Combat Feedback for Update 5.

[Emili]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, or brought up recently.
But what about doing a larger fix to the system in general to even everything out.

by the time you hit level 20, hell even maybe 15, everything is 100% hit able all the time on a non gimped character. Because of this, we see mobs with blanket immunities and HP values rivaling Apple's Stock value.

Rather then decreasing combat speed, why not increase Monsters AC while Reducing HP. Make it so "standard" (used loosely, not looking at someone in full Raid/Epic/Greensteel) gear would be hitting trash 90~100% of the time, Red name bosses 80~90% of the time. and Purple raid bosses 70~80% of the time. If the scales are re-balanced properly I would think that because mobs are receiving less blows the system wouldn't lag to the swarm of numbers flying at it, while at the same time combat takes just as long (due to reduced HP values), and combat speed remains the same keeping people happy.

Granted, since THF get less attacks per min, maybe throw them a bone and leave them with double strike, or extra str bonus or something. So that when they hit they hit HARD where was the TWF people are just the flurry of smaller blows. And S&B.... Alot more has to be reworked for S&B to work in combat

Twitched THF in practice produces near the same number of attacks as GTWF only the ranger or haste boosted full bab (either via madstone or actual bab) have a few more attacks in. Top this off that glancing (an AoE) procs consitantly now and I'd wager you have to play a TWF much harder to equate to the DPS you get from a THF within a quest. The only places where TWF dps really shows is upon the stationary boss ... here the THF is hitting A and D keys consistantly breaking chain for pull out 130 attacks a min (plus glance procs on a single target too) while the TWF gets 132.

[GottDDO]

Evasion was not nerfed. it was broken. You were taking advantage of an exploit that allowed you to use evasion with heavier armor than the rules intended. This is not the same thing. The current system does not violate established rules. This is not even being PRESENTED by the devs as a rule fix. It is being presented as fixing an IT problem. Gameplay is clearly a SECONDARY consideration here.

Evasion wasn't broken. It was working as intended, and they changed it, because they felt it was necessary for game balance. That's a nerf.

What established rules are you talking about? The PnP thing you people play? Does that mean you'd be ok if each consecutive off-hand attack had -5 to hit? Wouldn't that amount to the same thing as the change being discussed? I'd think it would be worse.

[Calebro]

Evasion was not nerfed. it was broken. You were taking advantage of an exploit that allowed you to use evasion with heavier armor than the rules intended. This is not the same thing. The current system does not violate established rules.

Doesn't it?

Are the "established rules" to which you speak referring to DDO or PnP? Because the "established rules" would be the latter. Now I won't normally bring PnP into a DDO debate because they are two separate beasts, but "established rules" would open the door for that.

Established rules is that you take a progressively larger attack penalty on all iterative attacks. Off hand attacks take an even larger penalty.
The mechanics of DDO don't allow for this, or the combat would be a different thing from what we love.
As it was, there wasn't a penalty for the extra attacks, but rather a bonus, so you're almost guaranteed to hit.
This is MUCH further from the "established rules" than the nerf is, so in that respect, it certainly DOES violate the established rules.

Yet another reason I preferred the original numbers.

[Keridan]

I hope this isn't far enough off topic that it doesn't belong here. I have my opinions on the main point, but they have been expressed several times in the 75+ pages of posts so far.

My concern is actually this method of getting feedback. Posting something so drastic and opening it up to this flood of replies seems ... counterproductive to getting useful feedback. Several people feel this is a notice of a nerf and not a question. Many are angry and people fall on both sides of the fence. You are getting heavy responses from everyone and it's hard to distinguish who to even listen to sometimes.

I feel that if you want productive feedback, you should add a system for it. Put up a polling question. "Do you think TWF is too powerful even considering the feat and build cost?" Or "Would you rather have DA or have mobs check perception as a group instead of individually?" Or "Which is a bigger concern for you? DPS lag or mob balance?"

