A few thoughts after reading...

[hit_fido]

There are already changes made from feedback. Will you see them in Thursday's build? Hrm. Right now the plan is for the next group of classes, so you wouldn't see any fixes or tweaks to the classes from this week...but I want to have a discussion with dev about opening the floodgates, but we still ask for focused feedback on specific classes...or something like that. Still chewing on the idea...I go back and forth on if opening the gates to multiclassing will help or hurt at this point.

Introduce the new classes as scheduled, update the one's you've gotten feedback on and made changes to, but leave the upcoming classes hidden for now. That way players can see what changes were made during the preceding round of class review and maybe give more feedback, but the focus is still largely on the next set of classes you want feedback on.

[btolson]

There are already changes made from feedback. Will you see them in Thursday's build? Hrm. Right now the plan is for the next group of classes, so you wouldn't see any fixes or tweaks to the classes from this week...but I want to have a discussion with dev about opening the floodgates, but we still ask for focused feedback on specific classes...or something like that. Still chewing on the idea...I go back and forth on if opening the gates to multiclassing will help or hurt at this point.

I recommend goading the devs into pushing out some general tree-structure changes (like breaking long dependency chains) to the next 5 upcoming classes before they are released to us on Thursday. Otherwise you are going to get another deluge of feedback that is largely identical to what you already have, centered around general design paradigms with less emphasis on specific trees/abilities. The devs don't have to "cave in" to all the demands around the basic tree structures immediately (if they even could in so little time), but if some of the lower-hanging fruit is addressed it would at least let us change our tune a bit and tell you how much closer you are to getting the general design right.

As far as opening the floodgates completely... probably not a good idea. But, unless this is prohibitive for you guys, it would be great if next Monday (22nd) you re-release this week's 4 classes for us to see the changes. In all honesty, we will have the next 5 classes fully-digested by the end of that weekend, so you may as well use Monday-Wednesday for feedback on the next iteration of the current 4 classes, if you can.

[raknar_the_wolf]

The biggest changes I would make would be:

1. Make the bottom horizontal line auto-grants based on point spent in THAT tree.

2. Make the vertical line unlocks be based on total points spent, rather than points spent in one tree. (Alternately, if you think this would make getting the highest lines too easy, make points spent in the racial trees count as unlocking for the PrE trees too.)

Making these two changes would greatly ease the AP shortage.

[EllisDee37]

The biggest changes I would make would be:

1. Make the bottom horizontal line auto-grants based on point spent in THAT tree.

2. Make the vertical line unlocks be based on total points spent, rather than points spent in one tree. (Alternately, if you think this would make getting the highest lines too easy, make points spent in the racial trees count as unlocking for the PrE trees too.)

This, exactly, with a couple extra restrictions for balance:

3, Tier 5 in any tree locks out tier 5 from every other tree. This is clearly and obviously a mechanic you guys balanced around, being that it has a "40 AP spent in tree" requirement. The elegance of "only 1 tree can go to tier 5" just by virtue of the 40 AP in tree prereq is game-breaking and unnecessary. Simply have tier 5 lock out all other trees' tier 5 and balance is restored while you're allowed to tweak.

4. Drastically raise the AP spent requirements, since now AP from all trees counts toward it. Remember, tier 5s are already safely balance by locking each other out. Tier 1: 7 AP spent in any tree, Tier 2: 15 AP spent, Tier 3: 30 AP spent, Tier 4: 60 AP spent

5. An just to reiterate points 1 & 2: Core abilities requires points spent in tree, Tiered abilities require points spent in any tree, including racial

[t0r012]

Would those be 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows on them and a paragraph on the back describing each one?

+1 sir for having the exact same thought I did web reading.

------
So summing up Maj's post
"we have our shovels and rakes and implements of destruction, ready to get rid of a half a ton of garbage. "

[Elaril]

Quoting Myself and The QA Kobold for obvious reason, I went the whole way and as MajMal wants challenges I'm going to give him one :

Why couldn't you keep the current Enhancements but put them in a tree form ? As I said on Page 3 of MadFloyd Let's Talk thread, it's already in a tree form, even if said tree is not obvious. Anyway to prove my point I graphically made the exercise for Radiant Servant. ( original Ascii version is here : http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...&postcount=245 )



At the bottom you have from Left to Right : Improved Healing, Divine Vitality, Life Magic, Prayer of Life.

Prayer of Incredible life is at level 1.
Stat Bonus ( Charisma ) is at Level 3

At top from Left to Right : Improved Turning, Radiant Servant I, Radiant Servant II.

It's not THAT difficult to make a tree out of what we already have.

