Combat Feedback for Update 5.

[Ganolyn]

Ignore the off hand chart and look at the bonus chart.
At 6th level you'd have TWF, ITWF and the Tempst I bonus = 70% at 6th level.
This is why Eldarin added "All of the bottom rows assume that the person has GTWF" at the end.

Ok NOW it makes sense! I was not registering what he meant by bottom rows. I think the high end of the spectrum is good if they are trying to balance it out against other forms of melee combat, but as for the low end I'll go with Mr. Horse -



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT8sl9ZyICE

[Aashrym]

I see it's another busy day and everyone is still fighting nice mostly

I think this has been stated a couple of times now, but:

1) The reduction in number of collision detection calculations is the DPS lag solution. It only follows suit that since TWF produces a lot of calculations and is hugely popular as a DPS style that targetting TWF to reduce the number of calculations will happen.

2) The TWF 'nerf' appears to be an attempt at rebalancing outside of the actual lag fix. The numbers were already revised after the original post after feedback, so this shows Turbine is open to suggestions and listening to us. The 'the devs only play THF style' conspiracy is no longer valid

3) For clarification, the percent chance to proc an offhand attack has nothing to do with the character's ability to hit and is there to simulate how often the character attacks with the offhand. IE. GTWF provides more offhand attacks than regular TWF now and under the proposed system it provides more offhand attacks than regular TWF.

4) For clarification, double strike simulates a speed bonus. This is similar to the offhand proc check and appears to be added to avoid collision detection calculations as well.

5) Items 3 and 4 do not necessarily equate to DPS loss in themselves, depending on percentages used and these percentages still have the possibility to change. They do make DPS more random in the short term and more average in the long term. I like that a bit more, personally, because any game rolling die does incorporate lucky/unlucky rolls at times. This accentuates that a bit more.

6) Monks and rogues do have class features for survivability. I here evasion is actually useful sometimes

7) STWF debate: I still like it myself, but I'm not up for debating adding it anymore. It's not a make it or break it feature, I think there are valid points on both sides of the fence for and against, and the bottom line is TWF really does have a lot of feats in the chain. I like making that extremeness of it accessible to people who make the hard choices, but again it's not going to break anything to leave it out either.

8) I'll vote for "opportunist" rogue ability again until I see a response from Turbine saying, "yeah, that is a good idea" or "we thought about it and here is why we can't do itlist)"

9) I agree DDO is a Monty Haul campaign

I hope my first few comments did help clear things up for anyone who missed them earlier in this thread. It's hard to keep track of.

[Vhlad]

This is not a direct nerf monks it is a bigger one to monks then Paladins and fighters. This is simply because Paladin's and Fighters will be able to get STWF and Monks won't as they count as a 3/4 BAB, even if they have full BAB when using monk weapons. Therefore fighters and Paladins can get 20% more off hands then monks can under the purposed system. This does bring an imbalance to these full BAB (well at least when monks are using monk weapons) classes. Any way you look at it a Paladin and fighter can get away from this with a (less then, due to offhand being only half strength bonus) 5% decrease in attack rate well monks get away with 15% without splashing into another classes . Though this is not intentionally a nerf to monks directly, it becomes a larger nerf to monks then any other class due to the inability to get STWF and the 30% decrease in offhand rate you speak of decrease you speak of. A monk's 15% drop in DPS is greater then a 5% drop in another classes that has greater DPS to begin with.

To sum this up: It is a greater nerf to monks then Paladins and fighters because monks would be unable to get STWF or 100% in offhand while Paladins and fighters can. Hence my suggestion in an earlier post to increase the chance of a monk gaining a 5% increase in chance of hitting an offhand every 5 levels with monk weapons (a.k.a when a monk has full BAB like fighter and Paladin). It requires you to be pure to get that 100%, and brings monks to only a 5% decrease in attack and DPS. It makes them nearly equal to Paladins and fighters in terms of nerfing.

Note: STWF will at least require 15 BAB which monks would need to be 20 to get which isn't a place where they can get feats. It is more likely that STWF will require 16 BAB in which case monks won't ever hit it, even if they are at 20 BAB using monk weapons
P.S: It is true that Tempest rangers are being nerfed more then any other class but they still have a nearly equal attack rate to the other full BAB classes, though I believe that they should have 110% on main hand to make them equal to other full BAB classes in that regard.

Edit: upon reading Solars posts I would like to add that there is also the 15% less in ki regen. Also that the 15 BAB requirement was stated by a Dev the first time they wanted to add it in and therefore the BAB requirement we can rightly assume until Devs release information of anything different.

Second edit: found the post http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...52#post1448752

IMO the best solution to this would be to lower the BAB requirement, or to simply not add STWF.