On the surface, it seems like you just get a bunch of yes or no answers, but you actually get much more. It would be a simple matter to have the answers linked to the account, so you could group it by players who have the higher level toons, who uses DPS and who uses arcanes more, or even the biggest measure: Who spends more points? Years playing and more could figure into the data readout as well. If you feel a discussion like this is needed on top of it, link a discussion forum to the end of the question.

I think it's great that feedback is being requested, but I would love to see a better approach to it. In reading this thread, I felt a bit bothered that any reply or opinion I gave would either be lost in the mass of replies or flamed down by those who disagree. I doubt I'm alone in wanting to be able to express my opinion with a couple button clicks and be anonymous to anyone not in the dev team.

Thanks for reading! Hope I'm not repeating someone or too far off topic, but 75 pages is hard to read when life keeps happening.

[Merlocke]

What's the point of having my two very expensive (in time and materials) GS rapiers when I'll be missing half the time with my off hand, or am I missing something?

Nah, didnt miss anything.

Lol at this.

Yeh, I really don't understand where the Devs are coming about that TWF in Eladrin's words "Far Exceed THF in DPS" when in reality at end game it does NOT. (then if you account for eSoS THF actually is GREATER then TWF).

I think the devs understand this (somewhat) and thus have made it possible to achieve 110% mainhand and 100% offhand at endgame (given STWF...although I hope and pray this will be just an auto feat because it will hurt a lot of builds if the reqs stay the same).

However, in reality TWF should ALWAYS be more powerful then THF just by the virtue of a ton more feats/weapons/time invested into it.

I think so too.

[krud]

People keep saying that 2WF is so much better than 2HF, when the truth is at end game this is no longer true. EPIC groups and TOD raids are much more likely to turn down rogues and rangers and take barbarians and 2HF kensai. You can't swing a dead halfling at end game without hitting a WF barbarian. 2HF is only slightly less DPS than 2WF when you don't consider ESOS. With ESOS, 2HF is now superior. Shade's DPS challenge has demonstrated that 2HF is superior v. 100% fort mobs with unbypassable DR. The various methods of boosting strength and critical damage have pushed 2HF to a near balanced level with 2WF, even though 2WF requires more grinding for gear, more DEX, and more feats (I would consider Oversized 2WF feat a necessity). Please stop with the misdirection that somehow 2HF is so far behind 2WF.

It's very very idiotic that one specific raid weapon makes a fighting style. That's much much worse than wops ever were. If anything all that proves is that the ESoS needs to be nerfed.

[Brennie]

	Doublestrike	Bonus	Main hand	Off hand
No feats	0	20%	100%		20%
TWF		0	+20%	100%		40%
ITWF		0	+20%	100%		60%
GTWF		0	+20%	100%		80%
STWF		0	+20%	100%		100%
Tempest I	0	+10%	100%		90%
Tempest II	0	+10%	100%		100% 
Tempest III	+5%*	0	105%		100%
Wind IV		+10%	0	110%		80%
Zeal		+10%	0	110%		80%
Alacrity	+10%	0	110%		80% 
* Only when wielding two weapons.

Heres some problems i see with STWF

Currently a level 20 tempest ranger has +10% attack speed and +1 extra offhand attack, while a level 20 fighter has just a +10% extra attack speed. Also, currently all non-tempest's are capable of getting the same amount of attacks per cycle from main and offhand weapon (even if some classes cycle faster). So a 20 ranger should, in theory, be one-offhand-attack's worth better at TWF than a 20 fighter, whereas a 20 rogue, 20 bard, 20 fighter, and 20 paladin should all have the name number of attacks per cycle (With capstoned fighters and zealing paladins attacking faster, of course).

Here is how things would look afterward:

Level 20 Fighter with STWF = 10% double strike/100% offhand proc

Level 20 Ranger with Tempest III = 5% double strike/100% offhand proc.

20 Ranger non-Tempest with STWF = 0% double strike/100% offhand proc.

20 Rogue (Or other 3/4 BaB class) with GTWF = 0% double strike/80% offhand proc.

As you can see, 20 fighters can invest a measly 4 of their 18 (?) feats and 4 points into capstone to bhave *more* two weapon fighting attacks (by 5% double strike chance) than a Tempest III ranger, who must invest 4 of 7 feats and 14 AP! A Zealing Paladin with STWF can match the fighters dominance over Tempest III, but also needs to spend 4 of 7 feats to do it.

