Combat Feedback for Update 5.

[EustaceTrevelyan]

One of the major issues that we’ve been working on is the dps lag problem in high level content (especially raid content).

......

I won’t hide that these proposed changes do reduce the effectiveness of off-hand attacks, which reduces the two weapon fighting style’s extreme dominance over two handed fighting. Skipping the extreme outlier of the Epic Sword of Shadows (we got a little carried away there, didn’t we?), estimated damage output over time for the two styles should be extremely close to each other if we go this route. (Which style is superior ends up being heavily dependent on your character's abilities.)

It's been said before, but I'm weighing in: in no way does this attempt at lag require a nerf of twf dps. That's obviously a separate balance issue, period. If TWF does more damage, it costs more: more resources (2x the weapons) more feats, more enhancements, and more stats (unless you go ranger, but then, rangers are designed for light armor boosted by dex, and have situational ranged dps which is also dex dependent. They also don't get strength enhancements to boost damage rolls.)

I'm new to this game, and was enjoying it enough to buy lots of points and lots of packs. It seemed like while yes, there's been plenty of FOTM's, since nerfed, there was no "right" way. But then I'm told that finesse builds are simply sad at endgame content, and that progressively everything has been trending to slot melee into first a nice, little str-based pigeonhole, and now, to one weapon only, since why on earth are you going to put that much effort into swinging two, and not come out at least somewhat ahead? I really thought this game was different, that balance wasn't some kind of endless whack-a-mole nerf-fest. I really hope I'm right, and I have one question i'm hoping can be commented on:

If speed increases are the problem for your engine/hardware, why can't you simply translate the attack portion of all haste/boost effects into additional attacks that are ALL piggybacked, without reducing damage? If you feel that TWF vs THF has balance issues, then why can't that be looked at on its own merit? Because if your goal is to make something that requires no trade-offs in terms of feats or stats equal to something that requires you to plan your entire build around it, that is manifestly wrong.

EDIT: Nasty thought, but while piggybacking physics checks is going to reduce the overhead a certain amount, there's no need to reduce damage in such a huge way unless your actual goal IS to push everyone to playing THF, which is half the weapons and weapon stats/effects to worry about. Say it ain't so, Joe.

[Cortho]

Will people who spent time and resources making GS weapons get their ingredients back? I'd like to make something useful for my cleric instead of keeping useless Kopeshes on my fighter.

/agree

[Timjc86]

Maybe the shield proficiency feats need to add free shield attacks like the proposed change to twf adds a chance to proc your offhand attack.

That's very interesting....

[IronClan]

Eladrin have you considered slightly slowing down all combat (before you guys roast me hear me out, not talking about much) or highly dense combat a few ticks so you effectively have more CPU cycles for every round of combat, effectively upgrading your hardware without changing it? I should think just slowing the whole thing down a TINY amount would get significant benefits... Might not even need to make it slow enough that anyone can tell the difference without using side by side Youtube videos to "a/b" compare. I'm not talking about going from 200 swings a minute to 100... maybe 200 to 180.

[Angelus_dead]

We're considering modifications to the bonuses the feats grant, and possibly even bringing back STWF.

Tossing out two more little ideas that could be used to adjust the balance between styles:
ITWF: In addition to the other benefits, your offhand strength damage bonus becomes 75%.
GTWF: In addition to the other benefits, your offhand strength damage bonus becomes 100%.

(Note that those changes would benefit TWF characters less if they're finesse)

Offhand attacks: Give TWF characters a toggle icon so they can get something like glancing blows. You have a chance for an extra attack on one nearby enemy who is not your main target, and only if that swing didn't attack the main target with offhand. That extra attack uses the offhand weapon and cannot crit or sneak attack, but is otherwise normal.

(That change would bring TWF and THF closer together in effectiveness when there are multiple monsters)

[moops]

TWF was king. .

I keep seeing you say that 2WF is/was King. . .

Then why, oh why--do so many LFMs exclude Rangers, Monks & Rogues?

And why do so many Raid LFMs never take a Rogue or a Monk, and will not take more than ONE ranger? Why are all 3 classes excluded from so many EPIC LFMS?

I am wondering if a lot of the positive posts here are from people who do not play end game content, or are very new players like that one guys is so pro nerf.

An Aside, Do the Devs even play at high levels to see what is going on? Do they watch to see how long some of these PUG LFMs take to form? Do they think that making 3 Viable Classes--Barb, FVS & Sorc--these LFMs will fill faster?

The combat system is what attracted me to this game as well as the customization of characters--sadly both of these will be going out the door. Whats the point of doing a specialty build if no one will take you into their groups? Or join one that you form?

[bobbryan2]

Before:
S&B: 110% DPS with capstone
TWF: 220% with capstone

Now:
S&B: 110% with capstone
TWF: 165% with capstone

Yes, I think the DR and AC implications make this viable once again.




Add this, and BANG! S&B just became completely viable with these changes, while keeping TWF and THF still good choices.

Nice thoughts, but it's just not accurate. There really are no AC or DR implications. The problem with S&B is that for most characters, equipping a shield wouldn't grant any increased survivability.

Once again... it's a false balance. Just like between the 18/1/1 and the 20 barbarian. People say it's ok for 18/1/1s to do less damage than the barbarian, because they are more survivable.

Just like people say that less DPS is ok because shields increase survivability. But they only do that in extremely specific situations. If people were using a shield before... they may have caught up a little... but if they were using a shield before they'd all but given up on meaningful DPS anyway.