As you can see, everything is preserved ( up to and including the 4th level for each enhancements that have it )

This is a much better modification to the enhancement system than the one Turbine has in on Lam currently. I don't see why they insist on blowing up one of their better systems. Maybe it's arrogance, since most of the current devs weren't involved in the creation of the original system. I'd ask that the Turbine developers consider something similar to this and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[hit_fido]

1. Make the bottom horizontal line auto-grants based on point spent in THAT tree.

Good idea.

3, Tier 5 in any tree locks out tier 5 from every other tree. This is clearly and obviously a mechanic you guys balanced around, being that it has a "40 AP spent in tree" requirement. The elegance of "only 1 tree can go to tier 5" just by virtue of the 40 AP in tree prereq is game-breaking and unnecessary. Simply have tier 5 lock out all other trees' tier 5 and balance is restored while you're allowed to tweak.

Very good idea.

4. Drastically raise the AP spent requirements, since now AP from all trees counts toward it. Remember, tier 5s are already safely balance by locking each other out. Tier 1: 7 AP spent in any tree, Tier 2: 15 AP spent, Tier 3: 30 AP spent, Tier 4: 60 AP spent.

Not so good, it's not necessary as you're addressing the top tier enhancement gating and limit on power more than adequately in #4 above (and again the lock out idea is very good). Keeping AP gating just keeps the problem of wasted AP going when we don't have to put up with it for any other reason.

[SealedInSong]

Artificers now get no less than 3 exotic weapon feats for free to mirror their martial aspect and get the Magical training feat for free as well, they also enjoy a larger base spell pool and damage spells. Making them both more magically and martially adept than a bard.

Bards already have a history of being action point taxed for their songs as well getting to-hit better than a greater heroism cost a total of 9 ap in the current system and full damage line 12 ap more. With weapons scaled damage dice in epic levels a greater heroism combined with a deadly weapons spell is already in most cases superior to an fully enhanced Inspire courage, yet Artificers don't have to spend a single ap to enhance their deadly weapons. (Now both are best of course but this is just a straight up class comparison).

I don't think anyone is asking for bards to simply "be more like artificers," but Legendlore makes some good points here.

Vargouille may be referring to bards getting magical training the way Ellis pointed out that the third tier of ranger's ____ enhancement grants them magical training, but consider a warchanter that splashes fighter and invests in a fighter tree, the warchanter tree, and the other bard tree lacking Magical Training and locks it out. This character has likely also locked out their positive energy spell power autogrants as well.

This would be major hit to people's ability to craft diverse bard characters.


Songs
Please be sure to make songs competitive again. Aashrym or some other bard lover compiled a list of bard song stacking, and it was pretty clear that very, very few songs other than Inspire Competence and Inspire Heroics stack with anything else.

Off the top of my head:
Spellsinger morale-typed bonuses not stacking with ship buffs
Virtuoso vigors not stacking with some other heal over time effects such as Jerky
Warchanter morale doublestrike bonus not stacking with any items
etc (if anyone can find the nicely color-coded and researched post about how few bard songs stack with anything, that'd be great)

I think most of us would agree that we'd prefer bard songs to have smaller boni and stack with everything than have moderate bonuses that stack with almost nothing. At least then you know that when you're chasing after allies trying to sing to them, you haven't completely wasted your time the way you do on Live (barring Inspire Excellence, the one song I know most people will hang around for).

[EllisDee37]

Not so good, it's not necessary as you're addressing the top tier enhancement gating and limit on power more than adequately in #4 above (and again the lock out idea is very good). Keeping AP gating just keeps the problem of wasted AP going when we don't have to put up with it for any other reason.

No, because the AP required is from any tree. Once you spend 30 points on anything anywhere, all tier 4 abilities in all trees are now available to you. (Many have prereq tier 3 abilities, of course.)

Meaning the AP gating (provided the "in tree" part is removed) wouldn't force a single AP spent in something you didn't want, with the exception of direct prereqs. This is how it is currently on live.

[SisAmethyst]

I think you should keep the prestige tiers at level 6/12/18 of each class. The multiclass is feeding on that system, on lamannia we no longer have Kensei I, II & III. We have kensei and thats all, and with the APs that you need and what you want from your racial enhancements you cannot multiclass like its always been done.

That is indeed a point that I miss in the new System, the dedicated tiers. There was a landmark, a distinguish point that stood out and hand a name, Kensai I, II and III. Same way for Tempest I, II, III and others. This is all now totally washed out. Sure it may at a certain point allow more versatility, but I guess it get far too washy and especially new players will get lost in all the options. And without dedicated landmarks you even don't know what to aim for...

[hit_fido]

No, because the AP required is from any tree. Once you spend 30 points on anything anywhere, all tier 4 abilities in all trees are now available to you. (Many have prereq tier 3 abilities, of course.)