Likewise, a non-Tempest ranger must invest in *only* STWF to be only 5% double strike behind a full Tempest III ranger, while spending three less feats and 14 less AP, while also freeing up the option of a different ranger PrE (Arcane Archers can grab a single extra feat and be the best archers in the game and darned near the best TWF's too!), so the question is, is it worth 4 feats and 14AP for 5% double strike chance more than you could get with just 1 feat?

Rogues, Bards, FvS and other 3/4 BaB classes are unable to reach the 16BaB requirement (making and assumption there) without 6 level splash of a full BaB class before 18, a 5 levels splash before 19 (With last level being a Fighter level w/ bonus feat) or a 4 level splash before 20 (Again with last level being a fighter bonus feat level). Without STWF available to pure classes, this drops the offhand damage of these TWFs by 20%! And are these *really* the builds you want to be hurting DPS on the most?

Suggestion 1: Abandon STWF. Let all non-ranger tempests cap their offhand proc rate at 80%. This will bring fighters back in line with rogues, will seperate Arcane Archers melee from Tempest Melee, and will make Tempest the best Two Weapon Fighters again. This would be an overall nerf to everyone, but keep the current balance (And not force in an extra feat to already feat-staved TWFers)

Suggestion 2 - Keep STWF, but lower its requirements to be friendly to current TWF builds (17-18 dex requirement, no more than 12-13 BaB requirement), and give Tempest III rangers something special to keep them on top of the attacks-per-cycle pecking order. I would suggest that double strike causes *both* hands to attack for Tempest IIIs, but that would only put tempest III's on the same level as Fighters (A little behind, since offhands usually do less damage). Perhaps an additional 10-20% chance to double-strike with only an offhand weapon, a unique ability only tempest IIIs get? This suggestion would still force TWFs to scramble to fit in an extra feat, but would restore a bit more of current game balance between TWF classes.

Suggestion 3 - Eliminate STWF, but roll its effects into the other TWF feats (25% no feat, 50% TWF, 75% ITWF, 100% GTWF). Still give Tempest III Rangers a unique ability to help simulate that 4th offhand attack and extra 10% attack speed. This would make curent charcters *not* have to respec to fit in an extra feat, would keep 3/4 BaBs on par with full BaB classes, and would give Tempest Rangers their biggest benefit back. This is my favorite suggestion of the three.

[EKKM]

People keep saying that 2WF is so much better than 2HF, when the truth is at end game this is no longer true. EPIC groups and TOD raids are much more likely to turn down rogues and rangers and take barbarians and 2HF kensai. You can't swing a dead halfling at end game without hitting a WF barbarian. 2HF is only slightly less DPS than 2WF when you don't consider ESOS. With ESOS, 2HF is now superior. Shade's DPS challenge has demonstrated that 2HF is superior v. 100% fort mobs with unbypassable DR. The various methods of boosting strength and critical damage have pushed 2HF to a near balanced level with 2WF, even though 2WF requires more grinding for gear, more DEX, and more feats (I would consider Oversized 2WF feat a necessity). Please stop with the misdirection that somehow 2HF is so far behind 2WF.

THF is supposed to be better than TWF in high fort and/or high DR encounters. The fact that is only equal to twf in that situation is a problem. Against the rest of the mobs in the game, TWF is superior, as it should be.

TWF currently does better DPS than THF against most mobs in the game, and it will continue to so under the proposed rules (although I would prefer a less hasch reduction). TWF also have 50% more effects based strikes under the proposed rules (2 vorpals, 2 paras, 2 radiance). While not dominating THF like it does now, I don't think they are gimping TWF with this adjustment even considering the cost to TWF vs THF.

I don't think he's referring to the powergamer's endgame in those comments, but to the overall balance between 2WF and 2HF including among the more casual gamers...

+1 rep for thinking of the other 75% of the playerbase.

