Is this right - AC/To-Hit?

[voodoogroves]

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.

Disclosure: Not a huge fan of the new system. Think there are simpler ways to handle it. Absolutely don't want to lose the d20 if possible. I further hate the diminishing returns, and if we were going to be d100, I'd want it to be linear.

That said ....

You're not on the d20 anymore. You're faking it and shoe-horning it, but the system isn't d20. These issues are entirely around the abstraction layer your design goals have created. As my grandmother would have said (god bless her) "!@#@ or get off the pot".

By not being on the d20 but by faking it, when you apply each bit of modifier you're creating that abstracted value case. Things that modify before and after now have non-equal value. One part of the system is d100, the other is faked to be d20. A modifier on the d20 of 5% is different than one on the d100; definitely so if it adds to some reduced or diminished return.


You guys need to commit ... d20, d100 or hybrid. Recognize with each there are going to be people who don't like it. Recognize with each there's balance.


This hybrid thing where you're trying to straddle a fence or be half in/out of the pool means you have to balance to things on top of the cranky players who don't like change.



Commit ... and do it now before you have to rework too many things when **** breaks later. Turn AC and to-hits into d100s if you need to (with corresponding increases in feats, equipment, etc.). You may even want to consider fractional BAB, etc.


This balance mess is self-inflicted because you're trying to show something different on the presentation layer and rationalize that to the players versus what the system is really doing.

[legendlore]

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.

Are there any changes planed for bards Inspire courage in regards to this. It is a very level and action point costly ability (20 levels and 12 action points, just for the to-hit) to get above what Greater heroism spell brings.

[Expalphalog]

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.

You're not wrong. In fact you're SO "not wrong" that you've flown past "right" and landed squarely back in "wrong" territory.

What I mean to say is that a number of us are clamoring for you to go BACK to a pure d20 system for player to-hit. Not a faux simulated 20, but an actual honest to goodness isocahedron.

[sephiroth1084]

[QUOTE=Eladrin;4522486]

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.

I would have preferred a more direct system. Probably too late now, but my last proposal to this problem was to chance the AC from "take 10" to opposed d20 roll (AC would be 1d20+AC bonuses instead of 10+), and monsters would gain iterative attacks like we have, where they would have a 50% chance of rolling with a +0, 25% for +5, and 25% for +10. If you wanted to expand the relevant values, you could give them "more attacks" drawing out the bonuses and adjusting the percentages for each occurrence.

Players have iterative attack bonuses, but we rarely pay attention to them, because we're always hitting on the first number, so the +10 on the last is irrelevant.

I blowing hot air, though...I'd prefer the system without the rounding--I want the game tied to the d20, but I want that less than the weird places where small differences in to-hit or AC are meaningless.

[sephiroth1084]

Disclosure: Not a huge fan of the new system. Think there are simpler ways to handle it. Absolutely don't want to lose the d20 if possible. I further hate the diminishing returns, and if we were going to be d100, I'd want it to be linear.

That said ....

You're not on the d20 anymore. You're faking it and shoe-horning it, but the system isn't d20. These issues are entirely around the abstraction layer your design goals have created. As my grandmother would have said (god bless her) "!@#@ or get off the pot".

By not being on the d20 but by faking it, when you apply each bit of modifier you're creating that abstracted value case. Things that modify before and after now have non-equal value. One part of the system is d100, the other is faked to be d20. A modifier on the d20 of 5% is different than one on the d100; definitely so if it adds to some reduced or diminished return.


You guys need to commit ... d20, d100 or hybrid. Recognize with each there are going to be people who don't like it. Recognize with each there's balance.


This hybrid thing where you're trying to straddle a fence or be half in/out of the pool means you have to balance to things on top of the cranky players who don't like change.



Commit ... and do it now before you have to rework too many things when **** breaks later. Turn AC and to-hits into d100s if you need to (with corresponding increases in feats, equipment, etc.). You may even want to consider fractional BAB, etc.


This balance mess is self-inflicted because you're trying to show something different on the presentation layer and rationalize that to the players versus what the system is really doing.

This

[grandeibra]

Here we go. My last hope is lost

dito. Goodbye coolest combat system on earth.

Hello boring generic mmo system

And for no legit reason whatsoever since players have had a gazillion better suggestions than the system that will now be implemented.

[Eladrin]

dito. Goodbye coolest combat system on earth.

Hello boring generic mmo system

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.

[Auran82]

Are there any changes planed for bards Inspire courage in regards to this. It is a very level and action point costly ability (20 levels and 12 action points, just for the to-hit) to get above what Greater heroism spell brings.

I'm going to probably say that the top tier or two of inspire courage attack bonus may or may not still be worthwhile, damage bonus sure, but 6ap for +1 attack that may not even give anyone any kind of *actual* bonus?

