Combat Feedback for Update 5.

[Torvic]

I'm sure most of this has been said but:

1. Lots of people use THF, it is in fact optimal for several builds even without epic SoS.

2. The best DPS in the game is currently THF (Epic SoS).

3. When Half-Orcs come out their high STR will push people toward THF builds with them.

4. THF is only worse then TWF for "standard" melee builds at end-game really, make more good THF epic weapons and that discrepancy is solved, it just requires some grinding.

5. In short (that's a lie), having one fighting style be better than another for certain builds is not a problem, nor is one style being more popular a problem. There are lots of things in DDO that are basically useless or very underpowered (turn undead for example), and the game gets along fine without them. THF is certainly more important than turning, and if it was that useless it would be a problem, but it's not that useless, far from it. Minor changes and balances are OK if they are well thought out and necessary (such as changes to reduce lag that keep DPS at basically the same level for all builds HINT HINT), but a complete overhaul should only be done in extreme cases. How can we feel comfortable building toons if you are gonna change things this easily?

[Visty]

please find another way to fix lag.
do not make changes to current players...
this is just another way to nerf what we have worked towards.



my vote is NO NO NO!!!!

another one who cant read properly:

the nerf has NOTHING to do with the lag fix

[timewalker]

it may be just me but there is only one place i have witnessed the dps lag, which is shroud 4 *have yet to get a pair of boots for ToD due to abysmal drop rates, working on it though* yet in part 5 we are doing the exact same thing, say 8-9 melee going full bore at harry yet i have never had dps lag there.

dosent this see a bit extreme and overcomplicated to fix one part of 1 or 2 raids.

that being said, willing to reserve judgement till the laminina tests are worked on.

[Keridan]

Okay, it's been established that the part which fixes the lag (proximity checks) should be changed. Yes, let's do the non-nerfing fix that solves the lag problem. Now let's look at the other issues.

I posted that I would hold opinions, but I am getting more and more disheartened as I read this thread and it has devolved into bashing each other instead of posting feedback. Frankly, I'm considering pulling my account because I see a trend that seems to befall every good MMO. I know they don't need my account to stay afloat, but I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm trying to find an MMO where this doesn't become the theme.

The problem as I see it is the double fix of issues. Players were bashing the mobs too hard or getting around them, so they made changes to the mobs making AC worthless, mob resistances obscene, and HP so high gods would be jealous. Now DPS is the only option because you have to kill the mobs faster. You can't disable them or run past them to complete the quest anymore. Now we see too much dps on some toons, time to nerf that (instead of fixing the mobs or ability to complete quests through other means).

D&D isn't supposed to be hack-n-slash. If you can complete the quests or challenges through other means, you are still rewarded (hence rewarding for completion instead of each kill). Apparently to have these options is to ask too much of the hardware (I still have trouble believing this was true). So we have been pushed to the H&S grind that sucks the life out of every other MMO.

All previous fixes (DA comes immediately to mind) have made it so that creating the best DPS (or supporting only those toons) is the only way to reasonably achieve higher levels and better loot. Now everyone has built around that and one technique stands out. Time to nerf that technique.

Just let there be imbalance. Stop fixing the problem then fixing it again. So what if someone found a way around some of the grind? There's enough to go around!

Want to add value to the same content? You've got scaling, make it so any quest can be played at any level (average lvl for groups). Give each dungeon a difficulty rating and base xp on that. If a lvl 19 can do quests that are currently at lvl 4 with the mobs upgraded dynamically, they should get xp. They may get less because the overall difficulty of the dungeon is less (i.e. it takes less time) but it's still worth doing. Then you won't get huge sections of content skipped completely because there is more efficient xp in that lvl range. It would be easy enough to restrict the biggies. You would also have an easier time finding groups in your level range.

Dynamic challenge quests really aren't that hard to code. I've added it to many games. It does add TONS of possibilities, however.

This is just one idea, but there are hundreds out there that would add value to the game without forcing them to do it one specific way. Once you've reduced the options, the nerfs are inevitable because you've forced them to find the best possible approach to that one way and some builds will stand out more. It's a nasty cycle that I would like to see avoided in a game based on D&D where different approaches are the whole point.

I realize this will get buried and the thread probably isn't being read by devs anymore, but I am watching this thread like a passerby watches a car wreck and I can't keep out of it completely.