Especially with the past-life feats and assorted PrE requirements, and the absolute necessity to have toughness, wiggle room for feats is already low enough.

[Angelus_dead]

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

But you are spreading misconceptions.

Misconception #1: This nerfs monks the most - FALSE

No, that rebuttal is incorrect because it pretends that Monks have the same access to STWF as any other character. It also ignores how attack speed has dual value for monks, because it provides Ki income as well as damage.

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

That claim fails because you give nothing to support it. The truth is it does slow down attacks too much for at least some characters, because the amount of nerf is not being equally applied to everyone.

Again, we're looking at 10% reduction in swing speed for a few classes, max. No more.

If you think a 10% reduction is no big deal, then ask yourself why Wind Stance IV is so popular among monks today, even though it is -1 attack -1 damage and -50% Ki compared to fire.

Misconception #3: This buffs rangers the most - FALSE

No, nobody is under the illusion that this is a buff for rangers. However, what most people do understand is that Tempest Rangers are suffering less than many other characters, because they won't have to struggle to work STWF into their builds.

Misconception #4: This nerfs rogues the most - FALSE

Once again, that rebuttal is completely wrong because it ignores how Rogues will have less ability to train STWF than Fighters or Rangers do. It is additionally wrong because it focuses on Rogue vs TWF Fighter instead of Rogue vs melee DPSer in general.

IMO the best solution to this would be to lower the BAB requirement, or to simply not add STWF.

Yes, the main error of your statements was that they ignored STWF, so cancelling STWF would improve several problems.

[Timjc86]

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.

How exactly does this buff rogues?

Currently rogues are 100% 100% (MH, OH)
With these changes rogues will be 100% 80%

This puts rogues behind where they currently are, and with the changes it puts rogues behind a Tempest I (let alone Tempest III) ranger, Wind IV monk, Zealed paladin, and capstone fighter, assuming all have GTWF. Add STWF to the ranger and fighter and rogues are even further behind.

[Natashaelle]

Someone has made a rather interesting point over on the European forum, which I'll just reproduce here for you :

----------------------------------------------------

http://community.codemasters.com/for...ml#post6218819

There's one thing that I think hasn't been said yet...I have equipped my rogue with two paralyzing weapons and when I'm with my party I usually run inside the rooms and attack mobs while running between them, then return to the entrance and let my mates finish the work...so I hit a monster with my main hand and a DIFFERENT monster with my off-hand...if the system calculates the chance to hit with the off-hand after the main hand hit, I will never hit different targets with the two weapons, am I right?

This means that all my fighting strategy is going to waste, along with my built...I can still be an archer, but really, I don't get why would someone bother if I make 13 TWF characters, as long as I enjoy doing it (even if I would never make 13 times the same character, it would be boring >.> )

[Angelus_dead]

How exactly does this buff rogues?

Well, if you ignore the addition of STWF then a TWF Rogue is being reduced a little less than a TWF Fighter, whose capstone is being nerfed from 10% both hands to 10% mainhand. But of course adding STWF more than makes up for it to the fighter.

[Vhlad]

No, that rebuttal is incorrect because it pretends that Monks have the same access to STWF as any other character. It also ignores how attack speed has dual value for monks, because it provides Ki income as well as damage.

Actually I was pretending that Eladrin wouldn't add STWF.

If you think a 10% reduction is no big deal, then ask yourself why Wind Stance IV is so popular among monks today, even though it is -1 attack -1 damage and -50% Ki compared to fire.

10% reduction in swing animation speed is no big deal. Wind IV is popular because it adds 10% to DPS. If the benefit was purely cosmetic, it would not be popular.

Under the propsed numbers, wind IV is still adding 10% to main hand DPS, which is desirable, as well as an enhancement bonus to animation speed, which is desirable for soloing.

[Creeper]

Misconception #1: This nerfs monks the most - FALSE
There is no direct nerf to monks.

Help me to understand:

Does this nerf to GTWF NOT reduce off-hand attacks per round? I notice you didn’t mention that Monks are the only class that have no penalty to off-hand attack or damage. They do not suffer penalties to off-hand attacks.

So, do I misunderstand that this nerf creates more main hand attacks and less offhand attacks? Is that why you did not mention this?

My point being, is that previously, a big strength of monks was no penalties to off-hand attacks which paladins/fighters/everyone else suffered from. By reducing off-hand attacks and increasing main-hand attacks how does this not nerf monks the most?

Then, after you said this:

Misconception #1: This nerfs monks the most - FALSE

You said this:

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.

So this DOES nerf monks the most?

[Natashaelle]

Actually I was pretending that Eladrin wouldn't add STWF.

