Is this right - AC/To-Hit?

[Veriden]

Seriously? How we calculate the chance to miss is what makes our combat system good?

I always thought it was the active nature of it.

Seriously, the coolest part of how combat worked for ddo is BECAUSE how close it resembled table top dnd. It is PURPOSEFULLY simple. d20 + attacking stat + base attack bonus + weapon +feats = your bonus to hit, simple. No need to go around changing the whole system. What we have on live now...it works. What you are doing to it does not, you are nerfing every single melee. Melee are supposed to aim to be able to hit 95% of the time due to the fact that the monsters have 10x + more hp than they're capable of getting. There are many good things in the expansion but the combat pass...the nerfs to melee...save them for a completely different game. What isn't broken doesn't need to be fixed. I have my own opinion of what should happen to the person who thought 'oh hey lets change the entire combat system.' These thoughts involve crowbars, chickens pecking out their eyes, and fire...lots of it.

[Skeald]

I know this ahs all been said before but i thik it needs to be reiterated here, somthing is very seriouly flawed with thsi formula and the NEW coimbat system in general. So lets take a look at some numbers.

Using this formula, Player’s chance to hit (if proficient in weapon): (Player’s Attack Bonus + 10.5) / (Target’s Armor Class * 2) + 25%, rounded to nearest 5%, we will see the following results.

Kensi half-orc fighter with decent first/second life stats and equipment, as well as the required feats for kensi fighter and the PrE enhancements applied. Yes I know that other buffs and enhancements are out their, but I am looking at a basic shiny new character, not a veteran fully twinked out character.

BAB = 20

39 strength (+19) = 18 + 5 (level ups) + 2 (+2 tome) +3 (fighter strength enhancements) + 2 (half orc strength enhancements) + 6 (item) + 8 (power surge) = 39

Weapon focus = +1
Greater weapon focus = +1
Superior weapon focus = +1
Kensi weapon enhancement I = +1
Kensi weapon enhancement II = +1
Power attack = -5
Weapon enhancement modifier = +5
+4 attack (cannith crafted) = +4
Total modifier = +9

Basic to hit on current Live = 48 (or 53 w/o power attack)

With the current information on Beta this fighter will hit an average giant hold mob (AC=40) 95 percent of the time with power attack on.
But now if we remove the 3 required feats, kensi weapon enhancements, and power surge this now plain-Jane vanilla fighter will hit an average giant hold mob (AC=40) 85 percent of the time.

This example above illustrates my major gripe with the new changes – why should I invest in a PrE (kensi in this case) that gives me a +9 to-hit potential and it has no real effect.

Now if we look at this character (wizard 20 out of spell points)

BAB = 10

18 strength (+4) = 10 + (+2 tome) + 6 (item)

Basic to hit on current live = 14

With the current information on Beta this character will hit an average giant hold mob (AC=40) 55 percent of the time.

Now if we look at these same characters against a high AC epic mob (AC=69) we will see the following numbers

Fighter Kensi hitting 65 percent of the time (with power attack on)
Fighter Kensi hitting 70 percent of the time (with power attack off)
Vanilla fighter hitting 60 percent of the time (with power attack on)
Vanilla fighter hitting 65 percent of the time (with power attack off)
Wizard hitting 45 percent of the time

Now if we take this same situation and add greater heroism (+4 to hit) and improved destruction (-8 to targets AC) will net these numbers.

Fighter Kensi hitting 75 percent of the time (with power attack on)
Fighter Kensi hitting 80 percent of the time (with power attack off)
Vanilla fighter hitting 70 percent of the time (with power attack on)
Vanilla fighter hitting 75 percent of the time (with power attack off)
Wizard hitting 50 percent of the time

I for one see something terribly wrong with these numbers. With a ZERO investment in to hit we can hit half the time, and with a much greater investment to hit we can hit 75 to 80 percent of the time.

[dunklezhan]

I like this much better.

AC is bypassed directly by to-hit + d20.
Any AC not bypassed is added to PRR.
Dodge provides %-chance to avoid attack.

Actually, I love the idea of this (though if keeping a d20 in there for to hit at all, I'd want a 1 to still be an automiss and a 20 to still be an autohit with chance to crit).

