Fortification

[PresentTense]

Yes but the issue outside such point is that AC can reach 90+, while the typical AC build is geared to hold all that the gear tends towards their favor or build ... the flip side of the DPS toon is they would have to give up "DPS gear" in order to achieve even a minor in AC in doing so they no longer are a dps build but hold just barely more damage output than the toon built for AC. Result would be no reason at all to build for DPS.

I don't think actually having to wear a protection item and care about barkskin would harm a dps build, let alone make them no longer a dps build. And the idea that, as a result, no one would build for dps is about as DOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooommmmmy as they come. I mean, heck, if you're worried about body slots, a mineral accesory takes care of fort and protection - it's just that almost nobody cares about the protection. Does wearing one of those make you not dps? In that second thread, I point out that even an arcane caster, with no armor and just a protection item and some basic spells, could achieve a reasonable fort percentage. Dps would have it even easier with actual armor. In any case, like I said, I let that idea die, but I still think the current fort system is silly.

[Emili]

I don't think actually having to wear a protection item and care about barkskin would harm a dps build, let alone make them no longer a dps build. And the idea that, as a result, no one would build for dps is about as DOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOooooommmmmy as they come. I mean, heck, if you're worried about body slots, a mineral accesory takes care of fort and protection - it's just that almost nobody cares about the protection. Does wearing one of those make you not dps? In that second thread, I point out that even an arcane caster, with no armor and just a protection item and some basic spells, could achieve a reasonable fort percentage. Dps would have it even easier with actual armor. In any case, like I said, I let that idea die, but I still think the current fort system is silly.

To be quite honest ... I have protection items nearly all my melee... how much AC do you suppose that gets them?

The differnces are much more on an AC build is stacked up +5 protection does little on top of 16-20 armour and +4-7 dex ... +5 protection would place my barb for instance at 29 AC - she's in dt leather, and a 20 dex outside that she's tight on items as is, so do I drop her red dragon helm? or her knost, or maybe her +5 resists? Her other ToD ring? Tell me?... add a barks in every party you're asking and add a bard song in every party and take that pally?

The AC built toons stack the ac up as much as the dps character stacks up the DPS gear one AC item of a +5 nature could not possibly make meaningful difference - it's the stacking upon stacking which does.

I am not preaching doom I am informing you you're incorrect... and the reason being is that the top of AC builds surge past 80+ due to stacking. It's quite easy to figure out why Horoth's to-hit is at 65.

Oh and btw... GS and DT items are soon to be dead. Epic items are end-game and where the game is going not GS - that's well over three year old gear, play todays end-game not yesterdays.


... and everyone standing around here are moaning 100% fort is silly - I agree - but what you do not understand is mob hit hard not only because of 100% fort exist... they have high to-hit and hard damage because they swing slower and they have to be able to hit a 90+ AC tank once in a while and break 27+ DR they have to deal with 800+hp barbs ... is quite simple there are a lot more to the equation than you think.

... now would you suppose you walk into an Epic quest and some CR35+ mob should not be able to poise some form of threat to the 80+ AC tank? I would expect the 80+ AC tank to have an issue - he's only level 20 for god's sake.

[Satinavian]

I think this entire post is based on the - I beleive - false assumption that everyone should be at 100 percent fort. If a rogue reaches 90 percent without a shield, that's OK!

The false assumption is that 90% is nearly as good as 100%

It is not. 100% prevents damage spikes, less then 100% does not. Why do you think, everyone cares about heavy fortification atm, but nobody cares about the difference between light or moderate fort or about any fort below lv 11 at all ? The step from light to moderate fort prevents double the number of crits than from moderate to heavy - but it is simply irrelevant. Only complete immunity counts.

No, either one is immune to crits or one is not. And as monster damage and to-hit is and will be always set with the tank builds in mind, the monster damage will only go down, when those Kensais with enhancements and proper gear gan't get the immunity. If a proper built S&B fighter would get 95% and a proper built twf-Rogue only 40% it would work. But if one of them could reach 100% without seriously gimping his build and the other one could not, it would not work.

