit.

Being one-shotted is not fun for most players, furthermore, it's not fun for the other 5-11 players that now have to make up for the lost dps/healing/utility until that character can be rezzed, who (until rank 80) lose 10% xp, or the cleric who's spending resources, potentially including real money, to rez and rebuff the killed character.

Certainly you can fine tune crit numbers so that there is a very low chance for well built character (in this case, one who has at least one viable* method of damage avoidance) to be instantly killed because of a string of bad luck. Completely ignoring the resources required to do that fine tuning, you're still going to have bad streaks on the dice and characters are going to die when they "shouldn't".
*by viable, I mean a method does does not prevent the character from doing the things that they were added to the party/raid in order to do, or reduce their effectiveness in this role below what a different class or build could accomplish without making similar sacrifices

Because of the negative effects of character death, including the social factors (like being less desirable for groups), characters will be built to either remain crit immune, or to attain HP totals high enough to avoid instant crit death. Because you're talking about removing a way for characters to reduce their vulnerability to instant or very rapid death, you will reduce the number of viable builds, and the amount of viable gear.

The way you beat any monster encounter, at any level, is to reduce the monster's resources (generally only HP) faster than the players resources (generally HP + SP + other healing), thus the goal is reducing incoming damage, reducing healing required, and maximizing outgoing damage. Under the proposed AC=fort system, all characters will need a way to avoid dying from critical hits, whether it's high AC or high HP or some combination. There is no "trading critablity for DPS" because a corpse deals 0 DPS. All characters are forced to account for crits in some way, or be non-viable. (right now, that requires approximately 1/2 a slot, you propose that it require much more)

Tying fortification to AC sidelines good damage builds with low AC (pure barbs, warchanters, STR rogues, THFs) while promoting good damage builds with high or potentially high AC (exploiter in particular, also monks, dex rogues, etc.) You'd need to give the low AC builds something to make up for their lost survivability, or it's just a nerf, not a tradeoff. Meanwhile you're making one of the builds widely regarded as the best melee DPS (exploiter) even more desirable (twice over, if you also allow players to make crit immune mobs crittable, since that's the one area where khopeshes fall behind some other weapon types).

Unless crits become non-lethal, crit immunity will remain required. If it's harder to get, but fully attainable to experienced players, it just discourages new players. If it's easy to get, we end up right back where we are now. If it's difficult to get and requires specific build decisions, it's going to reduce variety, increase complexity (especially for new players who make poor build decisions early on and become suddenly and shockingly undesirable past a certain point). Party leaders are going to be more restrictive of the race/class/gear combos they accept, which makes leading a party less fun.

I don't really think the current system is very good, but it is well understood, people build and plan and gear to account for its quirks and foibles. You're talking about making wholesale changes to the combat mechanics as they stand. Try not to underestimate the impact this has on players at all levels, from the f2p newbie who doesn't know about Ron's character builder to the 4 year vet with 10 capped characters planning through 34TRs.

Maybe this all comes down to a matter of opinion. I believe that if you tell a player "you must do this this and this, or your character maybe die/be gimped/not get groups" the player will do this this and this (and not want to play with characters who don't do so). You, if I correctly understand your position, believe that players will instead say "that's fine, I can live with that tradeoff". Certainly some of each type exist, but I believe that the vast majority fall somewhere in either the first group, or a third group who say "That's not the kind of game I want to play, I'll go find something else to spend my time/money on."

[smatt]

The funny thing? With the change, the player takes infintesimally less damage than before (about half of one percent), but that's not how it will feel to them. They'll feel like the game (and not at all by extension, Turbine) is out to get them. You and AD are suggesting this giant change which won't change anything, but will introduce copious new bugs and problems to go along with the change that won't change anything.

I'd really rather developer time be spent on fixing actual problems or creating new content, and not pandering to an issue which only exists in your head.

Lots of snip..... But yes....

And I applaud your willignness to do spend the time to actaulyl answer all of this. I have little patience for entering into long drawn out internet discussions anymore.

For the others that want to over complicate a game, change a major mechanic within the game that works just fine, and to encourage them to move along to parts of the game the game that are truly broken.....