[Cashiry]

Will people who spent time and resources making GS weapons get their ingredients back? I'd like to make something useful for my cleric instead of keeping useless Kopeshes on my fighter.

or this idea

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=251278

[Musashiclaw]

I love the combat in DDO. I love playing my TWF and My Monk. These proposed changes could have a major change in how i feel about my favorite toons and in the end how I feel about DDO.

Swinging a GAxe or any other 2H is pretty lame looking but swinging two weapons is pretty **** cool.

Is this really just about the lag? If it is then couldnt we find a better answer to solve this than nerfing and ****ing off the most played weaponset in game?(this is a guess but i see more twf than thf)

Just thinking about this nerf changes my mind about playing tonite because of all the time I have spent over the last 5 months building my toons.

[bobbryan2]

or this idea

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=251278

Wouldn't help the people who made 2 dwarven axes get the ingredients from the second axe back.

[Therilith]

I just noticed this threat. I was in disagreement, but generally sympathetic to the dev's plight, until I saw this.

Threatening to destroy something your paying customers have worked so hard to develop, then pulling back that threat to replace it with a threat against, what, the ONLY THING IN THE GAME that your paying customers have worked on harder than the first thing..... is just poor salesmanship.

If you see every potential nerf as someone threatening you I don't see how you could possibly play an MMO without going insane.

[Cashiry]

Wouldn't help the people who made 2 dwarven axes get the ingredients from the second axe back.

agree, but it would be a step to ease the pain in making THW's for those converting to THF

[krud]

TWF currently, two swings - one main hand, one off hand:

2 Physics checks

2 Attack rolls

TWF proposed, two swings - one main hand, one off hand (assuming you proc your off hand):

1 Physics check

2 Attack rolls

1 percentage roll (to determine off hand proc)


So, 4 rolls/calculations in either case...

But wait, if you don't proc your off hand then it's one less calculation!

That's worth giving up 0-50% of your DPS, right?

Wrong.

They could always use your initial attack roll when determining proc percentage (kinda like a critical hit). Each 5% increment = 1 on a d20.

[Angelus_dead]

So along with the "nerf" coming to TWF how about adding a 10% double-strike chance for a fighter's shield if they have the improved shield bash feat.
...
(I didn't read through all the replies to this thread, in case someone else already suggested something similar.)

That type of thing has been suggested for years, but not in this thread.

Here's a related suggestion:
As per the D&D rules, give Rogues another special ability option called "Opportunist", which provides +10% Double Strike against enemies who were most-recently damaged by someone aside from you. (Longer and older version of that suggestion)

[R0cksteady]

or this idea

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=251278

That would be fine, if I planned on making something for my fighter. But it's pointless, I'm not going to bother with it anymore. I'd rather have ingredients for my cleric or the sorc I'm planning. Maybe eventually I'll roll a Barbarian and go THF, but for now I'm just throwing the fighter out. Shame, because it's been reincarnated and in the process fo leveling back up. But it's built for TWF, because I like TWF, and now that that's going to be gimped I'd rather not do melee. Besides, I'm not a fan of Barbs, rolled one before and didn't like it. now that fighters are useless, I'd rather just transfer those ingredients over and forget about it. If I even continue playing the game.

[Calebro]

Nice thoughts, but it's just not accurate. There really are no AC or DR implications. The problem with S&B is that for most characters, equipping a shield wouldn't grant any increased survivability.

Once again... it's a false balance. Just like between the 18/1/1 and the 20 barbarian. People say it's ok for 18/1/1s to do less damage than the barbarian, because they are more survivable.

Just like people say that less DPS is ok because shields increase survivability. But they only do that in extremely specific situations. If people were using a shield before... they may have caught up a little... but if they were using a shield before they'd all but given up on meaningful DPS anyway.

But I'm not talking about the maxed out, most uber, optimized characters we can make, like so many of the posters here seem to be. I'm talking about it being close enough that it's an OPTION again.
So that if you see a fighter with a shield, your first instinct isn't *gimp* without previously knowing the player. Maybe your first instinct will still be *less than optimized* but that isn't an auto-decline like S&B is now.

[Raiderone]

This would buff fighters and barbs, and put rangers further behind the curve though.

But Rangers will be hitting 85% compared to 55% offhand.

[bobbryan2]

But I'm not talking about the maxed out, most uber, optimized characters we can make, like so many of the posters here seem to be. I'm talking about it being close enough that it's an OPTION again.
So that if you see a fighter with a shield, your first instinct isn't *gimp* without previously knowing the player. Maybe your first instinct will still be *less than optimized* but that isn't an auto-decline like S&B is now.

Yes... the gap is closer. No, the gap hasn't closed enough to have that response. You're talking about a gap that's currently three times as large as the proposed nerf being talked about here.

That illustrates just how big a deal this change is... not how insignificant the gap between S&B and TWF is.

[Naash]

The Kensai fighter is supposed to be a blade master... yet he receives the same offhand attack chance as a twf paladin?

How about a 5% per tier offhand attack chance for Kensai I II III... or something to that equivalent.

I realize tempest rangers are supposed to be the twf masters...but they shouldn't be that far ahead of a fighter who is specialty trained with one weapon and one form.

Eladrin,a percentage progression for Double Hit tied to Kensai I,II & III makes much more sense than tying it to the capstone.
Paladins can cast Zeal well before 20th level and get the added effect of possibly 3 smites proccing from 1 initial one(TWF).
Tempest Rangers and Monks get a progression to increase the percentage of the offhand hits.
So why does a Kensai Fighter have to wait for 20th level to get back some of the dps lost from the offhand?

Perhaps a boost to the seeker effect on the capstone could replace the 10% double hit bonus.

[Calebro]

But Rangers will be hitting 85% compared to 55% offhand.

He's talking about THF Fighters and Barbs vs. TWF Rangers.