Combat Feedback for Update 5.

[Rauven]

I tried following the other thread but got buried in the avalanche of FUD and DOOOOOOOoooo0oo0MMMMM!!!!!11!one eleven .---- .---- .----

I really don't think this change is going to affect my characters all that much, but I would like to know if I am understanding the change correctly so I know exactly how my characters will be affected.

I like to play rogues and rangers so I'm going to use them as examples along with a fighter.

My 19 rogue/1 fighter with GTWF currently receives (per DDOWiki) 4 main hand and 4 off-hand attacks. Under the proposed changes I would instead receive 4 main hand attacks and each main hand attack would have an 80% chance to proc an off-hand attack. This means I go from a 1:1 ratio to a 5:4 ratio on attacks. Or, I lose 1 off-hand attack for each 5 main hand attacks.

My tempest 3 ranger receives 4 main hand and 5 off-hand attacks. With the changes I would receive 4 main hand attacks with a 5% chance to double strike on the main hand and a 100% chance to proc an off-hand attack. A change from 1:1.25 ratio to 1:1 ratio with the added possibility of a 5% double strike.

A 20 fighter with GTWF receives the 1:1 ratio of main hand/off-hand attacks. Under the change the fighter would receive a 5:4 ratio but have the added +10% chance for main hand double strike with the fighter capstone.

Details on a couple other possible changes were given which would affect this, and I'll talk about them in a moment, but to me the change looks like a small reduction in overall dps by slightly reducing the number of off-hand attacks a non-tempest 3 ranger (which are said to be the best of the best of the best at TWF) receives in their attack chain. I don't really see the doom. And before someone points it out, I do see that tempest 3's are losing one off-hand attack, I still don't see the doom.

A couple other possible changes were given, adding STWF and adding a small chance for double strike to each kensei tier. I've seen different prereq's given for STWF, the prevalent being 19 base dex and 16 bab. In another thread someone asked how is a tempest 3 supposed to fit in STWF. Well, STWF is unnecessary as tempest 2 already grants 100% off-hand attacks. The bab requirement (if it is 16) means that most rogue (or any 3/4 bab class for the matter) builds will be unable to qualify and, as such, be unable to ever achieve 100% off-hand attacks. So a non-fighter class (not non-dps, just non-fighter, non-combat oriented) will be unable to achieve perfect combat abilities. Actually makes sense to me. I see this change as having the most affect on monks, but monks would receive a double strike bonus when in wind stance, they'll retain some of the speed bonus from wind stance and we don't yet know what changes are yet to come for the other elemental stances.

With the (assumed) high bab and dex requirement of STWF I see it as a feat that will only be taken by finesse TWF'ing kensei's and possibly AA rangers. If you add in STWF and kensei double strike bonuses to what I listed above, you get a 20 fighter with 1:1 attack ratio and a possible 25% chance for double strike. (I am making an assumption of 5% on the double strike chance bonus on each kensei tier as Eladrin didn't specify, just said a small chance per tier.)

An AA ranger (who could very likely have the required 19 base dex) would go from a 5:4 attack ratio with GTWF to a 1:1 ratio with STWF, lose out on the small double strike chance granted by tempest 3 and retain all of the advantages of a full AA with slayer arrows.

After looking at it this way I do think tempest 3's are getting a little short sticked. I can accept a 20 fighter kensei 3 being higher dps (with the possible 25% double strike chance) and equal TWF prowess than a tempest 3. They have to have a higher base dex and take an extra feat in order to achieve this. I'm ok with that. But it looks like an AA ranger with STWF is only behind a tempest 3 by 5% double strike at the cost of one feat.

Am I wrong? Am I misinterpreting the changes and how they would affect my characters? Am I wrong in how I presented the current state of TWF'ing? I would really like to have some feedback, and an honest discussion, on how the change compares to the current state of TWF.