AC would never cause an outright 'miss' but someone in full plate with maxed out dex bonuses and a shield would be getting up to that armour value in straight out PPR (what, roughly 30 AC, so 30% PPR if the attacker rolls too low?) minus the attack roll of the person or mob trying to hit them, provided it was within 20 of the target AC (to a minimum of +0 armour PPR, not additional PPR reduction from other PPR sources, and the base scaling PPR you get from your class bonuses should always count). Beating the AC at all would mean that the defender would gain no PPR directly from their armour.

A large (don't ask me how large, I don't know!) proportion of the playerbase would see no difference in how often they get hit (i.e. 95% of the time) but now their armour would occasionally count for a reduction in damage. Everyone would see that they more or less hit 95% of the time, but lots of those people would see a significant proportion of the damage they deal as a result being mitigated. The Massively High AC types would suffer because they would now not be avoiding damage - but they'd still see everything but a 20 do reduced damage - in some cases significantly reduced damage. The Massively High To Hit types would see that their damage output is not being reduced because they are still simply exceeding the target's AC.

Dodge and concealment or actually moving out of range become your only 'avoid' mitigation.

Y'know, I could certainly live with those outcomes.



Anyway. Futile for now, there's no way they can change anything that fundamental at this stage. I'm happy enough to wait and see just how much of a disaster this is (my prediction: it actually won't be, and overall the game experience for the majority of players will visibly benefit. Seriously, that is what I think).

I will say though that I very much dislike the +25% bonus given to PCs for being proficient. Surely it should be a minus 25% for not being proficient? Mostly though what I hate is the fact that only players get this benefit - you're telling me none of the monsters are proficient in those weapons they carry? That's... careless of them. Particularly the fighter types...

I think the 25% should be swapped to a penalty for being non-proficient. A wizard should not be picking up a greataxe without a proficiency and effectively be just as good at hitting with it as a monster wizard with a sceptre. Especially when it's not a 'monstrous' monster and is an actual honest to goodness player race monster.

What would that do to the 'to hit' curve? I've no idea, maths is a foreign language to me - but the playing field would be reasonably level, as it should be in DnD. I've never played a table top RPG where there was a different set of rules for how the opposition carried out combat. It's ungood. It's not doubleplus ungood, but it is ungood all the same.


Also, I'd like to add my voice to those saying I simply don't like the maths involved in the new system. I want to be able to tell at a glance how much a given piece of gear will benefit me. I don't want to have to equip a potentially BTCoE item just to be able to work it out.

[Masadique]

Seriously, the coolest part of how combat worked for ddo is BECAUSE how close it resembled table top dnd. It is PURPOSEFULLY simple. d20 + attacking stat + base attack bonus + weapon +feats = your bonus to hit, simple. No need to go around changing the whole system. What we have on live now...it works. What you are doing to it does not, you are nerfing every single melee. Melee are supposed to aim to be able to hit 95% of the time due to the fact that the monsters have 10x + more hp than they're capable of getting. There are many good things in the expansion but the combat pass...the nerfs to melee...save them for a completely different game. What isn't broken doesn't need to be fixed. I have my own opinion of what should happen to the person who thought 'oh hey lets change the entire combat system.' These thoughts involve crowbars, chickens pecking out their eyes, and fire...lots of it.

Pst, table top DnD is no longer going to use that system. To an extent, yes they will still use the d20 and stats, but they are making moves to equalize things so that +10 is the high end to hit and HP is the number that scales, with damage obviously, instead of to hit - from what I understand thus far. This information has been gathered from playtesting the new system and reading up on their plans for the new DnD. So, as you level in the new DnD, you will do more damage while monsters gain more HP to keep up. You will hit the same amount throughout the levels, minor fluctuations based on gear and other factors obviously.

Just thought you all should know, DnD is an always changing beast. Let's not even get started on house rules/Unearthed Arcana.

V

[BruceTheHoon]

My only concern about % to hit bonuses is that you get too many of them meaning bab and other things just get completely useless. Somebody already brought up the 10 str cleric with a +5 weapon issue more % to hit bonuses and this gets worse.

I can see that. Looks like I've written my post in a more egocentric light, than I would have liked. Since the cleric in question is as basic an example as they get, I can only assume, that that was the intention behind the changes. The only other major change is the reduced chance of to-hit on the higher end of the curve. Too bad, that nobody from Turbine ever gave a list of goals that the to-hit change is hoping to address (looking at You Eladrin). They gave it for AC, but not for to-hit.

