Stop rewarding mediocrity

[ZzpxpzZ]

You are all missing the real purpose of the changes to hit and AC, and it has nothing to do with skilled or unskilled players.

The new system supports many more builds than the old system does.

The amount of pure tanks out there is so small that I find it hard to believe turbine cares, and nor should they, about the difference between the players who wish they were tanks but dont know how to build them and those who truely are geared and built properly as an AC tank today on live.

The new system means you dont have to invest 100% into AC to get usable end game AC. In the current game system AC is worthless at end game for the vast majority of character builds, REGARDLESS of their skill. No matter how you look at it, that is not a good design. PnP was never intended to have players running around at level 20 in full +14 equipment.

The absolute greatest thing about DDO is the versatility available in character builds, and this change increases the depth of the vast majority of possible character builds while slightly harming some very few builds.

Is this the best possible solution to the problem? Probably not, at least I think a better system would be making the mitigation curve linear in regards to time to live (e.g. The same amount of AC it would take to go from 0% to 10% avoidance would be the same as from 50% to 55% resulting in AC always reducing the same percentage of incoming hits at all times) regardless, whether it is the ideal choice, it is still much better than the current system in live.

You don't have to be a bad player to not want to play a full AC tank yet still wish AC could actually mean SOMETHING.

[Stillwaters]

The new system means you dont have to invest 100% into AC to get usable end game AC. In the current game system AC is worthless at end game for the vast majority of character builds, REGARDLESS of their skill. No matter how you look at it, that is not a good design. PnP was never intended to have players running around at level 20 in full +14 equipment..

It is NOT just the AC, which could have been made better with alternate systems.
These changes affect to-hit too. Due to their new relationship you cannot have one part,
"AC" without the other,
"to-hit" getting diminishing returns

at 50AC a +1 "to-hit" point is 1% (x)/100 where "x" is your tohit+10.5
at 25AC its only 2% (x)/50 or (2x)/100 <-not 5% as on live where it was sometimes noticable
at 10AC it is 5% (x)/20 or (5x)/100

anything over 50 ac, +1 to-hit is under 1% change (rounding hides this a lot early on)
anything over 100 ac, +1 to-hit is under .5% change


so our buffs or debuffs (relating to to-hit or AC) all become less useful in endgame.. sometimes a +5 planetouched Tower shield (17AC) will mean only +5% gain in defense, for near 50% drop in offense.

Tactics buffs like improved sunder and sunder, unbalancing, blinding, cursepewing or destruction weapons, become unnoticeable for melee..
yet casters will still receive full benefits from imp sunder, curse, neg levels helping spell DCs...
This is not an attack on casters, i like that caster buffs/debuffs still work
Yet this system DOES rob the melee of buffs/debuffs!

Showing the difference between AC and tohit (changed) vs SpellDCs/Saves (unchanged)

Stillwaters

[Urist]

Grinding out AC gear rewarded those that invested in it. The rewards got nerfed. As did the rewards for "to-hit" which strangely you ignore.

I ignore to-hit, and try to avoid discussing actual numbers in general, because I'm still a bit fuzzy and undecided on the exact implementation. I do feel that something had to be done about to-hit/AC though, so I argue my views on such.

Those that think the new system is better have their heads firmly planted in their own...sand. They will still be hit more often than the ac grinders, yet if they now CHOOSE to invest more they will be rewarded less, and will never see the mitigation levels they covet on live.

Those who choose to invest will be rewarded more than those who choose not to invest.
Whereas, in the current system, at high levels at least, those who choose to invest anything less than 100% will see little to no reward over those who choose not to invest at all.
Personally, I would prefer the former situation.

The only people to actually lose out, AFAICT, are those who have already invested in the nigh-unhittable AC build gear. Yet they have likely already gained the benefits of their investment though making use of it in game. One cannot reasonably expect for anything to last forever, so make good use of it while you have it.
I do have some sympathy for those who only just got their AC gear, but news and rumour about the AC change has floated around for a while, and anyone who still grinds out AC gear would be doing so at their own risk.

+1 to-hit that was worth 5%, is now nerfed.

This argument is either naive or rather disingenuous - a +1 to-hit is with worth either 5% or absolutely nothing, depending on the circumstance. Did it never strike you as a little silly, that the to-hits on top melee builds were so high, that a -5 (25%!) penalty from power attack makes absolutely no difference?
Personally, I prefer a system where every bonus and penalty makes a difference.

I agree that many of the current bonuses become fairly meaningless in the new system, but surely that isn't an argument against the new system per se, just an argument that some of the parameters need to be more closely considered?
I am certainly not convinced that the suggested probability curves (the last time I read the details) for to-hit/AC are ideal.

