Poll: What do you think of the upcoming changes to DDO's combat system?

[Vellrad]

Hate so much, its out of scale.

[Postumus]

What do you think of the upcoming changes to DDO's combat system?

Strongly Dislike

Not intuitive to average player, no consistency (Does +1 to hit = +5%? +2%? +1%? or +.5%? Apparently ALL FOUR depending on the situation!), appears to be more of a bandaid than a fix.

[Veriden]

Strongly dislike. If the devs would get off their high horses and look at the community they'd see they're about to eff up something entirely.

[Aalric]

strongly dislike

personally tested

But we all know that Turbine ignore polls. That's in normal cases. When it comes to the combat changes in U14, they seem to ignore anything posted in the entire section....

[donblas]

Strongly dislike.

I'd dislike it anyway, but they can't even get what they are trying to do right.

In the rush to "get something out" they seem to have had no time to test whether this system is even doing what they want it to but have nevertheless changed the whole of DDO anyway.

I'm flabbergasted.

[spectroum]

Dislike

The changes are far from d&d...

[Synthetic]

Strongly like

Personally tested.

[Sarnind]

Dislike

[Svartelric]

SHIIIIITE!!! erm... Strongly dislike

[theigorone]

Strongly Like

[aerendhil]

Strongly dislike

and I did transfer toons on Lama and fiddled a bit with them.

[Altaweir]

Strongly dislike.

I have nothing against an AC overhaul, but while there were so many ways of changing it (roll more D20 to widen the curves, introduce attack sequences for monsters...) Turbine opted for the most complex, user unfriendly possible approach. And I'm not speaking about game balance at all.

No one should require an Excel sheet to figure out if a lootgen item is worth wielding (Should I get a "Mobility" item or a +3 AC item? Ha!)

[Zerkul]

Like, except for the thing that 50 attack bonus doesn't hit anymore at 95% an AC of 50: for me this is just stupid.

EDIT: on second tought... Dislike!!

[Ape_Man]

Dislike, but it could be changed to tolerated if it had a few small tweaks that have been discussed ad nauseum and have gotten almost no developer feedback.

Tested the hell out of it, so much so that I more else less didn't bother testing anything else. I trust Turbine to make good missions as they almost always do so game mechanics is where I focused.

It looks a hell of a lot worse on paper that it plays out in game.

What I like:

- PRR: it's a good concept and a hell of a lot better than the Shield mastery and Earth Stance stupidity of U11.
- Better Amor: So simple it's brilliant. If armor itself wasn't cutting it making armor better is a very good idea.
- Divorcing Dodge from AC: Lets face it, the stacking dodge-modifiers is what broke AC in the first place. Making it a seperate layer is a good thing.

What I DON'T Like:

-AC's diminished returns and inflation: Stalwart/DOS stance massive AC inflation and the ridiculous diminishing returns of AC is just poor. Yes, stalwarts SHOULD have more AC, but the 40% more from armor and shields is absurd compared to the extra 7-9 points they get now. Not that that 40% actually does anything with the diminishing returns . . .
- The Displacement nerf: This is just stupid, cannot be put any nicer.
- Stats don't matter: They really don't, armored people get such huge armor bonuses that the DEX modifier is watered down and monks/splashes really should be getting addidtional Dodge based on their STATS.
- Dodge cap for un-armored: This is just dumb

[hit_fido]

Couldn't say this any better:

What I like:

- PRR: it's a good concept and a hell of a lot better than the Shield mastery and Earth Stance stupidity of U11.
- Better Amor: So simple it's brilliant. If armor itself wasn't cutting it making armor better is a very good idea.
- Divorcing Dodge from AC: Lets face it, the stacking dodge-modifiers is what broke AC in the first place. Making it a seperate layer is a good thing.

The PRR/armor changes are great - they make a lot more sense especially for any players coming to the game without a strong D&D background/attachment (a blow landing on plate armor should hurt you less than a blow landing on cloth armor), and would improve survivability/playability for at least a subset of characters whose offensive output is limited by their their red bar. Dodge I'm somewhat neutral on, it's not easy acquiring and fitting +10 dodge from itemization anyway, that is a gear choice and tradeoff decision that adds (fun) complexity. Making it separate is ok too, but overall, any PRR/AC/dodge related enhancements and feats available to classes where melee is required should also be adjusted (probably upwards) to compensate for their need to spend red bar for offense.

The biggest complaint I see is that the new AC "formula" raises the lower end too much and lowers the upper end through diminishing returns that reduce the effectiveness of customizing builds and gear. Seems to me that the PRR mechanic would have helped shore up the lower end survivability, while keeping something closer to the current AC system would allow those who choose to place very high emphasis on survivability and self sufficiency to continue to do so.

Since my first impressions were, like 'these changes', dislike 'those changes', going to have to go with neutral for now.

[Camarde]

Strongly dislike.

I have nothing against an AC overhaul, but while there were so many ways of changing it (roll more D20 to widen the curves, introduce attack sequences for monsters...) Turbine opted for the most complex, user unfriendly possible approach. And I'm not speaking about game balance at all.

No one should require an Excel sheet to figure out if a lootgen item is worth wielding (Should I get a "Mobility" item or a +3 AC item? Ha!)

Exactly that.
Strongly dislike.

Pls dont release that.

[Eladiun]

Undecided/Neutral

- What I can say for sure is that Turbine bit off more than they can chew with this expansion. All of this combat redesign should have been done incrementally after the expansion. Lumping all the junk in has taken focus off balancing Destinies, Druids, and the new FR content.

[morticianjohn]

neutral

I haven't done any testing but from everything I've read so far it doesn't seem to be a big swing one way or another. It's left me in the neutral camp.

[Expalphalog]

Strongly Dislike

Haven't tested, but don't need to to know I hate it. I don't like the pull away from core d20. I don't like the fact that I will never be able to determine whether any weapon/armor is worth keeping or not without plugging numbers into a graph generator. I don't like the way that this system was obviously cobbled together without any consideration to how much of the game it breaks. No amount of testing is going to change my mind on any of that and to me whether or not it actually works is secondary to the above issues.

[Ziindarax]

Couldn't say this any better:



The PRR/armor changes are great - they make a lot more sense especially for any players coming to the game without a strong D&D background/attachment (a blow landing on plate armor should hurt you less than a blow landing on cloth armor), and would improve survivability/playability for at least a subset of characters whose offensive output is limited by their their red bar. Dodge I'm somewhat neutral on, it's not easy acquiring and fitting +10 dodge from itemization anyway, that is a gear choice and tradeoff decision that adds (fun) complexity. Making it separate is ok too, but overall, any PRR/AC/dodge related enhancements and feats available to classes where melee is required should also be adjusted (probably upwards) to compensate for their need to spend red bar for offense.

The biggest complaint I see is that the new AC "formula" raises the lower end too much and lowers the upper end through diminishing returns that reduce the effectiveness of customizing builds and gear. Seems to me that the PRR mechanic would have helped shore up the lower end survivability, while keeping something closer to the current AC system would allow those who choose to place very high emphasis on survivability and self sufficiency to continue to do so.

Since my first impressions were, like 'these changes', dislike 'those changes', going to have to go with neutral for now.

Problem is, PRR also grants diminishing returns.