Please add the Average Damage to the descriptions

[tenketsu2]

With the switch from the dX notation to 1-6, we're now showing the extreme minimum and maximum damage, but with no accounting for the distribution likelihood. We could get most of the benefit of a distribution chart, in an easy to understand format, by simply adding the average number per calculation to the description. That way both new players and those who don't want to waste time figuring the math can simply see roughly how much damage they should expect when they use something. It's not that big a deal, nor too reliable, for the lower stuff (like the 1d10 of a Dwarven Axe), but for the big stuff like a 10d6 Fireball it becomes both pretty accurate and much more useful than a large spread like 10-60.

It would also be nice if the descriptions compensated for things like Potency, active Metamagic feats (I know Extend does this for duration and all do for SP, but to my knowledge the rest don't), etc, but that's mostly a separate issue.

[Angelus_dead]

Yes, instead of 10-60 it would be more helpful to see either 35+/-25 or simply ~35. To say "10-60" creates an incorrect impression that the damage will go up to 60 often enough to see.

[Borror0]

The invisible Cubethulu! Shows in the tracker but not in the thread!

[Junts]

Agreed, its really important to emphasize the fashion in which multiple die rolls cause a disproportionate emphasis on the middle of the distribution. A 2d6 weapon doesn't just do 1 more min damage than a 1d12 weapon: its 3x more likely to do 6, 7 or 8 damage, and far less likely to do 3 or 11 or 12. This is really important to understanding damage performance, and its the most important thing lost by going to just a damage range. 2d6 is substantially less varied than 1d12, and 3d4 would be even moreso (over 50% likely to do 7 damage, period).

[Dawnsfire]

The invisible Cubethulu! Shows in the tracker but not in the thread!

I guess he ate a post and left no trace. He must have purchased a LR and boosted hide and move way up there.

[Primalhowl]

The invisible Cubethulu! Shows in the tracker but not in the thread!

One cannot see the Cubethulu... the mind protects itself. For should thou seest his globular terribleness, it would scramble the spirit; his horrific pseudopods would tear sanity from thy mind and spirit from thine soon-to-be-engulfed corpse!

[Deathseeker]

While I agree with the underlying principle of all this (that the new notation is inaccurate compared to the xdx notation and was likely unnecessary, silly to implement, and outside the spirit of D&D), I think you guys are really reaching here to prove your point.

Really, where in the game does the difference in distribution between 2d6 and a flat 2 - 12 have any major effect on how the game is played or approached?

I get the underlying principle, and I agree, but the argument that it has any practical effect in game just rings hollow.

[Angelus_dead]

Really, where in the game does the difference in distribution between 2d6 and a flat 2 - 12 have any major effect on how the game is played or approached?

It doesn't. But if the developers are supposedly trying to make the description easier at the expense of accuracy, then "~35" is better than "10 to 60".

[kyebosh]

Or... Just turn it back to the old notation Come on! This is Dungeons & Dragons! Without dice, there is no game! Or at least give us a UI option for it, pretty please.

[tenketsu2]

While I agree with the underlying principle of all this (that the new notation is inaccurate compared to the xdx notation and was likely unnecessary, silly to implement, and outside the spirit of D&D), I think you guys are really reaching here to prove your point.

Really, where in the game does the difference in distribution between 2d6 and a flat 2 - 12 have any major effect on how the game is played or approached?

I get the underlying principle, and I agree, but the argument that it has any practical effect in game just rings hollow.

I'm actually not arguing against the new notation, I like it less personally but I do understand how it's helpful to new players so it's probably a good change. However, taking the change as a given, we should also make this change to show average damage as well to retain the best benefits of the old notation, since it wouldn't really have any downside that I can see. More information that is easy to understand and concise can only be a good thing, I think.

[HumanJHawkins]

With the switch from the dX notation to 1-6, we're now showing the extreme minimum and maximum damage, but with no accounting for the distribution likelihood. <cut> by simply adding the average number per calculation to the description. That way both new players and those who don't want to waste time figuring the math can simply see roughly how much damage they should expect when they use something. It's not that big a deal, nor too reliable, for the lower stuff (like the 1d10 of a Dwarven Axe), but for the big stuff like a 10d6 Fireball it becomes both pretty accurate and much more useful than a large spread like 10-60.

I hate the new system, but I don;t get your argument. Showing the average will do nothing.

The average of 3d6 is 10.5.
The average of 3 to 18 (which would technically be 1d16+2) is 10.5.

The average of the old and new notation is the same, so how does showing the average help? If someone is interested in the average, they can just calculate the average of the new notaion and they are good to go.