Meaning the AP gating (provided the "in tree" part is removed) wouldn't force a single AP spent in something you didn't want, with the exception of direct prereqs. This is how it is currently on live.

What is the actual different between this and just removing AP gating then?

Without AP gating: an early life build can focus in one tree, avoid waste, and still flesh out their build with useful enhancements relevant to them. Later in the build they may well change enhancements around as they multiclass and start to spread out into 2, 3, 4 trees.

With AP gating: that early life build focusing on one tree initially faces the same problems they do now, which is being forced to spend AP on enhancements they don't want, can't use, and aren't relevant. Actually it's been exacerbated if the AP gating requirements increase!

Perhaps it is because I am looking at the system from both a leveling as well as final build standpoint. I see AP gating detrimental in both cases. Just shifting AP gating from per tree to total helps the final build situation but not the while-leveling aspect. Removing AP gating along with the good autogrant and lock out suggestions improves both situations without any ill effects.

[Deadlock]

These abilities are intended to work with ranged attacks on Lamannia right now.

Strike With No Thought: When you have a melee weapon equipped in your main hand that is part of your Focus, you gain 1% Doublestrike. Ranged weapons instead have a 1% chance to fire an extra projectile. Each additional Innate Ability you acquire from this tree increases this bonus by 1%.

Alacrity: You gain +10% melee doublestrike with melee weapons and +10% chance to fire an extra projectile with ranged and thrown weapons. (Repeating Crossbows have a reduced chance to produce extra shots.)

While we're on the subject, can we clarify the terminology for this one please?

What qualifies as an Innate ability?

The Core Abilities as described in other trees? i.e. the 6 along the bottom including the capstone? So specifically Power Surge, One Cut and Alacrity being the ones after Strike With No Thought, so this would be 14% in total for all of these?

Or does it mean Passive abilities in the tree? Or something else entirely?

EDIT: See description for Toughness from Stalwart Defender, the other Fighter tree

[EllisDee37]

What is the actual different between this and just removing AP gating then?

Without AP gating: an early life build can focus in one tree, avoid waste, and still flesh out their build with useful enhancements relevant to them. Later in the build they may well change enhancements around as they multiclass and start to spread out into 2, 3, 4 trees.

With AP gating: that early life build focusing on one tree initially faces the same problems they do now, which is being forced to spend AP on enhancements they don't want, can't use, and aren't relevant. Actually it's been exacerbated if the AP gating requirements increase!

Perhaps it is because I am looking at the system from both a leveling as well as final build standpoint. I see AP gating detrimental in both cases. Just shifting AP gating from per tree to total helps the final build situation but not the while-leveling aspect. Removing AP gating along with the good autogrant and lock out suggestions improves both situations without any ill effects.

I also am looking at it in terms of both leveling and endgame.

The purpose of AP gating is to prevent low level character from getting high level abilities. This is achieved on live by a redundant gate: class level + progression. The same effect can be achieved by progression alone, which would be in keeping with the theme of the new enhancements where "class level" is essentially being done away with. (ie: Tier 5 enhancements only require 5 class levels.)

The key is that the early life build simply shouldn't be able to get the high power enhancements. That's as it should be, as it is on live, as it is on alpha, and as it would be in the proposal to remove "in tree" gates and jack up the "in any tree" gates to 0/7/15/30/60.

The difference in your two scenarios, with and without gating, is that with "in any tree" gating, the early life isn't limited to a single tree. They can fill out they builds with only good stuff because they'd have 4 trees to choose from.

[Seikojin]

I posted my recommended changes in the nice thread EllisDee started to list everything. I didn't use 'cheated views' into the locked class trees since I want to see them when they are opened. Changes can occur.

Here is the link to my post in that thread:
http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...6&postcount=90

[Seikojin]

This is a much better modification to the enhancement system than the one Turbine has in on Lam currently. I don't see why they insist on blowing up one of their better systems. Maybe it's arrogance, since most of the current devs weren't involved in the creation of the original system. I'd ask that the Turbine developers consider something similar to this and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The simple form of why the changes are coming:
Many class pre's do not have features that make them desirable. Adding some would cost AP; so they have to retool the entire system. This way they can do this, and clean up the confusing UI that is currently on live.

At least, that is what I am seeing.

I really like the changes. I don't like the restrictions the costs put in place, but it has already been said start weak, build up to strong in terms of why it was started this way.

The new UI makes it very easy to build your Pre and customize it if you have the AP.

Now they need to tune the cost so players get the flexibility they love and the limitations to not break the games core challenge.

[hit_fido]

The purpose of AP gating is to prevent low level character from getting high level abilities. This is achieved on live by a redundant gate: class level + progression.

It's also achieved by long chains of prerequired enhancements (can't take Lich Form without several layers of enhancements along the way), as well as feat requirements (Lich Form being another good example). AP spend is only one of many gating methods in use, and probably the least limiting (on Live).

