Combat Feedback for Update 5.

[Ollathir]

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

Thanks for the post Nat, she makes a good point. Adding a proc to actually use your offhand as TWF is far too disruptive to play style and for TWF DPS builds, generating DPS.

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.

I agree Rock. Problem is that some will argue that the opposite is true or the sacrifice/tradeoff wasnt just for DPS, and after reading just about every post I can tell you nothing will change the others view.

[Calebro]

and after reading just about every post I can tell you nothing will change the others view.

agreed

[irivan]

oh and irivan, heres the proof that you are wrong and the devs indeed say its a nerf, page 22 of this thread



could quote it as the part which eladrin quoted wouldnt be in my quote

and anjila, well said
most ppl dont realise that those numbers arent set in stone yet and everything could still change

Visty this only proves my point, in the red circled content box that you were so kind to provide,

One part of this statement says this will bring the number of attacks down thus helping lag (this would be defined as the issue at hand), the second part of the statement says that the two combat styles would be brought closer together in answering the second part of someone else's question (a secondary justification).

The bottom line is that this being done to fix lag, with the added benefit in Eladrins eyes of correcting, "balancing combat styles".

Let me say what i have said many times before. I am opposed to DnD/DDO game balance, DnD is not a balanced game, it never has been from a combat spec perspective, Casters have always sat on the top the heap power wise in this game, followed by specialty combat types, like min/max two weapon fighters, in PnP a Two handed Barbarian would get his lunch ate by a duel weapon Kensai for many reasons.

Dnd has always sought balance in story, and in Enemies, the DMG encourages games balance, but not class balance, meaning they leave it up to the DM to create that balance through his story telling, plots, and enemy design.

I will restate my original position, i do not want to see these changes go through, i believe they will create a system of belief amongst many players that their hard work and effort may be rewarded by GM tinkering, i just dont like the direction this is going at all.

This will easily be the single largest combat mechanic change to date, and it could be perceived very badly. As us evident by the 1000's of post since the proposition has been made.

I agree that they have not set anything in stone yet, and i like my idea better, reduce monster hit points, cuz that will for sure reduce calculations and make everyones weapons seem more effective.

Some monsters have so many hit points on elite in Amrath or on Epic, that it is a massive resource drain just to single combat any of them alone, they could take it down by half and the monsters would still be formidable.

nuff said.

[Creeper]

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

This is not true. Your DPS will not be the same against single enemies with all three THF feats as it would be without...

[Galacticus]

agreed

We're still waiting for you to post your toons so we can MyDDO...lets go

[Newtons_Apple]

Apparently we aren't allowed to try and create aggregation threads on this topic nor discuss specific aspects of the change except within this actual thread.

In spite of the fact that this thread is now approaching War and Peace volume.

I am very skeptical that anyone will read this post.

I am disappointed that I won't have an opportunity to provide usable feedback on a topic that is so important.

Fear not, your post has been read.

[Krag]

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

80% classes have inherited affinity for twf. Sneak attack, smite, inspire courage all favor twf. And I have not even mentioned monks and (melee)rangers who are forced into being twf. Which leaves Fighters who can go either way, Barbarians and WF-based arcane/divines who usually go THF.

Now tell me, are barbarians (almost exclusive THF users) underpowered? Do they need to take 5-15% dps of the rogue to make poor barbarians viable?

[Zargarx]

So this will have a significant negative impact on my 12th lvl (r2/w10) twf (itwf) battlemage. Using primarily stat damagers or other effects (destruction/curse/etc.). Note that never can get gtwf (BAB 10).
What about my other two builds that are both twf? (warchanter and tempestI/rogue)

These were all built around with having decent twf as the main focus (drow specializing in rapier/short sword to over come the loss of BAB).

As far as I can tell, this discussion is not about game balance but about trying to improve server performance.
Significantly adjusting one of the primary melee styles to fix a computer problem is backwards.
I would suggest to keep focus on improving the algorithm optimizations and possibly consider server improvements.

[Calebro]

We're still waiting for you to post your toons so we can MyDDO...lets go

myDDO isn't going to help you, as I implied in this post.
I'm still waiting for you to get back on topic and stop requesting to see things that have no bearing on this discussion.

[sephiroth1084]

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.

The implication being that an AC of 45-55 would be at all useful in epic, whereas nearly every report I've seen has indicated that the AC required to be show any misses is in the 80-100 range. Maybe these people were inflating their values, or ignoring the weakest of the epic monsters, or maybe you're including debuffs to attack bonus in your data.

Ultimately, I fail to see how everyone else who has discussed AC in epics has managed to not see an AC of 55 being somewhat worthwhile, as I'm sure there are plenty of rangers, monks and tank-types running around in DPS mode while maintaining an incidental AC in the 50-65 range.