And no, you don't need several crits in a row for killing. It is enough, if one crit with say tripple damage and one or 2 normal hits can kill a character. A char is not always on full health and shouldn't be, as most healers heal, when someone runs low, but not after the first hit when the red bar is near full.

[GoldyGopher]

Having Skimmed the Tread I would like to add some thoughts.

Considering the system was designed when Heavy Fortification was going to be very very rare I agree the system needs at least a number of adjustments to compensate for how common Heavy or 100% Fortification now is.

Fortification matters really to two types of characters, those that get hit a lot and those that get infrequently.

The problem with the current system is that it allows players who get hit in-between amount, neither a lot nor a little, to extremely minimize the characters risks with minimal investment. Or in simple terms it is easier to Min/Max a character because of Heavy Fortification items (cough Minos cough and I guess the new CC pirates hats too).

While I like the basic concepts present by Inkblack I worry that Casters are again going to take it in the shorts due to their low basic HP and now increased vulenrability to damage spikes. Hey I just took 350 points damage on my Sorc thanks to the Crit. To counter this I am guessing a Spell or Two or Four or Nine will need to be added to the game to reduce Casters threat to crits.

[Emili]

The false assumption is that 90% is nearly as good as 100%

It is not. 100% prevents damage spikes, less then 100% does not. Why do you think, everyone cares about heavy fortification atm, but nobody cares about the difference between light or moderate fort or about any fort below lv 11 at all ? The step from light to moderate fort prevents double the number of crits than from moderate to heavy - but it is simply irrelevant. Only complete immunity counts.

No, either one is immune to crits or one is not. And as monster damage and to-hit is and will be always set with the tank builds in mind, the monster damage will only go down, when those Kensais with enhancements and proper gear gan't get the immunity. If a proper built S&B fighter would get 95% and a proper built twf-Rogue only 40% it would work. But if one of them could reach 100% without seriously gimping his build and the other one could not, it would not work.

And no, you don't need several crits in a row for killing. It is enough, if one crit with say tripple damage and one or 2 normal hits can kill a character. A char is not always on full health and shouldn't be, as most healers heal, when someone runs low, but not after the first hit when the red bar is near full.

Actually... I used to regear my kensie to AC tank Horoth, though for a pure kensie that's a very hard thing ... 72 AC is what I would put her in but took lower hp and maintaining saves and of course lowering dps running under CE and shield wands is not an easy PrE on a pure for AC minded compared to DoS or DDS... I gave up on that mode because for those few misses the dps drop was not quite worth it, so stay in dps gear on her most time anymore... differences in gear play a grave part in this game.

[Inkblack]

I agree that fort is just one part of the equation. The AC issue is a huge can of worms. I don't envy the devs that get to tackle that monster.

IMO the risk of breaking the game goes up if they try to tweak to many systems at once. I'd expect them to adjust one area, then another, then another. Maybe spread out over several updates.

[Razcar]

I don't see how power creep is related to a basic game mechanic. Hitting a 300,000 hp boss for 150 per hit in a party of 12 is the same as hitting a 10,000 hp boss for 15 per hit in a party of 4. That's still high, but throwing numbers around really doesn't mean anything when we're talking about a straight-up immunity.

You made a parallel to PnP in regards to Fortification. I said a PnP role playing game has, by necessity, little to do with a computer game, especially an MMO. How crit damage is handled in a PnP game is not how it should be handled in an MMO.

And what do you mean, crits for double? We have no idea what boss crit profiles even look like, because we're all immune to them. You're probably right, but there's an entire section of the game we're entirely immune to past level 11. It's no wonder monsters hit for as much as they do as often as they do - the devs have to do something to make it at least somewhat dangerous, since there's never a chance for spike damage. We have entire strategies based around crits - stunning, holds, heavy picks, khopeshes - and yet none of it applies to us. It's no wonder they changed the autocrit system.