The key is that the early life build simply shouldn't be able to get the high power enhancements. That's as it should be, as it is on live, as it is on alpha, and as it would be in the proposal to remove "in tree" gates and jack up the "in any tree" gates to 0/7/15/30/60.

But since that isn't a necessary method for gating power (as exemplified in the Live system), and it further creates forced AP waste, it's a non optimal change. In fact increasing the amount of AP required is going to make the problem worse. If I aim to build a pure fighter tank, now that you're increased the AP spend, I'll have to pick up even more useless enhancements in order to pad my AP count and get access to the relevant enhancements only found in the Stalwart tree.

The difference in your two scenarios, with and without gating, is that with "in any tree" gating, the early life isn't limited to a single tree. They can fill out they builds with only good stuff because they'd have 4 trees to choose from.

All builds will have access to four trees and all builds that are better off specializing in a single tree because of leveling plan or final build will face the same issue: to open up the relevant enhancements in that tree, they'll need to pad their AP count to progress. We can't assume for any given build, especially pure class builds, that players are going to find anything of value in trees that aren't their focus, certainly when it's limited to the "low tier" enhancements. That is true of AP-per-tree and total-AP gating but not if we remove AP gating and use the other perfectly valid means of gating that have been cited. Total-AP just spreads the problem out may dampen it; doing away with AP gating eliminates it and I've yet to hear what bad things would happen if we did.

On Live right now, other than the very occasional scenario what does AP gating stop you from accomplishing that class level, character level, feat, and enhancements prerequisites doesn't already prevent? I can think of a couple times I've run into AP spend being the problem and was forced to take maybe 1-2 AP wasted to pad the count. That still sucked even if it was 2 wasted AP. If it's not necessary on Live, why do we think it's necessary here?

[EllisDee37]

It's also achieved by long chains of prerequired enhancements (can't take Lich Form without several layers of enhancements along the way), as well as feat requirements (Lich Form being another good example). AP spend is only one of many gating methods in use, and probably the least limiting (on Live).

This is no different on alpha. I'm confused. Do you want the prereq abilities to be the only barrier to taking any ability from tier 1 to tier 4, do you like the "ap spent in tree" barrier, or is there some other system you're advocating?

On Live right now, other than the very occasional scenario what does AP gating stop you from accomplishing that class level, character level, feat, and enhancements prerequisites doesn't already prevent?

Pretty much every build I've ever made. I generally end up on the ragged edge of disaster in terms of progression limitations, which are by far the most common problems I run into. And I like them; it makes coming up with builds interesting and fun.

[shadereaper33]

There are already changes made from feedback. Will you see them in Thursday's build? Hrm. Right now the plan is for the next group of classes, so you wouldn't see any fixes or tweaks to the classes from this week...but I want to have a discussion with dev about opening the floodgates, but we still ask for focused feedback on specific classes...or something like that. Still chewing on the idea...I go back and forth on if opening the gates to multiclassing will help or hurt at this point.

In all seriousness, whenever you guys decide to "open the floodgates" and give us access to all of the enhancement trees, we really need at least a month of that on lammania before you guys even start to think about pushing things towards a final release build. So, whatever schedule you decide on, it really needs to have enough time for people to get in there and find out how all these crazy combinations work, provide feedback, get you guys to fix them, and then let us break them all over again. I would say at least 3 iterations of that process, as a minimum. Please?

[Asketes]

Being forced into stupid pre-reqs for stuff you actually want is hogwash. Not being able to count points spent in other trees towards your total is hogwash. As it is on live right now, if I want X enhancement I have to spend Y points. Those Y points can be from any number of things, as long as I meet the feat requirements/level requirements/class requirements and total points spent. Not points spent only as a Kensai (who got royally cornholed, btw) or points spent only as an AA (who didn't get it as bad as Kensai, but is still awful) but maybe points spent on Human Recovery I and Toughness I.

I agree here, it's silly.

Why make me use points for something I don't want or need in a tree rather than just a total point count?

[Bronko]

There are already changes made from feedback. Will you see them in Thursday's build? Hrm. Right now the plan is for the next group of classes, so you wouldn't see any fixes or tweaks to the classes from this week...but I want to have a discussion with dev about opening the floodgates, but we still ask for focused feedback on specific classes...or something like that. Still chewing on the idea...I go back and forth on if opening the gates to multiclassing will help or hurt at this point.

I think it would hurt more than help to open the multiclassing floodgate at this point. Essentially multiclassing is going to be about tweaking the AP costs in the various trees. I'd rather see the actual enhancements in a better working form first and then see how the huge number of multiclass combinations start to play out. One fix at a time.

By the way, you may notice you made my sig.