Thinking aloud here:
The nature of the changes is such, that we actually still have a linear increase in to-hit chance for any given monster. Unfortunately, the slope of the line gets more horizontal with increasing monster's AC. this leads to all players using less and less probability real-estate on the d20 (or d100) die and devaluing the raw bonuses. But it's not the static % bonuses, that I find problematic here. It's the steepness of the slope that's congregating the different characters' to-hit chances.

(Ab+10.5)/(2*Ac)+0.25 = Ab/(2*Ac)+(10.5/(2*Ac)+0.25)

The factor 1/(2*Ac) determines, how effective any raw buff is. From this, it looks like changing static +25% for proficiency into decrease of the 2* factor would at the same time remove the degenerate case of the cleric and result in more meaningful bonuses at higher monster AC.

[Veriden]

Pst, table top DnD is no longer going to use that system. To an extent, yes they will still use the d20 and stats, but they are making moves to equalize things so that +10 is the high end to hit and HP is the number that scales, with damage obviously, instead of to hit - from what I understand thus far. This information has been gathered from playtesting the new system and reading up on their plans for the new DnD. So, as you level in the new DnD, you will do more damage while monsters gain more HP to keep up. You will hit the same amount throughout the levels, minor fluctuations based on gear and other factors obviously.

Just thought you all should know, DnD is an always changing beast. Let's not even get started on house rules/Unearthed Arcana.


V

Thats oncoming dnd, dnd died in my (and many other's) eyes. When they released 4th edition. DDO was using 3.5 rules thus why my post is the way it is, I don't what they're doing in 5th edition dnd b/c when I play table top our dm uses 3.5 rules and refuses to go any higher with out complaint of his players. The system works, no need to change it. Sure thats fine if people enjoy dnd but ever-changing as it may be...it ages and dies like all things.

[Eladiun]

If we removed the rounding to 5% for players, then every individual +1/-1 to hit and AC would have an effect on player damage output, but then we'd lose the direct tie to the d20, which we're loathe to do. It's quite possible for us to do this, if there's enough call for it. We thought that keeping the d20 with this known behavior was preferable - let us know if we're wrong.

Honestly, I have always felt that to move the game forward you would eventually have to leave d20 behind. It simple scales poorly when you have the level of power creep we do.

However, this concept of evening out the playing field so low to hit players can be just as good as high to hit players is goes against the entire concept of MMO's. Unfortunately, over the last year you have release features that drive players to treat Elite as the only difficulty which is fundamentally flawed. You should really reevaluate the entire concept of breaking a streak as this creates a large portion of the divide. In every MMO, there is the concept of progression; gear progression, character progression. It's a fairly basic concept. It's true in RL life as well you don't graduate college and get hired as a VP. Trying to build a system where someone can level to 20 and be equal with someone who has multiple lives and is fully geared is an exercise in futility. You will please no one. A better solution is to make progression through outdated content easier so a new player can catch up rather than always being behind with little chance of evening the divide. Loot drops from outdated content should be increased; end rewards on 10 rather than 20. Rather than creating artificial mechanics to punish those at the top of the curve and reward those at the bottom; improve the speed and the process of progression so new players don't feel frustrated and left behind and those who have invested a great deal in their characters don't feel as though all their effort is wasted. If there is no tangible benefit from progression then what is the incentive to progress.

[Cyr]

A better solution is to make progression through outdated content easier so a new player can catch up rather than always being behind with little chance of evening the divide. Loot drops from outdated content should be increased; end rewards on 10 rather than 20. Rather than creating artificial mechanics to punish those at the top of the curve and reward those at the bottom; improve the speed and the process of progression so new players don't feel frustrated and left behind and those who have invested a great deal in their characters don't feel as though all their effort is wasted. If there is no tangible benefit from progression then what is the incentive to progress.

Well said.

The rate of progression is the criteria that should be targetted here.

Everyone can improve their toons in DDO if they bother to do so. No one should be watching their toon go from good to gimp or great to just okay...nor should they be experiencing the opposite from developer changes to the game.

Sadly the system team has made this how you get better in the game though. You wait until they change something and pick the new uber. That is much more potent then sticking with your build and grinding out gear and such not.

[Moltier]

Welcome to a combat change thread. Its been a long time i saw a dev here...

I have to disagree with this as well.

While an individual +1 or -1 to hit or Armor Class (on monsters) may not have an effect in a specific encounter due to the rounding to maintain the d20 for players, overall, debuffing, to-hit, various tactics, and buffing have a significant effect over the entirety of the dungeon.