Simply put, I understand this idea of making use of, at least at this point some useless features of the game. But this isn't a good idea, It will over-complicate a reasonably simple game mechanic. Sooo, we ahve a game that has been made infninately easier as time goes by, simply wtih the addition of equipment and of course the DDO store. Why? Because the old game the one that lent itself to being much harder to surviving, learning how to play,w as deamed horrible by the masses, while also being deamed special by the few who played it. What that led to was the failure of the game econominically. So now people are proposing moving the game back the other direction? Really?

The only outcomes here as I said before, are a lot of Dev time invested into a new system that will cause them to do a lot of adjustemnts to other game mechanic systems, as well as the likelyhood of there being a buggy mess a the end of the tunnel that also will absorb far too many hours of Dev time. Lest us not forget that it is likely the proposed changes will cause the party to expend more resources and therefore spend more points in the store. Now let me toss out who exactly it is that spends the most on resources typically, when people are taking more damage? Yep...... Those clerics/healers who's only cookie in the last 2 years has been mass heal, oh and those awesome improvements to turn undead It's pretty clear who's going to take the the hit on this one.... I simply don't see hwo this could be a good thing for the game.

With all due repect to Eladrin, delving into this is an uneeded, over complication of the basic game mechanics, there are so many other areas of the game that need this kind of attention. Players spending more points in the store.. Good for Turbine.... Players looking at an over-complicated game mechanic, hating it and moving on = Bad for Turbine = Wash, Which = Not worth the time....

[systemstate]

If you want to be susceptible to crits because you enjoy the game more that way, then don't wear a fort item. I, on the other hand will continue to seek these items out, as well as disease immunity, poison immunity, deathblock, etc.

Play how you want to. If Turbine adds some super uber item that allows me to fly and 1-hit kill dragons with laser beams, I'm going to use it if I can.

As far as people getting turned down in groups for not having heavy fort- I can't help you there. Maybe form a guild that forbids fort items and play with like-minded people.

[zealous]

Dying is not fun for most players, furthermore, it's not fun for the other 5-11 players that now have to make up for the lost dps/healing/utility until that character can be rezzed, who (until rank 80) lose 10% xp, or the cleric who's spending resources, potentially including real money, to rez and rebuff the killed character.

So by your own arguments players should never be put in a situation where they run even the most remote risk of dying?
I.e. god mode?

If you feel confident that the devs can fine tune monster damage to an extent to produce a acceptable game, how can you not feel confident that they can do this with changes to fortification?
---

If you want to be susceptible to crits because you enjoy the game more that way, then don't wear a fort item. I, on the other hand will continue to seek these items out, as well as disease immunity, poison immunity, deathblock, etc.

Play how you want to. If Turbine adds some super uber item that allows me to fly and 1-hit kill dragons with laser beams, I'm going to use it if I can.

As far as people getting turned down in groups for not having heavy fort- I can't help you there. Maybe form a guild that forbids fort items and play with like-minded people.

The only outcomes here as I said before, are a lot of Dev time invested into a new system that will cause them to do a lot of adjustemnts to other game mechanic systems, as well as the likelyhood of there being a buggy mess a the end of the tunnel that also will absorb far too many hours of Dev time.

Repeating a argument that has already been debunked several times will not serve to progress a constructive discussion.

[zealous]

Yea, that's definitely a lot more risky. I'm sure the kiters are SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS BABY! If you're going to suggest a change, please make into something that resembles actual change. Pretty please?

That's more or less the whole point, you would slightly shake in your boots that 1/20 time you got substantially damaged as opposed to the current situation where you don't really care.

Also, that ~1/1000 time where you actually got killed would likely rattle your bones and make you more on edge the next 1/20 time you got critted.

No change on the larger scale of things, more involvement, more fun.

[systemstate]

How exactly can an opinion be debunked? My opinion is that I like fort items and therefore will continue to use them. The OP is suggesting that Turbine remove/change the way an item works that I like from the game.

I stated this and offered a counter option. If the OP didn't want posts like mine, then he/she should have added "if you are going to disagree with me, please don't reply to this thread."

[gavagai]

Those who are most reluctant are emphasizing that this will enable one-shotting of players, and "force" players to make cookie-cutter builds.