[My2Cents]

(Have been sick all weekend so forgive my posting here, not wanting to start troublemaking, just wanting to help devs if at all possible and dont have energy to find best possible place to post.)

Level 13 Paladin, travelling solo (often with hireling or 2) questing level 10-12 dungeons (No raids). "Severe lag until death" has occured about 4 or so times, and in the same two places. Do not have TWF feat (although have gone double weapon at times.)

What happens is I get "caught" in what appears to be a big battle and it appears to overwhelm the client. I can't exactly 'repeat' the conditions but I bet a dedicated experienced team has a good chance at it.

I see the battle rage, can tell my actions are having no impact, then all of a sudden I am dead with positive or even full HP. It's clear the server is sending the client the dead signal just fine!

I suggest that the .15 (one calculation) sec TWF problem is insignificant in this case - perhaps one avenue of approach might be (forgive me if this is obvious):

- Try to repeat the problem reliably (I am SURE you've tried this but now with player help...)
- Put a client check in to detect overwhelming incoming data and "snap" the combat long and
any other internal network traffic logs
- Take a very close look at whats waiting fo the client to receive. It 'feels' to me like some soft of data loop being created by the server...

I hope this lowbie feedback helps in some way...

Oh and also, put a check in the client to detect if I've died with full HP and send me a free siberys cake

And good luck with this one, it sounds nasty and it sounds like you're having to weather your fair share of negative feedback. Don't worry - You've got a lot of dedicated players understanding and supporting your efforts.

[Tabun]

Evasion was not nerfed. it was broken. You were taking advantage of an exploit that allowed you to use evasion with heavier armor than the rules intended. This is not the same thing. The current system does not violate established rules. This is not even being PRESENTED by the devs as a rule fix. It is being presented as fixing an IT problem. Gameplay is clearly a SECONDARY consideration here.

If you DO NOT believe the devs, then this change is nothing but a nerf. Frankly, I don;t think they would go through THIS much trouble JUST to screw with the player base. That being said, regardless of the INTENT, this will quite possibly nerf TWF. Wether or not it makes those builds obsolete, or UN-FUN to play, remains to be seen.

/signed

[SquelchHU]

Why do you keep saying that? Where did that idea come from?

His vindiction towards power gamers and optimizers of all kinds. See: Any other post by Chai. Maybe he tried making a dex based Fighter in PnP, only to learn it sucks even more than Fighters normally do the hard way. I dunno why, but there is a clear posting pattern from him of attacking anyone who seeks to play in an efficient manner.

[Emili]

I don't think he's referring to the powergamer's endgame in those comments, but to the overall balance between 2WF and 2HF including among the more casual gamers...

Coding around the casual gamer is not a desirable thing...

In a business you cater to the returning customer... those who come back and your intention is to create more returning customers keep them coming back. The casual walk up you wish to offer incentive to become a frequent customer ... you do not push your frequent customer to become more casual ... the other way around...

Fact be if you end up with players spec'd twf ... a greater expenditure in build than thf ... and the build is not on par with that of thf then it eventually becomes a gimp signature. As it stands at this very moment THF is about equal as TWF ... actually under many conditions a little ahead... pushing back the functionality of twf only will eventually mothball it as a viable option in the player eyes of those who know.

The one thing I can condone about Shade is he looks into the actual - in practice - results rather than estimating in a numbers game... You see I took Shades DPS portal challenge, I did not so for him or anyone 'cept my own selfish curiosity (question in my mind was what gave me better results) - I used the same exact character nearly like weapons in twf mode and in thf mode but a sample of ten - very unscientific - but practical and the thf mode won out 7 vs 3 by as much as ten seconds... such things indicate something to me. She still a twf due to the shear amount of Khopeshes I have but it may be time to consider heading back to thf she once was.

[Souless]

This might be true if you are talking two GS items v. one. But in general that's not a good way to look at TWF v. THF.

Why not?

After all I did grind out the raids to get my gs items on my toons....
It is a perfect way to look at it!

The Bytcher~

[Tabun]

Why not?