And i have to disagree with you as well.
Here is your new GH attack bonus:
+4 means like 2-4% extra dps. Lets say 3%. A buff like that will make a constant 10minute bossfight 18sec faster. Bravo. Thats far from significant.

For a particular attack, +1 to hit may or may not move you into the next 5% band. Against a different monster in the dungeon, or under slightly different circumstances (you moved into flanking for an additional +2), it might. Taking the entire quest into account, the +1 will make the difference occasionally, increasing your overall damage output.

So for 1 mob it will be 5%. Then for the next 4 it will be 0%. Avarage: 1%
Or 1 player will gain 5%, 4 will gain 0%. Avarage: 1%
Back to where we were: waste of time.
We would be better spending thoes SP on extra dots...

Many of these bonuses and debuffs are less critical than before, when some characters would be unable to contribute to a fight at all without them, but together they should provide tangible benefits to the damage output of the party as a whole. There's also an interesting twist where AC debuffs (and buffs) are slightly more powerful in general than to-hit.

Yes. Now a lvl1 wizard with -5 to hit could hit epic bosses often.
Those who couldnt hit before, were absolutly gearless, or refused to turn off PA (or the mix of these). Buffs were usefull to make melees hit on a 2, and they needed it badly, coz casters are so far ahead in damage output. Now melees will hit less often with all the buffs.

Half of the debuffs are completly waste of time. -4 to hit on a boss? Nope, not anymore.

If we removed the rounding to 5% for players, then every individual +1/-1 to hit and AC would have an effect on player damage output, but then we'd lose the direct tie to the d20, which we're loathe to do. It's quite possible for us to do this, if there's enough call for it. We thought that keeping the d20 with this known behavior was preferable - let us know if we're wrong.

The new system already killed it. No reason to keep the illusion.
While we are at it, remove the rest of the d20 from the game, so you could change the name of the game...

Skipping to-hit buffs like Greater Heroism or Inspire Courage would have dramatically negative effects to your overall damage output as a physical character. Considering the lengths that people are willing to go for an additional +1 damage, I think that it would be bordering foolish to refuse to use buffing and debuffing that increase your overall damage through the duration of the dungeon.

To hit spells and items were the melees greatest dps boost. Its gone now.
Your "dramatically" negative effect is 3% dps. So yes, its dramatically LOW effect.

[Eladiun]

Everyone can improve their toons in DDO if they bother to do so. No one should be watching their toon go from good to gimp or great to just okay...nor should they be experiencing the opposite from developer changes to the game.

Exactly, and it shouldn't take someone a year grinding 3+ year old content to be geared enough to be competitive by which time they will only be further behind. If they doubled the drop rates, on everything from ToD back starting today how much more quickly would new players catch up. Thus increasing the ever shrinking pool of geared end game players making it better for everyone. When you were stringing us along through years of little new end game content, the drop rates were what kept people playing. With the game moving forward, into Epic levels and destines, they no longer do they instead hold back new players from being contributors and create a class divide than cannot be overcome but by the most dedicated or crazy.

[Masadique]

Thats oncoming dnd, dnd died in my (and many other's) eyes. When they released 4th edition. DDO was using 3.5 rules thus why my post is the way it is, I don't what they're doing in 5th edition dnd b/c when I play table top our dm uses 3.5 rules and refuses to go any higher with out complaint of his players. The system works, no need to change it. Sure thats fine if people enjoy dnd but ever-changing as it may be...it ages and dies like all things.

Fair enough. Don't claim that this needs to be based off of 3.5 though. First edition has more claim to being "real" DnD and I doubt anyone wants that as an MMO. If you don't want to play the new ones, that's on you. Don't expect everyone to stay in the past with you.

V

PS: Pathfinder is excellent. It is not made by WotC, has roughly the same rules as 3.5, much better balance for melee vs casters, and is just all around solid. I won't argue that 4.0 is utter rubbish. I've played it a lot, two years or so, but it has never grown on me and I am glad my players are finally willing to jump back to Pathfinder. DnD Next - name subject to change I am sure, is looking like 3.5 with a few of the really great things from 4.0, yes there were a few things that were good, kept.

- Ignore 4.0, play Pathfinder/3.5, look into DnD Next.