The new notaion sucks primarily because it is a cultural slap in the face. And secondarily because it fails to tell you details about how the damage is calculated (For example, because 1d100 of damage will 1-shot a 66HP creature about 1/3rd of the time, and will take 3 shots 1/3rd of the time. Whereas 10d10 of damage will almost always 2-shot the same creature.)

Blah blah. Dead hourse. still beating it... Ouch for the horsie. The notation sucks, but showing the average won't help.

[Rakian_Knight]

Or... Just turn it back to the old notation Come on! This is Dungeons & Dragons! Without dice, there is no game! Or at least give us a UI option for it, pretty please.

Agreed, the change wasn't asked for, it annoys people more then it helps, so chang it back!

[JPDefault]

Or... Just turn it back to the old notation Come on! This is Dungeons & Dragons! Without dice, there is no game! Or at least give us a UI option for it, pretty please.

Exactly. I'd much rather get rid of the "1-6" notation. It's inaccurate, nobody asked for it, it's not D&D.
Adding an extimated average wouldn't help.

It's true: it doesn't change how I play the game. If Beholders had Hello Kitty graphics and Dragons were renamed to "Fluffy Flying Musk Mosquitos", that wouldn't change either, but would you like it?

[Missing_Minds]

If the new notation is to be used, it should at least show correct information.

I want it, if it is going to show the range of what is possible, to show it correctly. Metamagics, enhancments, and item augmentations (potency, clickies, etc.)

I do not mind if it does not show crit value or crit chances (crit chance would be nice), but show the freaking range correctly. You are still giving players inaccurate BS with the new notation.

[umli123]

Question is, how damage is calcucated on ddo. Maybe to roll 10d6 they just take random number between 10 and 60, and dont roll 10 times 1-6. That may be the reason behind new damage system. It will simplify damage output a lot, and lose another part of AD&D spirit... But it would decrease lag. So it maybe, that everything goes in the holy war agains lag monster.

[Gorbadoc]

Maybe to roll 10d6 they just take random number between 10 and 60, and dont roll 10 times 1-6.

Neither of those is what 10d6 means.

'd51+9' means 'A random integer from 10 to 60, inclusive.' The distribution looks flat if you ignore all non-integer quantities.

'10*d6' means 'Take a random integer from 1 to 6, inclusive; multiply this result by 10' (which is a slightly more specific way of saying '10 times 1-6'). The distribution looks flat if you ignore the numbers that are not integer multiples of 10.

'10d6' means 'Take the sum of (ten independent samplings of a random integer from 1 to 6, inclusive)'. This distribution is a discrete version of a bell curve. Numbers near the middle of the distribution are MUCH more likely than numbers further from the middle.

[k1ngp1n]

Question is, how damage is calcucated on ddo. Maybe to roll 10d6 they just take random number between 10 and 60, and dont roll 10 times 1-6. That may be the reason behind new damage system. It will simplify damage output a lot, and lose another part of AD&D spirit... But it would decrease lag. So it maybe, that everything goes in the holy war agains lag monster.

They do, currently, roll the dice correctly. A random 10-60 will not perform the same as a 10d6, as the 10d6 tends to cluster towards the center of the range more than the random 10-60.

[Robai]

I think here you will find some answers to your questions:

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?p=2839346

[Gorbadoc]

The only question in my mind is:

Why would the devs go from the xdy+z nomenclature (which unambiguously indicates both the damage spread AND the shape of the distribution in a compact fashion) to the a-b nomenclature (which expresses the lower and upper limits)?

Now, to be fair, people should be able to understand what a weapon does without knowing the d6 nomenclature. This argument doesn't hold water, though, because the a-b nomenclature doesn't give the piece of information people actually want. When people compare weapons, they need to compare the weapons' AVERAGE damage. They need a numerical indication of how much damage each weapon would deal over the course of an adventure. Personally, I do it in my head; I read xd6 as 'about 3.5*x'.

Here's my suggestion: list averages front and center, then parenthetically list how the number is rolled and calculated (in the xdy+z format). This would actually make my life easier when I'm answering questions in the advice channel; sometimes it's clear that a person does not feel like figuring out the actual math. When such a person asks, "What does 2d6 mean?", the most helpful advice I could give would be to point them to an average and tell them not to worry about the specifics. At the same time, the smarter and more inquisitive beginners would have all the numbers in front of them to figure out the standard deviation around that average.

[Angelus_dead]

They do, currently, roll the dice correctly.

That is exactly untrue. Currently DDO does not roll 10d6 correctly, and instead treats it as 30+10d3.