After all I did grind out the raids to get my gs items on my toons....
It is a perfect way to look at it!

The Bytcher~

**** right souless grind grind grind then they change the game to cater to the WoW peeps and forget the ones that have paid them for the past 4 years

[Aashrym]

You keep avoiding Angelus_dead's question:
In what way will it improve the game to further reduce the effectiveness of TWF Clerics and Favored Souls?

Those builds have made sacrifices to get there and, unless their power level is somewhat upsetting to game balance, it makes no sense to nerf them. Those builds don't "more going for them" than melee; melee is part of their abilities, because they specced for it. The reason to be "so concerned" is that it will weaken builds that were not overpowered which will unnecessarily upset the players who specced that way and reduce the diversity in the game as less popular builds get even weaker.

He is against it because it unnecessarily messes up with balance that didn't need to be messed with.

Again, answer the following question:
In what way will it improve the game to further reduce the effectiveness of TWF Clerics and Favored Souls?

If melee characters are too weak, or if TWF clerics and favored souls are too powerful, then it'd be alright to make this change but that is not the case. A change is justified if it has benificial effect which this change lacks. You defend your position with comments like "Melee classes should be much better at melee than TWF [cleric] and FvS" but, as already pointed to you, those classes are already better. How do you justify making them even better?

I'm advocating make more choices available, not rebalancing.

I discuss it because I want:

1) my opinion to be heard (I think I've succeeded in that)
2) feedback to make it viable, more viable, or show that it's not viable

I'm going to apply a previous example we discussed.

When heroic surge was the hot topic I was dead set against it and you were telling me why it was good. A lot of that discussion applies here. I play a CC bard as one of my main characters. Mob's bursting out make my extend feat with CC spells less effective and I focus on making him effective. I did not want to see that effort wasted in the build. That's the short version.

I saw heroic surge as a wasted effort from my point of view and did not see any real value implementing it. To me that was a change that was not helpful to the game and provided restrictions instead of choices.

I can see that same sentiment coming from TWF characters. I also play a dwarven axesinger. He won't be going TWF and I can accept that. And I can empathize with other players.

I don't see this as an overpowered/underpowered issue adding the feat. I see it as an opportunity to diversify builds. The entire fix lag by nerfing TWF I can see value in. I do see lag.

That opportunity to increase specialization in TWF after the change (even if it goes thru) at the cost of whatever the cost is can increase the differences in play styles.

Right now, adding the feat won't have any effect on what a FvS/Cleric can or cannot do. They are exactly the same. It gives a more advanced option to fighters. The fighters would give up a feat and need to increase DEX for it. So the fighter has to make a choice. Less STR vs more DEX and another feat for the occasional extra attack.

If a cleric wants to do the same thing the player can give up another feat for it too, increase DEX for it too, and if necessary splash fighter to do it. I would prefer suggestions on how to successfully implement it but we don't like it works for me too

This suddenly opens up new build options if the choices are difficult enough to make for the Cleric/FvS too. Stay the same and miss out on one second hand attack occasionally. Adjusting and giving up something else to increase DPS too. Basically adding a new level of DPS to the build that's there if the choices are worth it.

I think adding choices that can diversify build options is good for the individual player experience overall.

Please do not confuse adding on this one feat with advocating nerfing TWF in general or focusing on specific class nerfs. If there are more options we can create for other classes I'm all up for that too if we can make them viable.

A_D's opportunistic strike, for example. Heck of a good idea and implementable IMO. I don't see anyone complaining that adding it to rogues makes every other class weaker by comparison either. It's implementable even tho only rogues can access it. That's how I view the high tier feats too regarding fighters.

In that case it is easier to justify because rogues are not at the top of the DPS chain as is. But I don't see the additional STWF feat as overpowering either. Just an additional feat.

If you are really concerned that and offhand attack 100% of the time is leaving behind characters who only get the offhand attack 80% of the time even tho it costs more and they pay more to get it there is still plenty of time to vote no on adding the feat (you have) or make suggestions on how to implement it better.