[Myrrae]

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.

I'd prefer figuring out a way to handle iterative attacks like PnP to this, but if you're going to spread the To-hit and AC values over a 100 point spread, might as well USE that range instead of rounding. I like the d20 visual, but it should be relatively simple to round to 5% after hit or miss is determined rather than just tossing the extra precision.

Honestly until your post I thought the d20 was just visual because it doesn't seem to make sense to calculate all this out just to reduce it to a d20 roll.

I understand that iterative attacks would be hard to implement given the current system, but at the same time it seems really really strange to me that there's this whole change was put in so that every point of AC will matter but.. apparently every point of to-hit won't.

[dunklezhan]

dito. Goodbye coolest combat system on earth.

Hello boring generic mmo system

And for no legit reason whatsoever since players have had a gazillion better suggestions than the system that will now be implemented.

I'm actually wondering whether they should just abandon 'to hit' for anything except maybe ranged (where lag/ping would be more noticable), and just stick to pure physics checks for melee. You know, you swing, if it's stood there it gets it's dodge chance to avoid the hit, but otherwise is just hit. Ditto for players. Actual armour would just provide dodge and PPR. Then we'd have a genuinely 'active' combat system, with melee based fairly solidly on player skill (such as their ability to block to increase PPR and take less damage before they start swinging again, or just plain getting out the way). BaB and to hit gear could be used purely to add to things that are supposed to be scalably tied in to class abilities (e.g. how much extra passive defense benefit you get from putting armour on, maybe bonuses to DCs of combat tactics like trip, stuff like that). Would make sense as well - AC was always a bit odd, right back to 1st edition, because real armour doesn't stop you getting hit. If anything it makes it more likely you will get hit due to movement restrictions - what armour does is stops you taking damage when you ARE hit. But it's a rare armour that means you don't even feel a hit that was really intended to hurt. There's the kinetic impact pushing at you if nothing else. So PPR/DR are the things armour should be adding, rather than 'hit avoidance' when looked at like that.

If they did that, there would also be slightly less maths and data-swapping happening, which would be lighter on client AND server, which should improve collision detection which should mean when I get 5m away from that troll/ogre and he starts his triplecrit swing it might actually be 5m away so I wouldn't keep getting hit regardless. (remember the TWF nerf was to reduce the load by removing some of these calculations already, and I think that probably did lighten some of the lag problems).

Would be a massive change. Doubt it would be at all popular due to the straight out abandoning of the to hit roll itself... but whatever game it was that did that... I'd play it for sure.

[sephiroth1084]

I also want to echo some other posters' in their sentiments regarding this change in how it affects (or doesn't) casters, and why that's a problem.

Melees were languishing behind casters in some significant ways before this change, when melees were hitting at, or near, 95% of the time against monsters that weren't moving appreciably, because casters can hit stuff, and hard whether it is still or moving, and they can do this to one creature or several, and can do so from the safety of distance, while melees are generally going to be within pummeling range.

This change makes melees worse, by lowering their to-hit chance versus basically everything, while not affecting casters at all, who will continue to land spells. Yes, saves are a factor, but there are spells without saves, and in most cases, even when one monster makes its Reflex save, at least one other monster doesn't (and it' more likely that that number is 2 or more other monsters).

Because DDO eschewed the flat-footed and touch AC systems, which serve to balance some pieces of the game by keeping casters from being completely separated from the concerns of melees (AC and to-hit), as well as to balance out differently armored characters (theoretically, heavy armor wearers have more AC generally, and a higher flat-footed AC than Dex-based characters who have higher touch AC values), we have a system where casters don't care at all about many of the buffs we have in the game and are unconcerned with changes made to the AC system, and it is incredibly difficult to find balance between heavily armored and lightly armored characters.

You're jumping through hoops to correct the original omission with PRR, d100 values, Dodge, and scaling armor values. It seems to me like there are solutions that exist that may be more difficult to code (not sure if this is the case), but much easier to understand from a player's perspective.

[Cyr]

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.

I think that there was lots of things which made DDO's combat system good.

The physics 'update' really hurt alot of them badly.

This one does not help either as it makes playing an already suboptimal choice even less optimal meaning more people will play something else that they might not otherwise play.

And of course the math behind a system matters for it being a good one or not.

[Ape_Man]

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.

I'm not agreeing with the person you're responding to, but for many people we play this game because it almost feels like D&D. I have never played nor will I ever play another MMO because they are well . . . stupid.

People don't want to say goodbye to their beloved d20 some some have been playing in some form or another for 30+ years.

The new system IN PRACTICE is not nearly as bad as it looks ON PAPER.

Does it need some tweaks? Absolutely.

Should some to-hit bonuses be changed to a % base? Probably.