Overall though, I really don't see this change affecting me or my characters all that much. My halfling rogues are still going to cause havoc and mayhem running around the marketplace looking for the access port on warforged that Clanekbeard told us about. We are going to touch every button and docent we can get out little hands on, as long as we can find something to stand on.

For reference, here is the chart from Eladrin's post with the %'s for each bonus to double strike and off-hand attack.

	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.

[sephiroth1084]

Eladrin, or other devs, there have been alternative proposals in this thread for ways in which to address the lag issue without nerfing TWF and attack speed effects in the way being proposed, but I haven't seen a comment from you on any of these. Would it be possible to work up a few (or several) potential fixes, set to run separately on Lama in order to test for yourselves, and for us to experience and give feedback on, in order to reach a solution that has the greatest impact on reducing lag while also providing the smallest impact upon the way the game currently functions?

One proposal I read 40+ pages back was to wrap all similar die rolls on an attack into a single roll. That is, rather than rolling 1d6 (rapier) +1d6+1d6 (Holy) +1d6 (Pure Good) +1d6 (Frost) +1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6 (Sneak Attack) for each hit, couldn't you do a calculation where the number of similar die rolls is determined and then that number is multiplied by the result on a single d6 (15*d6 in my example)? How much would that reduce lag along with the collision change?


On the subject of balancing TWF a little better, couldn't you simply slow down the animation speed by a small amount in order to generate a X% loss in DPS, instead of completely rewriting the combat mechanics for DDO? After all, the system isn't quite balanced after years of fine-tuning and rebalancing; how long will it take to strike a real balance after running a complete overhaul?


Also, there was a comment by Eladrin about approaching greensteel items in an attempt to address the lag issue (and possibly as part of a TWF nerf). What were you thinking about in that case? What sort of changes? I know that some people would be quite upset about GS being nerfed, but there are also quite a few people who would welcome a change that isn't too drastic in order to restore some semblance of sanity to DDO's loot system. Perhaps if we had an idea as to what sort of alterations you would have in mind for GS weapons, we might be able to give some feedback, possibly revealing greater acceptance of a change there over the proposed change to TWF and attack speed modifiers.

[Nokkin]

This reads an awful lot like I'm being punished for someone else's inability to get their job done. I've been playing for almost four years, and play TWF cahracters almost exclusively. Quite honestly, I feel like the game has been going steadily downhill since the death penalties (god do I miss them - play had to be tight in those days) were removed from the game. Every move since than seems to have encouraged min/max build copying stoolies to play the game, and it shows - shows enough that I may just hae to migrate back to Everquest or WOW.

Or perhaps I'll just reinc all my toons and move to a free account, who knnows - either way I'm done paying to be penalized in game.

Get it together Turbine.

[sephiroth1084]

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

You're comparing two completely different characters: 1 that divides its focus among DPS, AC, UMD and other skills, surviviability, etc... and one that is entirely focused upon DPS. Naturally the first character will have a greater need for more specialized items.

The difference in equipment between a Kensai 20 going TWF and one going THF really just comes down to the weapons. And that's pretty true for any similarly focused character when comparing TWF and THF.

[redgod]

why mess with the dps one being better than the other is just opionion and wholey dependant on gear and build and playstyle

if you want to eleminate the multiple physics checks and piggyback the offhand blow go ahead

why the % nerf just piggy back it and leave it at 100/100

change your trouplesome speed bonuses to your double attack persentage and youve done what you set out to do fix the lag

bonus it wont anger the mob dps remains intact and lag is hindered if you want to get builds closer to the middle make quests that require a more ballanced charector and discourage min max exploit driven toons

with encintive the masses change, with violence (read nerfs) they become entrenched.

[knightgf]

Are you ABSOLUTELY positive that, of all the possible solutions you have found to help us reduce lag, the Two-Weapon Fighting changes is the best solution?