[Newtons_Apple]

I think one main thing to consider is that this will bring S&B users out of uselessness.

TWF was king. Then ESoS came along. Nowhere did S&B users get enough help to matter. This change would allow that. Dropping TWF a bit brings it closer in line. Fixing ESoS (as we all assume MUST happen) will help as well. But with these changes the disaprities between S&B users will be felt much less, making them viable once again.

S&B by their very nature have a disadvantage to damage output. Making them "viable" should be done by increasing their defensive capabilities, and not decreasing another's offensive capability.

There seems to be an underlying notion in your post that balance = fair. TWF'rs, as others have mentioned, need to spend more time/resources, feats, etc. to build a "viable" character. How is it fair to bring their damage output down to the same level as THF, who need fewer resources to be "viable?"

[sephiroth1084]

Can we form a consensus that STWF should not be added to the game, irrespective of whatever other changes transpire regarding TWF and attack speeds?

[sephiroth1084]

S&B by their very nature have a disadvantage to damage output. Making them "viable" should be done by increasing their defensive capabilities, and not decreasing another's offensive capability.

Well, S&B also needs improvements to its DPS output, since the game is so heavily skewed in that direction, and because if you don't have aggro, having a shield out tends to be fairly pointless.

[GottDDO]

Can we form a consensus that STWF should not be added to the game, irrespective of whatever other changes transpire regarding TWF and attack speeds?

No

[Calebro]

S&B by their very nature have a disadvantage to damage output. Making them "viable" should be done by increasing their defensive capabilities, and not decreasing another's offensive capability.

There seems to be an underlying notion in your post that balance = fair. TWF'rs, as others have mentioned, need to spend more time/resources, feats, etc. to build a "viable" character. How is it fair to bring their damage output down to the same level as THF, who need fewer resources to be "viable?"

Defense in a melee is all but useless at higher levels. They'd have to give S&Bers some huge DR love to compete.
Reducing both TWF and THF would make the changes required to make S&B viable less drastic. TWF being nerfed would be a start, but it would need to extend to THF beyond the glancing blows nerf. I'm not sure what the best course of action for this would be, but this would be a start.

I just don't see any possible way to tweak S&B to a viable option without nerfing both TWF and THF first.

[eonfreon]

Can we form a consensus that STWF should not be added to the game, irrespective of whatever other changes transpire regarding TWF and attack speeds?

Well, I certainly hope that STWF isn't added to the current game. There is just no way I'll be able to fit it into my current characters, not without a respec and deleting a Feat that has been basically part of my characters' overall "flavor".
There is little enough wiggle room in Feat selection for anyone besides Fighters. This will just insure that every TWF character will have to be built identical. As is TWF characters have to be built nearly identical, but at least there is generally 1 Feat of wiggle room.

If STWF is introduced, I hope it is done in a very reasonable way.

I just can't believe Turbine mentions it and then gives no indication of what they think it should be like.

Notice their original plan had no mention of it.

It only showed up when the Devs changed their chart due to the large outcry.

[eonfreon]

Defense in a melee is all but useless at higher levels. They'd have to give S&Bers some huge DR love to compete.
Reducing both TWF and THF would make the changes required to make S&B viable less drastic. TWF being nerfed would be a start, but it would need to extend to THF beyond the glancing blows nerf. I'm not sure what the best course of action for this would be, but this would be a start.

I just don't see any possible way to tweak S&B to a viable option without nerfing both TWF and THF first.

The problem I see with this nerf, especially if you wish it to have an impact enough to allow S&B to start to catch up, is that there is no mention of a corresponding nerf to MOB hit points.

Calebro, do you play Endgame?
Do you run Elite or Epic?
Have you seen how long and boring some of the fights can be?

[Rumbaar]

This is a nerf, and for one will only serve to nerf. When the LAG is still there we will not get our abilities back.

I see this as a bait and switch. Introduce the worse kind of ability downgrade, then change it to a little bit better and then fool 'us' into thinking they've done us a big favour.

When in fact that are still screwing us!

Monk can't really go anything else and 80% max ... the wraps allowed us full STR on off-hand to balance their inability to code them right. Rangers ... well no need to say there and fighters .. poor things.

[Boromirs]

It is true...

The biggest damage that this can do is not the combat system or to TWF or even to Lag , its the idea that once you completely built up your character according to the rules clearly laid out before you, the devs with a flick of a key can erase ALL of it.

I think for veteran players,who continue to play to make cool builds, this should BOTHER THE HECK OUT OF YOU.

[Galacticus]

myDDO isn't going to help you, as I implied in this post.
I'm still waiting for you to get back on topic and stop requesting to see things that have no bearing on this discussion.

It bears on your credibility...which is none