Both lines of argument are missing the point. Critical fail.

a) The current easy-access FORT isn't damage mitigation; mob base damage is set high to compensate for easy Fort. Its harder to design challenging content when you cannot use criticals/sneak attack to add flavor (much like failed saving throws add flavor to other types of challenge).

b) Under the AC/anti-seeker system, the threshold for effective fortification is demonstrably low for all levels until Epic. Most people making any effort towards AC can hit at least moderate fort easily. Only classes penalized in AC should have difficulty experiencing any trouble -- but they are, after all, penalized.

c) If enabling crits would increase mob DPS by 30% (say with wide crit ranges and x3 damage) then overall damage will be reduced by 30%. Coupled with (b), many players should experience a reduction in damage taken most of the time.

d) By lessening damage for builds with even a casual investment in AC, you intrinsically make room for builds with lower HP potential and higher defensive potential throughout most of the game. At some point, you can only make these builds viable by reducing mob damage somewhat; but you can't do that if you presume every -12AC barb and Sorc if running around with heavy fort.

e) At present, most endgame builds are based on identical +CON/+HP/+Heavy Fort items all around; "diversity" is not a apt description of how things currently look. Now I love the fact that anyone can make a dump AC rogue, a dump AC tempest, a dump AC Kensai and dump AC monk and still feel effective. But to reinterate: this wouldn't make these builds uneffective, merely more challenging. Whereas currently, the opposite builds are uneffective.

The net result is that if you build involves utterly dumping defense, you'll have a little more unpredictability in combat. But you won't be experience any more incoming damage on average than you would currently.



And then there is (f)

f) This is potentially giving some love to rogues and kensais, whose primary class/PrE abilities rely on delivering critical/sneak attack damage to enemies. So while it may not be needed for builds that rely on those things less, its still a good thing overall for most of us that flirt with these classes, esp. rogues.

[smatt]

f) This is potentially giving some love to rogues and kensais, whose primary class/PrE abilities rely on delivering critical/sneak attack damage to enemies. So while it may not be needed for builds that rely on those things less, its still a good thing overall for most of us that flirt with these classes, esp. rogues.

Sorry, rogues a this point even without critical hits deal some of the most damage in the game, save Barbs, and the top notch ranger builds.... Rogues don't NEED this kind of cookie... Giving this kind of a cookie to a class jsut becsue the game as whole doesn't fit their roll on a PnP campaign is yet another bandaide.... A poorly placed one as well. .... One that will require adjustments throughout the game, and those adjsutments will require further adjustments..... Yet another mess....
We need fricken content... Quests.. Not little 10 minute level 7 jokefests , with epic craptastic added in as an excuse that they are giving out high level content.. Not fricken guild housing airships, not live borvents that give out over-powering gear that destroys the the game difficulty and simply adds to ideas and or percieved need to make changes like this .... Not gamewide systems changes to benefit the store.... All these people this FtP has drawn in are going to be hitting the wall very soon, they'll get to cap, and then realise what happen..... extreme epic-borefest grind....

Fix what's broken..... Don't break what isn't.....

Yet another waste of Dev time.....

[smatt]

So by your own arguments players should never be put in a situation where they run even the most remote risk of dying?
I.e. god mode?

If you feel confident that the devs can fine tune monster damage to an extent to produce a acceptable game, how can you not feel confident that they can do this with changes to fortification?
---



Repeating a argument that has already been debunked several times will not serve to progress a constructive discussion.

Debunked? Where??? You have your opinion I have mine.... Offering up loads of ideas to over complicate a system that works just fine now, and to drive more resource usage, and then causally dismissing that, offers up what?

How will this make the game more desirable for the masses? The masses don't want complexity, proven by how they dumbed it down and more people are playing ans staying. They don't want to play a game that gets so borked trying to change mechanic systems to please a few people who obsess over trying to imprint their particular ideas into a game, just so they say they did it... They want functionality, they want it too work.... They want things to work the way they're intended to work... Spending the time and effort on THOSE subjects goes a lot further than borkfests like this.....

[Cyr]

Those who are most reluctant are emphasizing that this will enable one-shotting of players, and "force" players to make cookie-cutter builds.