In endgame the steep curve requires greater steps to achieve the same thing,
meaning new items need to become much greater to even bother switching to.
The +20attack or +100AC items you see on other MMOs would be required to advance noticeably.

You're assuming that there is intention for AC and to-hit to "advance noticeably" at endgame. If both AC and to-hit advancement slow so greatly at the high end, you shouldn't need large increments at endgame.
Personally, I would prefer more advanced gear to provide more options rather than just more raw power.

ALTERNATIVES:
They could leave the new armors, PRR and Dodge systems in place,
and just NOT change the AC to to-hit relationship,
and have a system that rewards everyone based on investment.

I suspect that would just make the current disparity even worse. Those super-AC toons will still be super-AC, but have dodge (and possibly PRR) on top? Sure, everyone else can enjoy their new PRR and dodge, but who do you then balance mobs' to-hit and damage against?

They could install consecutive penalties on mob attack strings,
widening the range of useful ac so that those that invest a little are rewarded little,
those that invest a lot but haven't ground out the "best" gear yet would be rewarded a lot.

Interesting, but I'm skeptical that the penalties could be implemented extreme enough to make a difference, and not be ridiculous given the disparity between moderately armoured (dex-filled full-plate?), and full-on AC tank?

They could nerf the way the bonuses stack together, reduce mobs to hits to heck,
and have a system that "kicks-in" earlier. <- I would even prefer this over the proposed changes

FWIW, this is what I would have chosen to do.
You'd have two ACs - armour and dex, which did not stack, could either (or both) be negated by certain effects, and there'd be only like 3 different stacking bonuses you could get to either.
And then I'd nerf stacking attribute bonuses.
But then I'm not afraid of DOooOM.

Saying there was not any better alternatives other than nerfing everything, is an insult to your own intellect, and to any that see through strawman hyperbole.

I'm flattered by your faith in my intellect, but I really don't see any feasible way to make some investment more worthwhile than none whatsoever, without making some people feel they're being nerfed. Some hyperbole on my part, admittedly, but there's always someone who feels they're getting nerfed...


TL;DR:
Arguing on the internet.

[jejeba86]

Eerrrrr... just so you know... put it in red

Combat

Armor Class curves have been adjusted and rebalanced to better scale with high level and Epic level content, and to be more meaningful at lower levels:
The amount of Armor Class provided by various items, character abilities, spells, etc has been updated to be in line with these changes. Monsters also received adjustments to their armor classes to be in line with the changes.

[razmataz_2000]

snip*
Interesting, but I'm skeptical that the penalties could be implemented extreme enough to make a difference, and not be ridiculous given the disparity between moderately armoured (dex-filled full-plate?), and full-on AC tank?
*snip*
Arguing on the internet.

/agree

Perhaps if the tohit and ac range of mobs is not a universal d1000 then top tier AC can have meaning in older environments? Inherently the greater the range, the less value a +1 to either is.

It would be a little silly for .5cr korthos cultist to hit a reasonably AC'd PC *ever*(glancing blows are ok?) after a certain AC amount...

If they are swinging scythes of doom and beating down level 25 characters like suulo does we've got a problem.

If it were up to me (glad its not) I'd want the AC range for specific-level content to be as compressed as possible for newlifers on Normal and TRs on Hard and while it probably would not be d20 due to the vast differences in builds, it would not be a 2/3ds chance to get hit for everyone all the time.

[DethTrip]

By "hard work and using my brain", do you actually mean "grinding out AC gear"? Because that's the only thing that's rewarded in the current AC situation, AFAICT.

I do mean grinding out gear. That is hard work. Using your brain to build a character to have specific advantages and grinding out gear should be rewarded.

[maximadan]

So OP says that adding +5 to attack doesn't change anything

but in other threads everybody complained that losing 5 to take power attack feat is not worth it

so +5 is still worth it

and some people doesn't like to grind past lifes

i like my toons at 1-3 life maximum

so should i be punished and cannot compete with multi-Tr?

[Archangel666]

So OP says that adding +5 to attack doesn't change anything

but in other threads everybody complained that losing 5 to take power attack feat is not worth it

so +5 is still worth it

and some people doesn't like to grind past lifes

i like my toons at 1-3 life maximum

so should i be punished and cannot compete with multi-Tr?

Bob and Joe both do the same job in the same company.

They both work the same hours and receive the same pay.

Their manager offers them both overtime.

Bob says 'Sure', Joe says 'No thanks'.

Is Joe now being punished by receiving less pay than Bob?