[Natashaelle]

How can you say that an AC of 50 will mean something, while you want an AC of 75+ to make a significant impression? If AC 75 isn't no-hit AC, then AC 55 = 0. If AC 75 is just no-hit AC, then AC 55 is only providing a 5% miss chance above the normal 5% for rolling a 1.

Quite simply, because all things are not equal, and not all epic mobs have the same identical attack bonuses

[Natashaelle]

Sorry for the rant, I have been thoroughly disgusted by the sanctimonious tones from the two handed fighting proponents arguing that two weapon fighting should be taking a big dps hit, as TWF has higher survivability.

And again, I am coming from a rogue perspective. IF these changes go through as proposed, it will hurt rogues to a degree I do not think most who play other classes can even begin to comprehend.

I pretty much agree with that, and the damage that will be done to the Rogue class if this goes through in its current iteration is GHASTLY to contemplate.

[Garth_of_Sarlona]

another one who cant read properly:

the nerf has NOTHING to do with the lag fix

The devs probably thought that now is a good time to rebalance combat. If players can be appeased by reducing or eliminating a type of lag from the game, then it's a pretty good time to introduce a potentially unwelcome change that rebalances an overpowered combat style. Sweeten the pain. Silver lined cloud etc etc.

True that both could have been done independently of each other, but it's wrong to say they have nothing to do with each other.

Garth

[Ganolyn]

OK, look at it this way.

Previously with no TWF feats and full attack sequence: Main Hand / Off Hand
100% / 0%, 100% / 0%, 100% / 0%, 100% / 0%
Now, with no TWF feats:
100% / 20%, 100% / 20%, 100% / 20%, 100% / 20%
An increase of 20% chance for off hand on every attack


Previously with only the first TWF feat and full attack sequence: Main Hand / Off Hand
100% / 100%, 100% / 0%, 100% / 0%, 100% / 0%
Now, with onlt the TWF feat:
100% / 40%, 100% / 40%, 100% / 40%, 100% / 40%
The first attack suffers a decrease, but the rest offer an increase of 40% each, for a gain of 60% chance overall

You won't always be assured of a hit the way you were before, but you'll be getting more hits overall. The further you go in the TWF chain, the less gain you get, until eventually with GTWF you have slightly less chance for an offr hand than you did before, but at lower levels it's the opposite. So lower level toons actually get a boon from this, while higher level toons take a hit.

Make sense now?

Oh I understand all that (except why non-TWF proficient users are getting a boost at all), but I'm not sure I agree with the mechanic at lower levels. Without testing for real numbers to work with I think I would rather take the 100% chance to take a swing with one chance to miss that swing than four chances to not even get a swing 60% of the time and four unique chances to miss again at the TWF level.

Also, what happened to giving Tempest I a Double Strike option for their 10% Alacrity bonus? It seemed to be pushed up to Tempest III and halved in power.

[Visty]

True that both could have been done independently of each other, but it's wrong to say they have nothing to do with each other.

Garth

the change to fix the lag is to remove the collision detection check for the offhand
this is what will fix it

slowing down twf is independant from that and just the icing of the cake for the lagfixing. less attacks = lesser procs

[Visty]

Also, what happened to giving Tempest I a Double Strike option for their 10% Alacrity bonus? It seemed to be pushed up to Tempest III and halved in power.

well, tempest I is too powerful atm
10% doublestrike would be too powerful too

if you havent noticed it, thats a way to rebalance the game

[wrigghawk]

I applaud you on your effort to fix lag, and the system changes to do that seems well thought out. However the nerfs to TWF are not really necessary. Yes twf does more damage over time, but THF has more massive crits. I would support the following arguments against nerfing the TWF:
1. It is not very logical. In this case, the essential complaint is that twf is statiscally better at dealing damage than THF. Ok, but a repeating crossbow is better than regular crossbow too at dealing damage. That doesn't mean the Repeater crossbow needs to be nerfed, or for that matter that all melee weapons should do the same amount of damage. Like the repeating xbow user, the TWF has to give up (use up) feats to obtain that superiority in damage. The THF therefore gets more feats to use on other things (like toughness, or dodge) which improves his combat abilities in another way. The system is already balanced, even though the damage is not. Don't fix what ain't really broke...
2. It will anger a large portion of the player base who have invested time and effort in building twf. This should be a significant concern.
3. I will hate you forever if you do this,...Ok I might be exaggerating a little but you get my point

Wrigghawk
Founder
Khyber
Namanda, Namantha, Namorina, Namarion, Hellwynn, Blackwidow, Namalicious, Namfear, Namaria, Namsin, Namlost
and a couple more LOL

[sephiroth1084]

Quite simply, because all things are not equal, and not all epic mobs have the same identical attack bonuses

Okay, which epic monsters have you found that have lower attack bonuses than the stuff in The Shroud?