We do know, because it has been tested. People has taken off their Fort to check how much bosses crit for, after the group has made sure to try to keep the "subject" alive. And most bosses' crit for x2. But sure, as you say, this has just been "nice to know"-type of information since only inexperienced players would get crit after mid levels (or people that had gotten their fort item destroyed in quest etc).

I think this entire post is based on the - I beleive - false assumption that everyone should be at 100 percent fort. If a rogue reaches 90 percent without a shield, that's OK!

90% is not OK. You cannot make the choice to stay at 90%, you HAVE to be immune to crits if you want to run end game content. Unless all the damage profiles of all mobs in the game are scrutinized and changed, there won't be an option to "stay" at anything less than 100% Fortification.

I'm sure you have met the player who goes "ding" immediately in part 4/5 of Shroud, and then keeps on dying. And when you MyDDO him, 9 out of 10 times he will not have 100% Fort. And that is in easy content that's been around for years. Imagine players without 100% Fort in Amrath, ToD - even on normal, and in Epics.

[Emili]

I agree that fort is just one part of the equation. The AC issue is a huge can of worms. I don't envy the devs that get to tackle that monster.

IMO the risk of breaking the game goes up if they try to tweak to many systems at once. I'd expect them to adjust one area, then another, then another. Maybe spread out over several updates.

That was my point to Eladrin... I am sure he got chewed up big time in testing his idea of to-hit over AC reducing fort. I mean lets face it ... lets say is an elite ToD and maybe even an AC based tank on Horoth ... blasphemyx5 no more mantles if a cleric were using one another blasphemy and stuned cleric followed by a disintigrate on the tank and badges take him out... Horoth loose and no more ac among them becomes more than a handful ... recovery at that point is far from controlable due all eggs in one basket. While I understand and really wish for such thing as criticals to occur in end-game ... I also realize fort is not entirely the issue. Anyone who's played both AC based tanking toons and a non-AC toon realize this.

One of the prime scopes right now more important are the U9 changes and hate tanking ... much the current mechanisms under U9 seem to indicate only the epicly geared hate tank is going to be able to control agro well enough and I can see many of the DDS respecing kensie though DoS is in pretty good shape.

[donfilibuster]

Well Seph, I appreciate the conversation, and I agree with your sentiments, but I have to disagree with the conclusion that reducing fort will make the game more fun, I also stand by my original point that DDO just isn't one of those hard core games that really needs that type of "risk".

this.

Having more challenge is indeed more fun, but there's more ways to try get it than tweaking what is there.
Dev time shouln't be a factor in this, an easy fix is not always the best choice.

Tweaking some stat option is what i call a vertical change, since it is adjusted up and down.
An horizontal change will be one that works across stat options that rely on types, like weapons.
e.g. can be giving fort tweaks to one of slash, pierce or bludgeon.
The rock/paper/scissor systems often found in videogames also fall in this category.

An horizontal change may be more challenge, customization fodder and fun to manage in battle.
Ideas may vary but something like the armor vs. weapons chart of 2e would work for fort.
With flat fort bonus for armor you say armor provide protection vs. hits to vital areas.
With fort bonus vs. damage types it makes more sense as armor was designed to protect from certain weapons.

[sirgog]

unfortunately the main use of fort is not to prevent damage (crit damage is only a minor contrubion as most enemies have low crit profiles). It is to prevent damage spikes.

Without 100% you will still have those. The difference between 95% and 50% is quite irrelevant.

These damage spikes are less than people believe, in general. In Part 4 Shroud Normal, Harry hits for something like 8d8+16 (claw) and 8d8+24 (bite) and crits for 16d8+32 or 16d8+48. Normal Suulo is about the same.

16d8+48 might sound like a lot, but it's only ~120 damage. Most players take more than 120 damage from his Meteor Swarms even with four successful saves.