Both lines of argument are missing the point. Critical fail.

a) The current easy-access FORT isn't damage mitigation; mob base damage is set high to compensate for easy Fort. Its harder to design challenging content when you cannot use criticals/sneak attack to add flavor (much like failed saving throws add flavor to other types of challenge).

b) Under the AC/anti-seeker system, the threshold for effective fortification is demonstrably low for all levels until Epic. Most people making any effort towards AC can hit at least moderate fort easily. Only classes penalized in AC should have difficulty experiencing any trouble -- but they are, after all, penalized.

c) If enabling crits would increase mob DPS by 30% (say with wide crit ranges and x3 damage) then overall damage will be reduced by 30%. Coupled with (b), many players should experience a reduction in damage taken most of the time.

d) By lessening damage for builds with even a casual investment in AC, you intrinsically make room for builds with lower HP potential and higher defensive potential throughout most of the game. At some point, you can only make these builds viable by reducing mob damage somewhat; but you can't do that if you presume every -12AC barb and Sorc if running around with heavy fort.

e) At present, most endgame builds are based on identical +CON/+HP/+Heavy Fort items all around; "diversity" is not a apt description of how things currently look. Now I love the fact that anyone can make a dump AC rogue, a dump AC tempest, a dump AC Kensai and dump AC monk and still feel effective. But to reinterate: this wouldn't make these builds uneffective, merely more challenging. Whereas currently, the opposite builds are uneffective.

The net result is that if you build involves utterly dumping defense, you'll have a little more unpredictability in combat. But you won't be experience any more incoming damage on average than you would currently.



And then there is (f)

f) This is potentially giving some love to rogues and kensais, whose primary class/PrE abilities rely on delivering critical/sneak attack damage to enemies. So while it may not be needed for builds that rely on those things less, its still a good thing overall for most of us that flirt with these classes, esp. rogues.

A response

A) This is true, except for ignoring the case that people can not wear fortification currently and suck because they get one shotted.

B) It would take significant slot investment to reach the same result as before for many builds outside of EPIC. In epic, it would be impossible to reach the result for many builds. This changes certain builds into 0% fort builds where it matters, end game.

C) Many AC builds would be granted large benefits from this sort of a shift. My favorite toons are AC builds. I still think this proposal is extremely flawed. Where it matters, end game, many builds will be forced into a no win situation pimp out on AC gear and lose out on dps gear or be a crit absorbing machine. Some builds will not even have this choice and will just be crit absorbers.

D) This is the ultimate fallacy of this proposal. Low hit point builds who are not AC builds will be destroyed by this proposal end game. The problem here is again the end game to hits get to a point where a 'modest' investment is still worthless with a +20 on the dice. There is no lessening of damage for these builds. Great example, pimped out AC spellsword type build. You end up with a mid 80's or maybe if your really pimping out AC 90's AC with the +20 AC bonus. In epic that means pretty much nothing. Now that build with mediocre hit points not only is still getting hit every time, but they are getting hit for more spike damage. This means that those two crits in a row is insta-death.

E) This also is false. Some of these builds would survive. They have to have high hit points though to do so. If they were middle the road hit point builds they would be clear losers in this change. With spike damage the need for high hit points becomes greater not lesser.

F) This is true. There are lots of other proposals for ways to do this however.

Now, there is a few real issues here with this proposal that are being overlooked.

*What if mobs do more then just *3 on a crit? I have not taken off my heavy fort in epic quests to check this out in a LONG time.

*Essentially 0% fort builds will be common in epic. It's not intellectually honest to think that a +20 to AC is going to be enough to put plenty of builds on the d20 in EPIC. Particularly against red/purple names.

*This system works best at lower levels and worse at higher levels. Ironically, fortification matters more at higher levels and less at lower levels.

*AC debuffs will shift the picture drastically versus players.

*Insta-crit conditions. This should be self evident why this is a problem.

*You will not fix the AC issue with this sort of thing. You only end up either nerfing all players or boosting AC builds. In other words, it is extremely unbalanced in it's effect to different types of builds. This is never a good thing, unless it is the primary focus of a change to begin with due to an existing imbalance.

[Angelus_dead]

How exactly can an opinion be debunked?

As a technical point, it is entirely possible and natural for opinions to be debunked or otherwise demonstrated as weakly justified or even wrong. For example, I have the opinion that I am taller than you. It would be obviously possible for you to disprove that if you come visit me, but that doesn't mean it's not my opinion right now.