[Alintalkin]

Snuck in a little correction. You indicated that monks would lose 9 hits out of every 100 attack animations, while if we go by the numbers you wrote, it's actually 19. However, I'd take that with a grain of salt, as we're not exactly sure of the speed difference between unarmed and other weapons.

I find it easier not to compare the other classes, and instead just look at the difference between current monks and U5 monks: 15% of our total attacks.

Changing 10% insight attack speed to 10% doublestrike (which only applies on main hand hits) = 5% less total attacks.
80% of offhand hits instead of the current 100% = 10% less attacks.

Total: 15% fewer monk attacks.
This will also lower monk ki generation by 15%, so it'll be more difficult to use a full rotation of ki strikes and abilities, such as Touch of Death.

I agree with this calculation of 15% monk attacks being lost.

Monks are damaged in this update to high degrees. Fighters lose less then 5% dps, rangers less then 7.5%, Paladin (though it would be harder to get STWF then the first two) would lose less then 5%. 3/4 BAB classes would normally lose a little less then 10%. (Note I said less then as they have half of their strenght bonus on offhand and therefore a little less DPS with offhand)

Monks on the other hand, a 3/4 BAB class, which has full BAB when using monk weaps, lose 15% of their dps. Why should an already DPS challenged class lose more then any of the others? Why should all other classes but half BAB classes get effected less then this? Why should monks, who need their ki to be easily maintained to even keep up a semi-respectable DPS have such a lowered attack rate?

I would like to purpose a suggestion. Some people might thing that a natural 20% increase in offhand monk chance of hitting is to strong, especially for splashes, so space it out. Make it so every 5 levels monks have a 5% increase in chance on getting an offhand strike when using a monk weapon (or just handwraps). By 20 that would make them have a 110% 100% split. Though this might seem superior to all others but Paladins and Fighters you have to remember that though it is tied to specific weaps (such as HW, Kama's, Long swords, short swords). Also remember that splashes won't gain anything from this unless they heavily splash to the point of 5 levels. Monk is a full BAB class when using monk weaps so they should only be penalized like a full BAB class when using monk weapons. This would be a 5% decrease in monk DPS and attack rate overall. It is not like monk DPS is stronger then a pure fighter, ranger, or paladin anyway, it is actually less. Please consider this. Not sure if it will be drowned out in future posts though. Guess I simply have to pray it won't be drowned out.

I thank you for the time it takes to read this and have a good day

[Garth_of_Sarlona]

the change to fix the lag is to remove the collision detection check for the offhand
this is what will fix it

slowing down twf is independant from that and just the icing of the cake for the lagfixing. less attacks = lesser procs

I'm still unsure what your point is.

Removing the physics check on the offhand attack will certainly help lag, but also reducing the number of swings per second by removing alacrity bonuses will also help. Both could have been done in a way where dps remained the same, but instead the devs chose to rebalance twf to be approximately 10% lower dps, because Eladrin's calculations showed him that twf was 10% (or more) better than thf (epic sos is an anomaly).

Do you disagree with the above statement?

Garth

[SolarDawning]

I agree with this calculation of 15% monk attacks being lost.

Monks are damaged in this update to high degrees. Fighters lose less then 5% dps, rangers less then 7.5%, Paladin (though it would be harder to get STWF then the first two) would lose less then 5%. 3/4 BAB classes would normally lose a little less then 10%. (Note I said less then as they have half of their strenght bonus on offhand and therefore a little less DPS with offhand)

Monks on the other hand, a 3/4 BAB class, which has full BAB when using monk weaps, lose 15% of their dps. Why should an already DPS challenged class lose more then any of the others? Why should all other classes but half BAB classes get effected less then this? Why should monks, who need their ki to be easily maintained to even keep up a semi-respectable DPS have such a lowered attack rate?