Do robe wearers need more dodge to make up for the AC they lost? Absolutely. Eladrin mentioned giving DEX and WIS modifiers to dodge as well as AC a few weeks ago in closed beta but we've heard nothing from the devs about this since then.

Should displacement have been nerfed? No, but it's total damage mitigation over blur is not as much as most people think it is because of the multiplicative nature of defense.

[Eladrin]

I'm actually wondering whether they should just abandon 'to hit' for anything except maybe ranged (where lag/ping would be more noticable), and just stick to pure physics checks for melee. You know, you swing, if it's stood there it gets it's dodge chance to avoid the hit, but otherwise is just hit. Ditto for players. Actual armour would just provide dodge and PPR. Then we'd have a genuinely 'active' combat system, with melee based fairly solidly on player skill (such as their ability to block to increase PPR and take less damage before they start swinging again, or just plain getting out the way). BaB would be used purely for things that tie in to class abilities (e.g. how much passive defense benefit you get from putting armour on, maybe bonuses to DCs of combat tactics like trip, stuff like that).

If they did that, there would be slightly less maths happening, which would be lighter on client AND server, which should improve collision detection which should mean when I get 5m away from that troll/ogre and he starts his triplecrit swing it might actually be 5m away so I wouldn't keep getting hit regardless.

Would be a massive change. Doubt it would be at all popular due to the straight out abandoning of the to hit score... but whatever game it was that did that... I'd play it for sure.

This is actually very similar to one of the several proposals we talked about, but decided on the hybrid system specifically so we could keep the d20. Talks on that are what led to us wanting players to graze on a 2+ - we're making you physics hit, it seemed bad to have miss appear after that.

There's precedent for using Armor Class as damage reduction in Unearthed Arcana, but as you mention, if we had gone with that proposal we'd have wanted it to behave in a PRR-like fashion. To-hit would likely have converted into an armor reduction stat.

[Scraap]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I prefer up-front data to obfuscated ones.


As to:

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.

You ask us not to post angry, so I'll stick to: The combat is becoming less active and more fake-active-button-mash with nearly every change. That's about as calmly as I can put it at this point in time.

[sephiroth1084]

What I fundamentally dislike about the new to-hit and AC systems are that one cannot eyeball their numbers and get a sense of what their chance of success is. Now, we need both a calculator and have to know the monster's to-hit and AC values specifically, or within a point or two.

Before, it could be murky on whether we would get hit or not, or land our hits, at various values in different content, but it could be guestimated. Adding a +1 to your to-hit or AC would result in a 5% increase in effectiveness if you were "on the die." Now, you don't know whether that +1 is going to result in +0%, or +0.5%, or +1%, or...

The problem before was that the spread of player (and monster) values was too large for a straight d20, and that it wasn't apparent whether you were on the die. Now everyone is on the die, but it isn't apparent where they fall, and whether or not each buff will result in any kind of bonus or not, and even if they do, they will probably be too slight to notice (one could gauge a 10-20% difference in to-hit or AC bonus before, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to be able to distinguish a 1-2% change).

The simplest solution would have been to simply change the d20 to a d100 and lower excessive monster attack bonuses while adjusting buffs and items to have less swingy effects.

[rakhtal]

There's also an interesting twist where AC debuffs (and buffs) are slightly more powerful in general than to-hit.

So, with that is there any reason why destruction on dragontouched armor shouldn't work with unarmed?

It is kind of sad when 3 epic items (epic spectral gloves, epic raven's sight, epic gem of many facets) give similar benefit to 1/3 of min level 16 armor.

[Eladrin]

Does it need some tweaks? Absolutely.

Should some to-hit bonuses be changed to a % base? Probably.

These are both true.

Do robe wearers need more dodge to make up for the AC they lost? Absolutely. Eladrin mentioned giving DEX and WIS modifiers to dodge as well as AC a few weeks ago in closed beta but we've heard nothing from the devs about this since then.

In the current build, we're giving monks 2% dodge when defensively centered at levels 1, 2, and 4. They should also gain 15 points of armor class as they level.

We're still watching them.

[LeLoric]

These are both true.


In the current build, we're giving monks 2% dodge when defensively centered at levels 1, 2, and 4. They should also gain 15 points of armor class as they level.

We're still watching them.

What's happening with monk water stance? it still reads as a + dodge bonus to armor class which are supposed to be no more.

[Ape_Man]

I think that there was lots of things which made DDO's combat system good.

The physics 'update' really hurt alot of them badly.

This one does not help either as it makes playing an already suboptimal choice even less optimal meaning more people will play something else that they might not otherwise play.

And of course the math behind a system matters for it being a good one or not.

The physics update was truely terrible and needs to be fixed. it would also be nice if one day you could fire arrows at a target and have at least 50% of them register a physics check.