It is a counterproductive fallacy to claim that opinions can never be really right or wrong.

[Angelus_dead]

Debunked? Where??? You have your opinion I have mine....

Where was it debunked? I'll explain. The claim in question was this:
"If you don't like Heavy Fortification, you can simply not wear it on your character and leave it for the rest of us".

That is the classical "Just Don't Use It" Fallacy, which was extensively explained in a thread of the same name. The core concept is that players are incapable of implementing desired changes on their own, because they have no way to force every other player to obey the same restriction, nor make the designers for dungeons and monsters take it into account.

In this instance, the people desiring a nerf to Heavy Fortification generally also want the damage of some monsters to be reduced accordingly. For them to voluntarily remove Heavy Fort items would do nothing to accomplish that objective.

[smatt]

Where was it debunked? I'll explain. The claim in question was this:
"If you don't like Heavy Fortification, you can simply not wear it on your character and leave it for the rest of us".

That is the classical "Just Don't Use It" Fallacy, which was extensively explained in a thread of the same name. The core concept is that players are incapable of implementing desired changes on their own, because they have no way to force every other player to obey the same restriction, nor make the designers for dungeons and monsters take it into account.

In this instance, the people desiring a nerf to Heavy Fortification generally also want the damage of some monsters to be reduced accordingly. For them to voluntarily remove Heavy Fort items would do nothing to accomplish that objective.

It wasn't me that said that A_D, my points are rather simple

1. There's no to reason to change it now, it's a simple system, while it does have it's flaws. It wokrs, it's basic, and it does mitigate a lot fo damage. But I do agree that there's are soem problems with it IE: Mobs typically have a 0 chance to crit at end game, but the damage is ramped up to compensate.

2. This will do nothing for AC unless mob to hits are lowerd game wide. AC is already useful, with exception to EPIC, and elite end game, which decdidly msot players don't see nwo and likely won't ever see.

3. Any of the propossed changes so far, would IMO increase the amount of resources the healing classes expend. (I'm not talking about the top few % of players that are all good enough within the group dynamic to deal with this issue, I'm talking about the average accross the game population.) Oh wait, that's why they're thinking about the change... More store sales..... But I see that motivation from Turbines POV as being flawed as it would also likely cause mroe plaeyrs to not like the game becsue it would be more complicated to understand than it is now.

4. Dev resources and actual time still seem thin, there's already too many broken/bugged itmes/systems in the game, lack of REAL NEW end game content. This doesn't need to sidetrack the Devs from what the real problems in the game are.

5. That the changes so far proposed would infact create a more complicated system that would be poo-pooed by most players, and the newer players would just srach their heads roll up their keyboards and move on to a simpler platform.

I've been tossing out these ideas in groups and so far haven't found a single person who thinks it's a good idea..... But alas, the great ideas put forth on the forums, and adopted by the Devs have such a great history of working out....

[Cyr]

Now that we are deep into discussing the anti-seeker alternative to a percentage reduction type system I think it might be useful to elaborate on what I see as the benefits/problems with both.

Anti-Seeker
Pro's

*by simulating AC it provides some relevance in some content to include AC gear in some builds that would not otherwise before
*crits are possible so more spike damage and more risk in game
*overall mob dps can be reduced to compensate for more danger situations from crits
*buff to player damage per second versus fort mobs

Cons

*some builds still can not be critted in some of the content
*AC builds get boost while lower AC builds get huge shaft, ie unequal benefits to builds
*some builds will essentially have 0% fort in end game
*is most effective as a fix in the lower to mid level range, in epic it gets out of hand fast
*does not really do much to fix the AC issue's in game
*unfocused fix, which attempts to do too much (fix AC issues, fix fort spike damage issue, alter character build power levels)

Percentage Fort Reduction (somehow)
Pro's

*crits are possible so more spike damage and more risk in game
*overall mob dps can be reduced to compensate for more danger situations from crits
*buff to player damage per second versus fort mobs
*odds of double crits in a row still very low for heavy fort builds of every shape and form

Cons

*no incentive to spec out AC, but plenty to spec out over 100% fort
*highly dependent on how the percentages are applied, if tied to special attacks some mobs will be much more dangerous then others due to this