Given the clear interest that STWF seems to have generated so far, both pro et contra I'm making no bones about it, I think that they should add it to the game, just to provide future character building / respeccing with the same sort of pro et contra debates about which build is best, which is nerfed, which is gimped.

I would personally find 2WF character building to be more interesting and requiring some extra thought and sacrifices as compared to the current no-brainer choices available.

Arcane Archers with STWF ? they sound interesting !! et cetera

After due consideration, I'm voting in favour of adding STWF to this game.

[Vhlad]

By reducing off-hand attacks and increasing main-hand attacks how does this not nerf monks the most?

main-hand attacks are not increased. Tempest main hand has been reduced, and all other main hand %'s see no change.

I would agree that if STWF is added with a BAB requirement of 15 or higher, then monks will probably be hurt the most. I think that (among other things) is more an argument to scrap STWF though, not to scrap the whole system.

We do have to fix the DPS lag issue somehow.

[Angelus_dead]

Some people have defended the addition of an STWF feat on the idea that more useful feats allows characters to have more variety, or makes players face interesting choices between two good options while building.

That is true in general, but not in this case, where the feat cost for a character to obtain the baseline function of full number of regular attacks with his weapons would go up from 3 to 4 (out of 7 feat slots for a non-human). That many feat slots spent on the same thing just isn't entertaining, even if it is the most productive use of the slots. Notice how Fighters aren't allowed to stack Weapon Specialization again and again... there's a good reason for that.

For comparison, look at what a good way to add feat variety would do: suppose that Cleave, Improved Feint, Slicing Blow, Improved Sunder, and Improved Critical Thrown were buffed to the point where they had real value in the kinds of combat situations corresponding to the feat's effects. That would mean players can make real choices about how often they expect to be in those situations and how much priority they put on performing well there.

That's what would lead to interesting character variety- but making people spend a forth feat on a passive increase to offhand attacks just eats up slots that could have been used for something entertaining.

[zealous]

Given the clear interest that STWF seems to have generated so far, both pro et contra I'm making no bones about it, I think that they should add it to the game, just to provide future character building / respeccing with the same sort of pro et contra debates about which build is best, which is nerfed, which is gimped.

I would personally find 2WF character building to be more interesting and requiring some extra thought and sacrifices as compared to the current no-brainer choices available.

Arcane Archers with STWF ? they sound interesting !! et cetera

After due consideration, I'm voting in favour of adding STWF to this game.

There would be no question on wether to take it or not. Classes with few feats would suffer since they would have to sacrifice other feats, say power attack or toughness. This would lead to imbalance, and imbalance leads to the dark side.

Moreover there would be little to no point in ever taking the tempest PrC line of enhancements since the majority of it's benefits could be obtained with just one feat. Rangers currently lag slightly behind, with the change as is they would suffer more relative to other classes, with STWF well...ranged spec would probably be optimal.

Last but not least. If the objective of the change to 2wf is to make it more balanced compared to S&B and 2H, why would you add a feat that put things right back where they were?

[R0cksteady]

Some people have defended the addition of an STWF feat on the idea that more useful feats allows characters to have more variety, or makes players face interesting choices between two good options while building.

That is true in general, but not in this case, where the feat cost for a character to obtain the baseline function of full number of regular attacks with his weapons would go up from 3 to 4 (out of 7 feat slots for a non-human). That many feat slots spent on the same thing just isn't entertaining, even if it is the most productive use of the slots. Notice how Fighters aren't allowed to stack Weapon Specialization again and again... there's a good reason for that.

For comparison, look at what a good way to add feat variety would do: suppose that Cleave, Improved Feint, Slicing Blow, Improved Sunder, and Improved Critical Thrown were buffed to the point where they had real value in the kinds of combat situations corresponding to the feat's effects. That would mean players can make real choices about how often they expect to be in those situations and how much priority they put on performing well there.

That's what would lead to interesting character variety- but making people spend a forth feat on a passive increase to offhand attacks just eats up slots that could have been used for something entertaining.

4 feats, a DEX requirement (which I'm praying stays at 17 for STWF and not 19 like in PnP) and a higher cost for weaponry, it just doesn't seem worth it over THF anymore.

[R0cksteady]

There would be no question on wether to take it or not. Classes with few feats would suffer since they would have to sacrifice other feats, say power attack or toughness. This would lead to imbalance, and imbalance leads to the dark side.

Moreover there would be little to no point in ever taking the tempest PrC line of enhancements since the majority of it's benefits could be obtained with just one feat. Rangers currently lag slightly behind, with the change as is they would suffer more relative to other classes, with STWF well...ranged spec would probably be optimal.