[Khatzhas]

and some people doesn't like to grind past lifes

i like my toons at 1-3 life maximum

so should i be punished and cannot compete with multi-Tr?

You're not being punished, you're just choosing not to do extra work for extra reward.

Its a cost/benefit decision. You have decided that the cost (extra time spent playing in a way you find less enjoyable) is not worth the benefit (slightly better performance).
There is nothing wrong with choosing either way on that decision: everyone enjoys different aspects of the game.

Its only a "punishment" if you view that having max performance is a right, as opposed to a priviledge you have to work for.

[DrakHar]

So OP says that adding +5 to attack doesn't change anything

but in other threads everybody complained that losing 5 to take power attack feat is not worth it

so +5 is still worth it

and some people doesn't like to grind past lifes

i like my toons at 1-3 life maximum

so should i be punished and cannot compete with multi-Tr?

Somehow it makes sense to you that completing a fighter past life for a bonus to hit shouldn't be worth anything because you don't have the time or desire or both to do it?

[Dandonk]

You are all missing the real purpose of the changes to hit and AC, and it has nothing to do with skilled or unskilled players.

The new system supports many more builds than the old system does.

"Supports"? Perhaps, if supports means nerf everyone that gets their to hit high, and make everyone and their hamster able to hit, no matter if they're 6 str halfling wizards that're cursed, slowed and using a masterwork weapon. More or less, anyway.

It only supports more builds in the sense that there's now no point to build or gear for meleeing, so put your points where you please - it doesn't matter anyway.

Build choices should be about tradeoffs. There are no tradeoffs worth mentioning in the proposed abomination of a non-d20 system. Ditch your to hit and get moar hp, or saves, or skills or whatever - and you still hit so near as well as the character build for to hit that it doesn't matter.

The amount of pure tanks out there is so small that I find it hard to believe turbine cares, and nor should they, about the difference between the players who wish they were tanks but dont know how to build them and those who truely are geared and built properly as an AC tank today on live.

The new system means you dont have to invest 100% into AC to get usable end game AC. In the current game system AC is worthless at end game for the vast majority of character builds, REGARDLESS of their skill. No matter how you look at it, that is not a good design. PnP was never intended to have players running around at level 20 in full +14 equipment.

I applaud the idea stated about the new system, namely getting more AC ranges to be useful. It's great! But I do not agree this is the way to go.

First off, it breaks totally with the d20 heritage of the game.

Second, it messes with to hit, as mentioned above.

Third, it again devalues build choices to a silly degree. No point in building for AC either, just slap on the best armor you find and hey presto, you're a tank.
While I think that the tank-building and gearing should be easier, it should still involve tradeoffs. This new system doesn't to any noticeable degree, IMO.

Using the combat sequence penalties to lower monster to hit on some attacks would widen useful AC range, while keeping d20 heritage, not messing with to hit, and still making AC enough of a build choice that you don't just get it for free on just about any toon you want (except monks, for some reason).

The absolute greatest thing about DDO is the versatility available in character builds, and this change increases the depth of the vast majority of possible character builds while slightly harming some very few builds.

It hurts builds choice, it does not help it. It makes build choices valueless, and makes for bland game experience when one character performs much the same as another, no matter the build and gear.

Is this the best possible solution to the problem? Probably not, at least I think a better system would be making the mitigation curve linear in regards to time to live (e.g. The same amount of AC it would take to go from 0% to 10% avoidance would be the same as from 50% to 55% resulting in AC always reducing the same percentage of incoming hits at all times) regardless, whether it is the ideal choice, it is still much better than the current system in live.

You don't have to be a bad player to not want to play a full AC tank yet still wish AC could actually mean SOMETHING.

It's not the best possible solution. It's not even a good one. It hurts the identity of the game, it hurts melees building for hitting stuff, it blands the game experience, it lessens rewards of builds and gear to the point that you can say why bother.

Did we need a change? Yes, epic AC was broken. High level AC was unkind to newer players, but not generally broken before epics.
Instead of fixing the high level problems Turbine decided to change the entire basis of the game's combat, with (I devoutly hope) unforeseen consequences. I hope it's unforeseen. If not... *shudders*

[rincemeister]

"Supports"? Perhaps, if supports means nerf everyone that gets their to hit high, and make everyone and their hamster able to hit, no matter if they're 6 str halfling wizards that're cursed, slowed and using a masterwork weapon. More or less, anyway.

It only supports more builds in the sense that there's now no point to build or gear for meleeing, so put your points where you please - it doesn't matter anyway.