I would like to purpose a suggestion. Some people might thing that a natural 20% increase in offhand monk chance of hitting is to strong, especially for splashes, so space it out. Make it so every 5 levels monks have a 5% increase in chance on getting an offhand strike when using a monk weapon (or just handwraps). By 20 that would make them have a 110% 100% split. Though this might seem superior to all others but Paladins and Fighters you have to remember that though it is tied to specific weaps (such as HW, Kama's, Long swords, short swords). Also remember that splashes won't gain anything from this unless they heavily splash to the point of 5 levels. Monk is a full BAB class when using monk weaps so they should only be penalized like a full BAB class when using monk weapons. This would be a 5% decrease in monk DPS and attack rate overall. It is not like monk DPS is stronger then a pure fighter, ranger, or paladin anyway, it is actually less. Please consider this. Not sure if it will be drowned out in future posts though. Guess I simply have to pray it won't be drowned out.

I thank you for the time it takes to read this and have a good day

I just wanted to highlight your suggestion, because I think it is a very good one.
5% more offhand hit chance at monk levels 5, 10, 15, and 20 would leave monks only 5% behind where they are currently, which is a manageable sacrifice to still lower overall attack speed and fix lag issues.

[Vhlad]

Here are Eladrins newest numbers compared to current numbers:

				Proposed			Current
	Doublestrike	Bonus	Main hand	Off hand	Main hand	Off hand
No feats      	0	20%	100%		20%		100%		25%
TWF		0	+20%	100%		40%		100%		50%
ITWF		0	+20%	100%		60%		100%		75%
GTWF		0	+20%	100%		80%		100%		100%
STWF		0	+20%	100%		100%		100%		-
Tempest I	0	+10%	100%		90%		110%		110%
Tempest II	0	+10%	100%		100% 		110%		110%
Tempest III	+5%*	0	105%		100%		110%		137.5%
Wind IV		+10%	0	110%		80%		110%		110%
Zeal		+10%	0	110%		80%		110%		110%
Alacrity     	+10%	0	110%		80%		110%		110%

Note: the +5% or +10% double strike is not in addition to 105% or 110% main hand. Eladrin is just showing that, because of the + double strike, the main hand is equivalent to 105% or 110%.

Many misconceptions and errors in analysis are being repeated throughout this thread. I will address some of them.

Misconception #1: This nerfs monks the most - FALSE

Monk (air IV), Fighter (alacrity), Paladin (zeal): these 3 classes are currently 110% main hand and 110% off hand, i.e. they are equalized. Under the proposed numbers, this balance does not change. Monk, Fighter, Paladin remain equalized at 110% main hand and 80% off hand. The relative balance between these classes is maintained. Monk is NOT nerfed moreso than fighter/paladin. It's also important to remember that there are no changes made to the base unarmed attack rate for monks. It is still faster than the attack rate when wielding two weapons, this has not changed.

Note: Since the monk unarmed attack rate is the fastest, anything that affects damage in any way will affect monks the most. i.e. +1 bonus to damage helps monks the most, because they have the most attacks per minute. In that sense, a global 30% reduction to off-hand hooks will "nerf" monks the most, because they have the most attacks per minute, but that's a silly and pointless argument. As long as monks still have the most attacks, then ANY changes to combat will affect monks the most. What's important, in this case, is that monks/fighters/paladins went from the same # of main and off hand attacks per swing amongst each other, to the same # of main and off hand attacks per swing amongst each other. There is no direct nerf to monks.

Note#2: It is true that since monks deal full str bonus with unarmed off-hand attacks, that any global reduction to the # of off-hand attacks will impact monks slightly more. Monk ki generation is also tied to # of attacks, and a 30% reduction to off hand attacks will result in 15% less ki generation. However, the proposed system does introduce a 8%? chance to triple proc ki strikes.

Misconception #2: This slows down attack animations too much - FALSE

The maximum change to swing animation speed is only 10%: zeal, alacrity, and wind IV change their stacking 10% animation speed bonus to 10% double strike on the main hand, and the 10% tempest I swing animation bonus is changed to a 10% off-hand proc bonus. Again, we're looking at 10% reduction in swing speed for a few classes, max. No more.

Misconception #3: This buffs rangers the most - FALSE

A tempest III ranger is currently 110% main hand and 137.5% off hand. They lose 5% main hand and 37.5% off hand. Compare to monks, paladins, fighters who lose 0% main hand and 30% off hand. Rangers are getting the biggest nerf. Furthermore, if STWF is added, then monks, paladins, fighters only lose 10% off hand, whereas a ranger even with STWF still loses 37.5% off hand.