[Eladiun]

Fair enough. Don't claim that this needs to be based off of 3.5 though. First edition has more claim to being "real" DnD and I doubt anyone wants that as an MMO. If you don't want to play the new ones, that's on you. Don't expect everyone to stay in the past with you.

V

PS: Pathfinder is excellent. It is not made by WotC, has roughly the same rules as 3.5, much better balance for melee vs casters, and is just all around solid. I won't argue that 4.0 is utter rubbish. I've played it a lot, two years or so, but it has never grown on me and I am glad my players are finally willing to jump back to Pathfinder. DnD Next - name subject to change I am sure, is looking like 3.5 with a few of the really great things from 4.0, yes there were a few things that were good, kept.

- Ignore 4.0, play Pathfinder/3.5, look into DnD Next.

Let's not start this conversation in this thread. It's like talking religion or politics it gets out of control fast.

[Jonathrint]

Just a quick summary - a view of the forest instead of the trees:

1) A lot of people are aware of the proposed new system, and have tested the parts that have been implemented
2) An overwhelming majority (80%+) of them do not like it
3) The 5% who take the time to post on the forums are the ones who are more likely to spend real cashy money on the game.

This change is risking a significant portion of the Turbine customer base. Personally, I'm wondering if I should have bought-with real money-the extra points to get Necro4 since my melee Paladin will probably suffer significantly by the time he gets there. I'm not here to play WOW, AO, or any of the other games where your stats are measured in giant numbers that are hard to work out in your head. I'm here to play D&D, or a close approximation thereof. If I didn't want D&D I could play any of 20+ other games.

What happens to the finances of the DDO component of Turbine if you lose just 15% of your long term revenue-generating customer bases (premium & VIP players) over this?

Is this change really worth the financial risk involved?

[voodoogroves]

If PRR and dodge going to be in the game, I'd much rather see AC brought back down to the normal realm and a d20 stil used for the "hit".

I'd love to see a d20 still useful on AC. Frankly, the problem with AC was NEVER monster AC, it was monster-to-hit versus player AC.



Frankly, one of the ways I think you missed the mark in your design scenario Eladrin was that HAVING NO MEANINGFUL AC IS ACCEPTABLE. That is the very nature of core Barbarians. DR, no AC. Get hit a lot, mitigate that DR.

That's ok.

The bigger problem was that someone with a 65 AC is doing pretty well in level 19 content, and then it's meaningless in epics.



I would totally be fine with removing lots of the multi-stack items from AC and putting more on PRR and other areas (defender PREs, etc.). Frankly, this may solve your monk problem as they would again have a meaningful AC without having to go off the reservation and make dodge crazy good.

[Jonathrint]

I would totally be fine with removing lots of the multi-stack items from AC and putting more on PRR and other areas (defender PREs, etc.). Frankly, this may solve your monk problem as they would again have a meaningful AC without having to go off the reservation and make dodge crazy good.

Good point.

Here's an alternative proposition that shares some commonalities with what has been proposed by Turbine.

3 sources of defense:
-Dodge (not being there when the blow lands) - You get your Dexterity Score - (40/Armor max dex)) in flat out dodge percentages, plus bonuses from feats & monk abilities. Dexterity no longer counts towards AC directly.

A 18 dex character in Mithral armor with an armor mastery bonus (total max dex 4) has (18-(40/4)) = 8% chance to dodge
A 12 dex character in Adamantine full plate (max dex 1) has (12-(40/1) = 0% chance to dodge
A 30 dex character in cloth armor (no max dex) has a 30% chance to dodge, but no meaningful AC

Figure each level of Monk gives +1% to dodge, and maybe each wisdom point modifier too, +2% from feat bonus, etc.
This isn't a d20, but it's also in line with how we handle Blur, Displacement, etc. It's intuitive, simple, and should provide a reasonable way to bring AC down without making any other major changes to DDO.

-Armor Class
As before, but with monster to-hits scaled down to account for the lack of Dex & dodge bonuses to AC decreasing AC across the board. This will help make high-AC closer to balanced by making it numerically closer to mid/low AC.

-Damage Reduction
Leave this component as-is while the suggested Dodge vs. AC system is tested to see what further changes need to be made.

[Thrudh]

So the +20 AC, one every level, has been removed and replaced with 15 AC?