Even Elite Horoth crits for 32d10+54 (bite, 32d10+36 claw crits) - a lot of damage, but less on average than you suffer rolling a 1 against his Delayed Blast Fireball. This isn't World of Warcraft where a raid boss critical hit is instant-death; and actually even WoW has moved away from that now (Edit: Can't find the classic old video of a WoW tank with 539 defense rating, equal to 99.8% fortification, getting one-shot by Sartharion, one of the easiest raid bosses in that game's last expansion)



In Epics, I occasionally remove my epic Claw bracers (my only source of fortification other than the WF racial 25%) and put Bracers of the Glacier on in their place. Halving incoming fire damage reduces damage spikes more than fortification does.

[wonkey]

I've stated that I like the idea, but I would make one change, at least.
I don't think heavy fort and heavy addy armor alone should be able to net 100% fort. I think that heavy armor wearers, like everyone else, should have to make some additional sacrifice if they don't want to use a shield. Heavy armor already means that they can't use evasion (splash build) or switch out robes on the fly, so I like the idea of a good fort boost, but not enough to reach 100% with one additional item. I'd put the max at around 90%, requiring a feat, enhanecment, or shield, if they want the full 100%.

Other comments I wanted to make:

There have been two contradictory statements (or at least strong implication) made about rogues, explaining why they would be the most disadvantaged by requiring a shield if they didn't want to spend a feat or AP.
1. They will beat the agro curve on a fairly regular basis so that there's a real chance of fort slightly less than 100% mattering in a non-negligible manner.
2. They don't need to worry about beating the agro curve swinging away full-speed with two weapons b/c there are enough ways to stay behind the curve already.

If rogues have to worry about drawing agro, that means that they have less disadvantage having to use a shield, because it will ensure they stay behind the curve, and maintain sneak attack longer, and vice versa.

This, in general, is relevant. Those who wear heavy armor are also likely the guys getting hit the most. If they have somewhat higher fort, that makes sense, in a world where not everyone is walking around with 100% fort, and just means that the amount of times each character gets critted will be more even. Even taking that into account, if everyone is less than 100% fort, the heavy armor wearers will STILL probably get critted more often (net amount), so the higher hp coupled with better fort also makes sense.

Also, I do not think that every character would be carrying around a shield for 100% fort, if that were a requirement to reach 100% fort (and otherwise they still have a not too bad fort) without heavy feat or AP expenditure. That's a big price in DPS, and you'd get some who would, and some who wouldn't. I think this would make things more interesting.

I also don't see this as a nerf to healers. That's only true if ANYthing that makes the game a bit harder is a nerf to healers. And, if so, too bad imo. Just because healers actually tend to focus on the group more than some other classes, making things any harder for the group as a whole is not nerfing the healers. In truth, everyone should be focussed on the group dynamic, so its an equal nerf all around.

So, I agree with the OPs idea, but I'd make it a bit harder to reach 100% fort, and reduce the effect of heavy armor a bit (and maybe up the contribution of a shield, because its got more of a cost than wearing heavy armor).
But, like the OP, I'd leave some avenue for any toon to reach 100% fort with investment, if they so choose.

EDIT: One last thing. The idea that anything less than 100% fort is equivalent is ludicrous, in my eyes. If you have 6 melees getting hit, and they have 0% fort, you'll be getting a lot more damage spikes, sometimes on multiple toons. THAT could very easily overwhelm the healers, and you'll be getting a lot of *DING*s. With the same 6 melees with 90% fort, you'll be getting spikes once in a blue moon (1/10 of the time, anyway) and almost never on the multiple characters, which will make spot healing the spike much, much easier.
If everyone dumps fort, sure, healers are gonna have a real rough time of it. But if everyone is fairly high, with those getting hit a lot VERY high, then, to me, that's not such an issue.

And, rumor mill notwithstanding, its a good idea, regardless of whether the devs were considering something like this anyway.

[phalaeo]

I hate the rumour mill.