I mean, lets be honest, I think that before Turbine gets the go or no-go signal regarding this lag reducer, the forum community should be aware of our other options. It's even been stated before by a GM that the update itself won't reduce lag much(Though I forget which post it is; check the DEV tracker on 05/28/2010 for details) so, right off the bat, an individual update might be a bad idea. What other options do we have? Are the possible other solutions something like this:

-Minor Tweaking of the engine code: Purely beneficial, but a barely, if noticeable difference in lag.

-Big nerf to get rid of more lag: You lose some lag, but also lose a lot of in-game features.

-Server connection update: Some lag is lost, but expensive and somewhat lengthy/disruptive option.

-Do nothing: Lag remains as it is, but it does not get better or worse. Neutrality is the best way sometimes.

I'm just listing theories here, but I assume that these are some of the other options Turbine has with lag fixes for update 5.

By the way, this is a rather random thought, but have you investigated the in-game MyDDO feature? I might be causing lag on the servers by streaming youtube videos through there...

[R0cksteady]

Well, as a fighter I don't mind. TWF is still going to be ahead of THF for fighters and rangers. And now, fighters will be doing much more damage than rangers with it. Considering fighters will have 110%/100% compared to a ranger's 105%/100%, and then fighters have fighter haste, fighters will be better TWFs than Tempest. And now, Arcane archers can get 100%/100% which is barely behind tempest, and takes 2 less feats to get there, Arcane Archers are going to be better than Tempest IMO, since they can pretty much do the same damage dual wielding, plus kick ass at ranged.

Seems like Tempest is getting hit hard. Luckily for me, I have no tempest characters.

[Lehrman]

I am torn. On the one hand I would very much like to see DPS lag vanish, but on the other, you will be reinventing the combat system which means a lot of people will have to reevaluate their builds. For instance, a TWF Paladin's power does not come so much from the TWF itself as from the fact that he/she can double-proc smites and divine sacrifices from a single use 80% of the time. With this change, a TWF pali will likely proc 80% of the time (TWF, ITWF, GTWF) and double strike 10% of the time (Zeal). This will result in lower DPS, so yes, just in that it should reduce DPS lag, but won't adding another two tests (double-strike/off hand proc tests) add calculations back in and result in a similar slowdown, if not one as bad as the original?

The likely consquence of this change is that 2handers will build toons for double-strike and do so in a manner that boosts DPS and 2wpn toons will do the same for off-hand proc again resulting in an increase in DPS. Won't the spam from the new tests result in similar lag issues?

And while this change addresses DPS lag, what about the general lag that occurs? Dungeon alert was put in to address lag, now we are getting a dps rewrite to get rid of lag. How many things will need to be altered before the lag truely goes away? Is the problem with the # of creatures roaming a dungeon, the amount of DPS, the code used to write the game itself, or some other factor that is not being addressed? Is Turbine fixing the source of the problem or the symptom?

Please do not misunderstand me, I am not ranting and do not mind the change--it will certainly make the game more interesting if I have to relearn combat from scratch--but I would like to know that the lag will actually be gone. I would prefer to believe that this is a fix and not just a bandaid being placed on a gaping wound.

[SquelchHU]

Well, for my part, I say this is the perfect time to introduce reach weapons...

I quite like A_D's suggestion which, roughly speaking, was a bonus to to the off-hand proc based on your Dex.

Sigh. We've wandered far from d20 here...

Well, look at it this way. If they also introduce reach weapons, we'll be completely true to the PnP experience. Namely that only two handed reach weapon users are valid.

Seems the 'make it like PnP' types would be getting evil genied as well.

[Calebro]

Are you ABSOLUTELY positive that, of all the possible solutions you have found to help us reduce lag, the Two-Weapon Fighting changes is the best solution?

Once again:
The TWF nerf has nothing to do with lag.

The DEvs have known for a long time that TWF exceeded THF and needed a nerf. This wasn't such a large need that it had to happen immediately, but it had to happen eventually.
The devs came up with a solution to help reduce lag which involved removing the distance check for off-hand attacks.
Since they were already going into the code for off-hand attacks, now was the perfect time to address the TWF issue.