Last but not least. If the objective of the change to 2wf is to make it more balanced compared to S&B and 2H, why would you add a feat that put things right back where they were?

It IS balanced by having TWF ahead in dps to THF. Since there is a much higher requirement for it, you have to sacrafice a lot to be TWF. If it was doing similar damage to THF, it wouldn't be balanced at all.

[Visty]

It IS balanced by having TWF ahead in dps to THF. Since there is a much higher requirement for it, you have to sacrafice a lot to be TWF. If it was doing similar damage to THF, it wouldn't be balanced at all.

twf needs just a few buildpoints over thf and get other benefits for it too

so no, its not balanced atm otherwise you wouldnt see 80% of the builds beeing twf

[Gornin]

My head hurts. Yes, I have read the whole thread up to page 110.

This is the wrong way to go about fixing this. IMO, and not trying to forecast DOOM!, this will hurt the game seriously. It will alter the #1 (or at least #2) reason people like to play this game, and that is the "active combat" feel to this game. Collision detection is what allows this game to play like it does. Reducing the calculations for this may help with the lag, but what do we lose in playability? Is the trade off worth it?

Been looking at numbers the whole thread, and it is amazing how people can manipulate them to show their "Facts".
Nerfing all melee combat is part of the lag fix, regardless of what some may say. If you are hitting less, and have less speed, it slows down the amount of calculations needed.

The TWF vs THF argument is pointless. I have 2 of each and they both do about the same DPS in the end, THF do it in bigger chunks, TWF does it in smaller chunks faster. You can bring your socialist views about how everything should be "equal", or your min max PnP views or whatever point of reference you want to use, it doesn't matter. The classes and styles are different and bring different skills to the group. What matters is how the game plays and how will this change it.

I fear it is going to change us closer to the standard MMO combat metric, and that would really hurt this game.


I really have a hard time believing that there are not other alternatives to fixing DPS lag in a few raids. Especially when things like turning of combat feed back makes a difference, and I get in groups of primarily THF melee and get the same lag problems.

I also don't like the double strike thing. It feels like they are trying to make this easier to swallow by allowing a small chance at throwing up really big numbers. No thanks, I would rather get my big numbers due to proper build, gear and skill.

[R0cksteady]

twf needs just a few buildpoints over thf and get other benefits for it too

so no, its not balanced atm otherwise you wouldnt see 80% of the builds beeing twf

What? You need 17 dex, which is a pain in the ass since dex really does little for a fighter, besides maybe some points in balance. It costs 3, maybe 4 feats. And it lowers your to-hit. Where as THF you have 3 feats, which really can be skipped and your DPS is still going to be the same against single enemies, you can keep your dex at 8 and put those stats where they will do more (Strength, Con, int for combat expertise and skill points). Not to mention THF with twitch fighting does almost as much damage as TWF and with the epic SoS in the right hands will do more than a lot of TWF characters.

[Vhlad]

After reading the news, and upon further consideration, I have determined that the most optimal solution to DPS lag is to use nukes.

Zombies=nukes
Asteroid/comet=nukes
Earth has stopped spinning=nukes
Evil Robots=nukes
Aliens=Nukes
Sun dying=Nukes
Russian Nukes=MOAR Nukes

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0529/ene...-nuke-oil-leak
OIL LEAK = NUKES
the solution to everything is nukes!

Therefore, DPS lag=nukes

[Natashaelle]

There would be no question on wether to take it or not. Classes with few feats would suffer since they would have to sacrifice other feats, say power attack or toughness. This would lead to imbalance, and imbalance leads to the dark side.

The question would be, are people actually willing to spend so many feats on it or not.

Take TR -- on paper, there's absolutely no reason why people shouldn't take at least a double TR, because there is no question that it provides better toons. In practise though, not everyone wants to make those sacrifices.

D&D is actually a fairly imbalanced game at heart, but that thought leads to discussions of game design philosophy which are extremely irrelevant here ; I'll just say that you make a good point in that respect, and it's noted.

Moreover there would be little to no point in ever taking the tempest PrC line of enhancements since the majority of it's benefits could be obtained with just one feat. Rangers currently lag slightly behind, with the change as is they would suffer more relative to other classes, with STWF well...ranged spec would probably be optimal.

This is pending more information on how STWF would be implemented on top of Tempest II and III, so I can't really comment, not having any of the information.

Last but not least. If the objective of the change to 2wf is to make it more balanced compared to S&B and 2H, why would you add a feat that put things right back where they were?

The sort of strong specialisation that STWF provides is a common feature of the D&D levels 20-40 game, so that I guess that the real question from a design point of view might be -- is it too early to introduce it now, or is this a necessary stepping stone that needs to be put down now, towards the next level cap increase ?