Again, this has nothing to do with any classes being underpowered, overpowered, nerfed, or overnerfed. It's about adding more choices to create more build options.

We seem to have a bit of role-reversal compared to the heroic surge discussion. I'm for it and I can see the value and you are against it. But I don't think either of us is wrong, really. Different values and opinions on what we are accomplishing.

I apologize for another wall of text. I hope I made my opinion clear. I might be back

[Souless]

People keep saying that 2WF is so much better than 2HF, when the truth is at end game this is no longer true. EPIC groups and TOD raids are much more likely to turn down rogues and rangers and take barbarians and 2HF kensai. You can't swing a dead halfling at end game without hitting a WF barbarian. 2HF is only slightly less DPS than 2WF when you don't consider ESOS. With ESOS, 2HF is now superior. Shade's DPS challenge has demonstrated that 2HF is superior v. 100% fort mobs with unbypassable DR. The various methods of boosting strength and critical damage have pushed 2HF to a near balanced level with 2WF, even though 2WF requires more grinding for gear, more DEX, and more feats (I would consider Oversized 2WF feat a necessity). Please stop with the misdirection that somehow 2HF is so far behind 2WF.

/signed

The Bytcher

[Consumer]

snip

Its great that you love Tempest rangers so much, however theres no reason that a build like the exploiter that has AC, UMD and manyshot should also become the king of TWF DPS.

A Fighter sacrifices AC, DR and often UMD aswell to remain on top of DPS for one particular weapon type, no amount of nut hugging should make the class lose that advantage.

[Tarnoc]

This might be true if you are talking two GS items v. one. But in general that's not a good way to look at TWF v. THF.

its more then just greensteel....TWF also need chattering icy raiments a good wis a decent dex and all the con they can get they need int for skills all this means no availible slots.......most THF barbs i know tell me they have open slots and thier just not sure wat gaud item to put thier yet .....thats the bigger issue.....

compare wat a top TWF s gear is to a top THFs gear and youll see a huge difference in the cost and grind of said items

[Merlocke]

	Doublestrike	Bonus	Main hand	Off hand
No feats	0	20%	100%		20%
TWF		0	+20%	100%		40%
ITWF		0	+20%	100%		60%
GTWF		0	+20%	100%		80%
STWF		0	+20%	100%		100%
Tempest I	0	+10%	100%		90%
Tempest II	0	+10%	100%		100% 
Tempest III	+5%*	0	105%		100%
Wind IV		+10%	0	110%		80%
Zeal		+10%	0	110%		80%
Alacrity	+10%	0	110%		80% 
* Only when wielding two weapons.

Here is how things would look afterward:

Level 20 Fighter with STWF = 10% double strike/100% offhand proc

Level 20 Ranger with Tempest III = 5% double strike/100% offhand proc.

20 Ranger non-Tempest with STWF = 0% double strike/100% offhand proc.

20 Rogue (Or other 3/4 BaB class) with GTWF = 0% double strike/80% offhand proc.

As you can see, 20 fighters can invest a measly 4 of their 18 (?) feats and 4 points into capstone to bhave *more* two weapon fighting attacks (by 5% double strike chance) than a Tempest III ranger, who must invest 4 of 7 feats and 14 AP!

Likewise, a non-Tempest ranger must invest in *only* STWF to be only 5% double strike behind a full Tempest III ranger, while spending three less feats and 14 less AP...

.... so the question is, is it worth 4 feats and 14AP for 5% double strike chance more than you could get with just 1 feat?

I definatley don't think it is. I like the tempest I attack speed bonus and i think alot of other people do too.

[Angelus_dead]

Again, this has nothing to do with any classes being underpowered, overpowered, nerfed, or overnerfed. It's about adding more choices to create more build options.

The connection to nerfing and over/underpoweredness cannot be avoided. It's an inevitable direct consequence of adding an STWF feat.

It's about adding more choices to create more build options.

Although adding more feats does increase the total number of possible character builds, in practice it can actually reduce the number of viable options. Non-viable choices do not really count as an improvement to the game, such as when I played Fallout and built a character around melee skills and agricultural science.