6% dodge and +15 AC is worth more than +20 AC

[Masadique]

6% dodge and +15 AC is worth more than +20 AC

I'm fine with the change. I just hadn't noticed it. Trying to build a tank so I need the info. I really wanted to do 20 monk, for some switching around, but I think I may stick with 12 monk/(6-8) fighter/(0-2) something.

V

[Riggs]

d20 being meaningful was an illusion long before this hybrid change. Waxing poetical about what type of dice you are using to roll - when in an MMO no one actually rolls dice anyway is completely silly and counterproductive when talking about game balance.

The game went way past what a d20 system was designed for when AC or to hit got over 70 or 80, nevermind 100+ now. +10 weapons, soon +25-35 armor or whatever it works out to...its not a d20 system anymore. Grazing hits on a 2+? why bother rolling at all anymore? Part of the blame lies in edition 3.5 going off the rails with bonuses, but whatever that is part of why WotC and Paizo have both chucked it away.

Just admit it and make a % system that works instead of trying to jam a d100 peg into a d20 hole.

Make attack and defense ratings, base 50% chance to hit when everything is equal, factor the difference in attack/defense of the opposing enemy to modify it, and add diminishing returns on bonuses from any source so no one can go crazy on being unkillable (players or enemies), but make say a 90% reduction/miss rate possible without having to grind for 2 years. 70% is a weak top end number for a 'defense' build.

want to add damage reduction for armor? Sure, just dont hose ALL dex builds at the same time. Dodge should be a function of any evasive Dex/Wis/feats build that has an alternate way of getting up to at least as high a defensive benefit of heavy armor - as heavy armor requires NO specific feats or stats to be effective, while a dodge build requires a massive investment to make it work. I have no desire to play my favorite monk ever again from what I have read of the new system.

Diminishing returns and % system means any and all bonuses you can add are useful - but get less useful the more you have - rather than now with the long mangled d20 system where many bonuses are either completely a waste of time, or way too useful once they put you over a magic threshold.

People saying they would stop playing a game because the die graphic on the screen changed from a d20 to a d100 are being utterly hyperbolic and absurd.

The game stopped being a real d20 game at least 10 years ago when WotC started adding in tons of stacking bonuses that made the old d20 a joke. DDO hasnt diverged from adding in way too many stacking bonuses, and now we have the mess that is going on now as a result. At one point in time a 60ish AC on a level 20 character was useful. Now people are still level 20 and it is useless in any content released in the last 2 years say(very roughly, and basic trash monsters dont count anyway)

D20 is dead and gone. Admit it and make something good rather than keep adding in yet more work arounds and band aids to try and make it what it is not.

[voodoogroves]

If DEX and WIS still add to AC, the monk problem is solved.

Meaningful AC is still achievable. PRR is added bonus to defenders, some armors, etc. Dodge is added bonus to light / no armor wearers.

[Cyr]

6% dodge and +15 AC is worth more than +20 AC

Math

Monster’s chance to hit: (Monster’s Attack Bonus + 10.5) / (Target’s Armor Class * 2)

Let's test this with...

Monster AB = 50
Target's AC = 40 +bonus we are talking about

Monsters chance to hit (from AC alone) = (60.5)/((40+bonus)*2 -> 55% or ~50.416%...

Now we will take a person with nothing else going for them so only the 6% dodge in the first case.

Monster total chance to miss = monster chance to miss (from AC alone) + monster chance to hit (from ac alone)*monster chance to miss (from dodge alone) = (1-.55)+(0.55)*(0.06) = 48.3%

Then the chance for the monster to hit = 1 - monster total chance to miss = 51.7% or 49.584%

The dodge percentage is better in this case. Does this always hold true though?

Let's take another case...

Monster AB = 30
Player AC without bonus = 55

Monsters chance to hit (from AC alone) = (40.5)/((55+bonus)*2 -> 28.9% or ~27%...

Now we will take a person with nothing else going for them so only the 6% dodge in the first case again.

Monster total chance to miss = monster chance to miss (from AC alone) + monster chance to hit (from ac alone)*monster chance to miss (from dodge alone) = (1-.289)+(0.289)*(0.06) = 72.83%

The monster chance to miss of the second case is 73% in the first case. So it appears that the dodge bonus is now worse.

The truth is that the higher the % chance you have of avoiding an attack before dodge the smaller a dodge increase is actually going to improve your defense. Remember these include incorporeal, AC, and concealment chances so blur/displacement and shadow fade make dodge more irrelevant not more.