Just... wow. 80+ pages and people still don't understand that the two are separate issues that just happened to share a common link in the code....

[Borror0]

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

Whether you are wared of it or not, you are advocating it for less options, not more.

You might think "But Borror0, if they add STWF they are adding one more feat so that is obviously one more option!" but that is naive thinking. If that was true, there would be little need for the concept of game balance.

Choices happen when there are more than two possible decisions you might take. When a so-called optional ability is so powerful that no one in their right mind would skip on it, there is a choice only in theory, not in practice. That is, while people could take something other than the overpowered ability, the great majority won't and so, for the great majority of your playerbase, the addition of that overpowered feat reduced options.

The same reasoning applies here, except we are talking builds. If a 6 bard/6 wizard/6 cleric is bad, while it's theoretically an option, it's not considered as such by the3 majority of the playerbase. Likewise, if TWF clerics and favored souls get weaker, they will be considered an option by fewer players.

Please do not confuse adding on this one feat with advocating nerfing TWF in general or focusing on specific class nerfs.

There is no confusion on my part. I'm simply pointing out the significant overlap that exist, and that you seem to be not aware of.

[Towrn]

I am torn.

No, I am Towrn.

Not that I'm saying not to post stuff.

But to guess at what might and could happen (as I have seen in some posts) is just going to frustrate you and other more.

I for one cannot wait for it to hit Lamannia so we can do major testing and either find out it DOES decrease lag by a ton or that it does nothing.

If it doesn't help lag at all, I would have to EMPLORE Turbine not to make the changes anyway.

My motto is: If you can't fix it, please don't break it more!

[moorewr]

Well, look at it this way. If they also introduce reach weapons, we'll be completely true to the PnP experience. Namely that only two handed reach weapon users are valid.

Seems the 'make it like PnP' types would be getting evil genied as well.

You must play a different style of PnP from me if it really boils down to one play-style. A good DM can deal with problems like reach in many ways.. in any case it is a red-herring. I posted it as a red herring, although, it's in the d20 rules, so no fooling, I want it here.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Once again:
The TWF nerf has nothing to do with lag.

The DEvs have known for a long time that TWF exceeded THF and needed a nerf. This wasn't such a large need that it had to happen immediately, but it had to happen eventually.
The devs came up with a solution to help reduce lag which involved removing the distance check for off-hand attacks.
Since they were already going into the code for off-hand attacks, now was the perfect time to address the TWF issue.

Just... wow. 80+ pages and people still don't understand that the two are separate issues that just happened to share a common link in the code....

For some people, reading is hard.

[Angelus_dead]

One proposal I read 40+ pages back was to wrap all similar die rolls on an attack into a single roll. That is, rather than rolling 1d6 (rapier) +1d6+1d6 (Holy) +1d6 (Pure Good) +1d6 (Frost) +1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6+1d6 (Sneak Attack) for each hit, couldn't you do a calculation where the number of similar die rolls is determined and then that number is multiplied by the result on a single d6 (15*d6 in my example)? How much would that reduce lag along with the collision change?

I really doubt that would help at all, if it even worked. A common random system such as Mersenne Twister makes the cost pretty trivial. If there are inefficiencies in DDO's combat math software, they can probably be resolved without making changes that are externally evident. (I'd imagine the inefficiencies would be more in the area of table lookups for stats or growing the size of data structures)

Note that the suggestion you just gave would change the sample 15d6 strike from producing around 53 damage on almost every hit to having an equal chance to be 15, 45, or 90. That can be a bit bursty and change the outcome of combat when creatures suddenly die.

Also, there was a comment by Eladrin about approaching greensteel items in an attempt to address the lag issue (and possibly as part of a TWF nerf). What were you thinking about in that case? What sort of changes?

That's an amazing mystery! I'll make a guess that it involves changing the effect of properties like Lightning Strike to have different trigger rates depending on the handedness of the weapon.