Build choices should be about tradeoffs. There are no tradeoffs worth mentioning in the proposed abomination of a non-d20 system. Ditch your to hit and get moar hp, or saves, or skills or whatever - and you still hit so near as well as the character build for to hit that it doesn't matter.



I applaud the idea stated about the new system, namely getting more AC ranges to be useful. It's great! But I do not agree this is the way to go.

First off, it breaks totally with the d20 heritage of the game.

Second, it messes with to hit, as mentioned above.

Third, it again devalues build choices to a silly degree. No point in building for AC either, just slap on the best armor you find and hey presto, you're a tank.
While I think that the tank-building and gearing should be easier, it should still involve tradeoffs. This new system doesn't to any noticeable degree, IMO.

Using the combat sequence penalties to lower monster to hit on some attacks would widen useful AC range, while keeping d20 heritage, not messing with to hit, and still making AC enough of a build choice that you don't just get it for free on just about any toon you want (except monks, for some reason).



It hurts builds choice, it does not help it. It makes build choices valueless, and makes for bland game experience when one character performs much the same as another, no matter the build and gear.




It's not the best possible solution. It's not even a good one. It hurts the identity of the game, it hurts melees building for hitting stuff, it blands the game experience, it lessens rewards of builds and gear to the point that you can say why bother.

Did we need a change? Yes, epic AC was broken. High level AC was unkind to newer players, but not generally broken before epics.
Instead of fixing the high level problems Turbine decided to change the entire basis of the game's combat, with (I devoutly hope) unforeseen consequences. I hope it's unforeseen. If not... *shudders*

I agree completely. Change was needed, but the cure appears to be worse than the disease.

[MRMechMan]

I agree completely. Change was needed, but the cure appears to be worse than the disease.

The more I think about it, the better the pnp version looks....+25/+20/+15/+10 attacks, etc....instead of +25/+25/+30/+35 or only +25.

That way to-hit still matters. AC is viable more often. It still uses d20. It rewards those with high AC/to-hit without making it necessary to get within the very small window that can be d20 at endgame.

It's perfect, and I really wonder why it was never implemented in the first place.

Certainly far better than this d100 abomination that is being planned.

[alexp80]

Personally, I think the to hit/ac changes are good for the game.

It was a nonsense that some toons could be hit only on 20. Just broken mechanic.

Maybe the bell curve of ac/to hit has to be tuned, but overall I don't see a nerf, because who has the highest ac will be hit less then the others.

[alexp80]

The more I think about it, the better the pnp version looks....+25/+20/+15/+10 attacks, etc....instead of +25/+25/+30/+35 or only +25.

That way to-hit still matters. AC is viable more often. It still uses d20. It rewards those with high AC/to-hit without making it necessary to get within the very small window that can be d20 at endgame.

It's perfect, and I really wonder why it was never implemented in the first place.

Certainly far better than this d100 abomination that is being planned.

because this streak of bonus has 2 big flaws (round based combat works differently in pnp).
1) best attacks at start just make people to want to break the chain.
2) they want to give a decent chance to land at least 1 blow per chain to anyone

[knockcocker]

The more I think about it, the better the pnp version looks....+25/+20/+15/+10 attacks, etc....instead of +25/+25/+30/+35 or only +25.

That way to-hit still matters. AC is viable more often. It still uses d20. It rewards those with high AC/to-hit without making it necessary to get within the very small window that can be d20 at endgame.

It's perfect, and I really wonder why it was never implemented in the first place.

Certainly far better than this d100 abomination that is being planned.

This. This is how D&D fixes this problem, granting 'extra' attacks but at a lower attack bonus.

[Dandonk]

because this streak of bonus has 2 big flaws (round based combat works differently in pnp).
1) best attacks at start just make people to want to break the chain.
2) they want to give a decent chance to land at least 1 blow per chain to anyone

Make it apply to mobs only, and independent of moving or not. This makes the first point moot.

Why should ANYONE, even a 6 str wizard, be able to land a blow regularly on a high level raid boss? This makes no sense to me.

[LightBear]

Make it apply to mobs only, and independent of moving or not. This makes the first point moot.

Why should ANYONE, even a 6 str wizard, be able to land a blow regularly on a high level raid boss? This makes no sense to me.

Because you rolled a 20. It's the same as rolling a 1 that always means a failure.

[GeneralDiomedes]

because this streak of bonus has 2 big flaws (round based combat works differently in pnp).
1) best attacks at start just make people to want to break the chain.

So don't make the chain breakable. Say any attack within a certain amount of time counts as part of the chain.

[donblas]

Because you rolled a 20. It's the same as rolling a 1 that always means a failure.

I don't think they need a 20 anymore.