Misconception #4: This nerfs rogues the most - FALSE

Currently, rogues (using GTWF) are 10% lower main hand and 10% lower off hand. Under the proposed numbers, the rogue off hand is equalized with fighters, monks, paladins: i.e. rogues (using GTWF) are 10% lower main hand and EQUAL off hand. This means that rogues experience a relative 10% buff in their off hand. This is a buff to rogues.

Misconception #5: This moves further away from pen and paper & standard rules documentation. - FALSE

The new proposal is actually closer to the SRD. Compare:

		SRD	Proposed	Current
No feats      	25%	20%		25%			
TWF		25%	40%		50%
ITWF		50%	60%		75%
GTWF		75%	80%		100

We're going from: 25% difference from the SRD in TWF, ITWF, GTWF. Total cumulative difference = 75%
to: 5% difference in no feats, 15% difference in TWF, 10% difference in ITWF, 5% difference in GTWF. Total cumulative difference = 35%
Thus, Eladrins new numbers are in-fact substantially closer to the source material.

Edit:
Much of the examples and relationships above were done under the hope that STWF would not be added. The addition of STWF with a high BAB requirement will alter many of the above examples and relationships. For example, if STWF required BAB 15 or higher, it would be unavailable to pure rogues and monks, resulting in a relative nerf to these classes.

However, any relative nerfs created by the addition of STWF are inherent to the SRD. The proposed system itself without STWF is not unbalancing. And any unequivalencies caused by the addition of STWF are unequivalencies that exist in the source material, i.e. they are not invented by the DDO team, but are rather a natural part of any d&d game using books that include the STWF feat.

Edit #2: There are, in fact, no books that include the superior two weapon fighting feat, aside from monster manual 1 (for ettins, since they have 2 heads).

Check the feat index:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats or http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules...ndex-Feats.pdf

Therefore, I suppose unequivalencies caused by the addition of STWF are unequivalencies that would in fact be invented by the DDO team. A level 10 tempest PrC has supreme two fighting. And there is perfect two weapon fighting as an epic feat (requiring 25 dex). But I don't see the version of STWF poised to be used in DDO in any source material.

[Natashaelle]

Okay, which epic monsters have you found that have lower attack bonuses than the stuff in The Shroud?

The Epic Hyenas in Wizard King are the only ones I can think of off-hand, and this would probably be comparing them with Harry btw

I cannot recall ever having suggested that Epic mobs in general can be found that are weaker than Shroud mobs. They can't be, afaik.

All that I have said, is that certain levels of AC *start* to make a difference in Epic ; but NOT that these levels are in and of themselves sufficient to let you tank Epic. They're NOT.

[Visty]

I'm still unsure what your point is.

Removing the physics check on the offhand attack will certainly help lag, but also reducing the number of swings per second by removing alacrity bonuses will also help. Both could have been done in a way where dps remained the same, but instead the devs chose to rebalance twf to be approximately 10% lower dps, because Eladrin's calculations showed him that twf was 10% (or more) better than thf (epic sos is an anomaly).

Do you disagree with the above statement?

Garth

kinda

still the removal of the physic check is the thing to fix the lag, the nerf is just a nerf which also will put less load on the servers, but it doesnt get nerfed to fix lag, it gets nerfed cause its overpowered

lots of the post i reply in such a fasion still say that the nerf is the fix to lag, which is untrue

[Ganolyn]

well, tempest I is too powerful atm
10% doublestrike would be too powerful too

if you havent noticed it, thats a way to rebalance the game

Well they could always move Tempest I up from 6th level to 9th. 10% DS is too powerful? Looks like its already in there. Also, based on the chart below GTWF is a useless feat to have as a freebee for Rangers as they bypass the need and the percentage boost for it by Tempest I, unless I am missing something and the additional attacks granted are still going to be in use.

	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.

[Calebro]

Well they could always move Tempest I up from 6th level to 9th. Also, based on the chart below GTWF is a useless feat to have as a freebee for Rangers as they bypass the need and the percentage boost for it by Tempest I, unless I am missing something and the additional attacks granted are still going to be in use.

	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.

You left off the important part of that chart, at the bottom, that reads:
All of the bottom rows assume that the person has GTWF, except for the STWF row.

So GTWF isn't useless, it's assumed in those numbers.