[Axelza]

2wf is not ahed of 2hf at all.

[Brennie]

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.

I'm not saying tempest rangers shoudl be the best *DPS* for two weapon fighting. What i am saying is that Tempest ranger should be the *Fastest* two weapon fighters (or most attacks per cycle) because *that is the whole purpose of the Tempest line*. Tempest offers +10% attack speed and one extra offhand attack while two weapon fighting. The proposed changes take away those two advantages and do not seek to replace them with anything of equal value, instead adding in a total of 20% more offhand proc chance (Which is effectively the same as taking STWF, which any full BaB class can theoretically do) and a 5% main hand proc rate (Which will be LESS than capstoned fighters and Zealign paladins).

Fighters have more than enough going for them when dual-weilding, such as Kensai, weapon specializations, better weapon focus, 18ish total feats, strength enhancements, heavier armor, better combat boosts, and their capstone. Even with Ranger Tempest speed and extra attacks, fighters are still more than capable of churning out massive TWF DPS. but with the proposed changes, Rangers will attack slower, but fighters will maintain all their extra goodies that would put them head and shoulders above rangers, effectively causing a huge sway in class balance.

For the record, i don't have a single tempest ranger character, but it seems obvious to me that what Tempest ranger is losing is not being equalized in any way.

[tomfar72]

Good attitude. When your mechanic says he's merely going to ask you to use the brakes less instead of fixing them, adapt. When your plumber says you should go in a bucket and compost it instead of having him fix your pipes, adapt. When your dentist hands you a tube of Anbesol and says he's not fixing your broken tooth, adapt. When your kid's teacher says they'll get by fine with a box of Cliff's Notes instead of going to school, adapt. When your doctor says that dying isn't so bad instead of getting that surgery, adapt.

The problem isn't TWF, it's that they designed a system that their hardware and architecture and coding skills aren't up to snuff to scale up with usage. So, instead of fixing that, they're reducing the usage. As the numbers of people continue to go up, the problem will remain, namely that their systems are loltastically incapable of scaling, and we'll be back to where we started.

They're raising a sinking boat by lowering the ocean. It's the only idea they've demonstrated any affinity for to date.

My attitude is fine. RL issues have nothing to do with a nerf in a game. They are attempting to fix lag by changing the mechanics of TWF. Will it work? Who knows, they seem to think it will. It is also going to have the effect of lowering TWF dps to the lvl of THF.(according to the math of some) THIS is the point of my post; the dps loss and the cries on the forums about how it is targeted at rogues/bards/monks etc. My point is it's not the end of the world. Perhaps it will change the mindset of go TWF or GTFO. People will adapt, or they will quit. If this is the first MMO nerf that these people have had to deal with, good for them. I've been playing MMOs for years and have had to adapt through many nerfs, both justified and for what seemed to be for no good reason at all. It happens.

[Winteris]

I completely agree - and I have to say it isn't particularly good flavor. I think of warchanters as getting people worked up and enraged.. so more damage, not more accuracy is the right flavor.

If we really go down this "double hit" rabbit hole, I like your "Urgent Shout" idea.. a powerful short party buff is still impressive - maybe even too much so even in that form.

I think it would be nice to give warchanter some buff only to their dps, not party. I know that bard is a support class so maybe 5% bonus to DS for party and 10% bonus for bard himself ?

[Emili]

Once again:
The TWF nerf has nothing to do with lag.

The DEvs have known for a long time that TWF exceeded THF and needed a nerf. This wasn't such a large need that it had to happen immediately, but it had to happen eventually.
The devs came up with a solution to help reduce lag which involved removing the distance check for off-hand attacks.
Since they were already going into the code for off-hand attacks, now was the perfect time to address the TWF issue.

Just... wow. 80+ pages and people still don't understand that the two are separate issues that just happened to share a common link in the code....

Is this a troll or do you actually play the game? Either case is wrong a well built and played thf deals out same and often times more that of twf dps all you have to do is play it correctly.