Devs lets have a roundtable on "AP spent in tree" please?

[IronClan]

I can not see how "AP spent in tree" benefits the game, the players, build diversity or balance (there are plenty of choice restrictions and gating without this one). So I'm hoping a Dev will chime in and let us know why they think it's so important?

Here's my perspective:

AP spent in tree is the engine thats driving a number of bad design choices. The biggest being that it's the main reason that live generic class enhancements are pushed into PrE trees. You need to have enough things to spend on in each tree: so you have to stuff the PrE trees with unrelated stuff instead of more intuitive base class "core trees" with PrE's being in their own little "sub tree".

It's an added choice constriction on a system that is going from 3 choice constraints (live) to 7! (SEVEN)
It adds "pathing" as in path of least resistance to get to a desirable ability. AKA: pigeonholing AKA making characters look and feel the same.
It breaks (needlessly) a whole lot of live builds because generic class enhancements are in PrE trees instead of a core enhancement tree.
It necessitates the +20 LR that they're giving us, because we can't recreate live builds with it in place.
It forces them to stuff PrE's with "filler" enhancements that might otherwise have been thrown out.
It's really not obvious why they would bother with it as it forces them to fluff out PrE trees in a way that is non-creative and restrictive for the Developers: In that every time they create a new PrE after the pass they will be forced to fluff it out because there needs to be enough things to spend AP's on in the new tree to meet the gate requirements.

IMO none of this is necessary, it is all needless because the AP spent in tree requirement can be "gated" with the already existing prerequisites... Arrows, total AP spent (as in Live) feat and enhancement's needed, class and character levels, and finally COST. Simple cost...

If something is too good to have without an investment in the tree, simply use arrows.
If something is too good to have at the price you've set, raise it.
If something is too good to have before you've progressed in class/character or AP's available to spend, then put class level or total AP spent restrictions on them.

AP spent in tree is (as far as I can tell) a needless gate that doesn't get you much of any benefit while forcing a bunch of bad design choices.

[Systern]

Can we throw in to the discussion the basic UI as well?

One of the stated goals of the enhancement pass is to "Aid in character planning and design".


In the current cumbersome system there is the "Show Unavailable" checkbox, that shows the higher tiers and their tool tips (mostly) show you their prerequisites.

In the new system, there is absolutely no way for a level 1 character to see what rank 3 of 3 of those tier 5 abilities do. There is no way to explore and try to plan out what path you need to take.

This is a huge step backwards.

[dlsidhe]

I felt the same way about the "AP Spent in Tree" gate, until someone pointed out a very valid reason: a multiclass character hits 20, then resets all their AP and takes only higher-tier enhancements, skipping all the filler and no longer relevant ones.

You can't do that now, because of level gating - as an example, if you want immunity to level drain as a paladin, you have to take 12 levels and HotD II. Another example - you want to have an undead shroud option as a wizard? At least level 6 and taking the PM ! prerequisites.

If AP-in-tree enhancements were removed, and replaced with total-AP-spent, then you could make a vastly OP character.

However, being able to see what all three tiers of an enhancement do would be really nice - like that DWS Stealthy 3 grants an extra SA die, or that Henshin ability that gives +1 passive Ki regeneration.

[Danemoth]

It adds "pathing" as in path of least resistance to get to a desirable ability. AKA: pigeonholing AKA making characters look and feel the same.

I agree that this is a major problem. DDO should be moving away from what other MMOs like Neverwinter and WoW do by forcing all characters to make only a select few cookie cutter choices that make the game incredibly generic. I already know what a Control Wizard (NWN) or a Paladin (WoW) can do just by looking at them, because these things only come in one to three flavors. With DDO, I liked that when I looked at someone, I had no idea their class, level, or function. When I Examined them and saw something insane like 2 Paladin, 2 Monk, 16 Sorc, I still didn't know the function of that character, what spells they took, and what they did in combat.

Pathing destroys creativity, and creates cookie cutter builds. DDOs niche is being able to offer such a huge, diverse array of creativity. "AP spent in tree" hinders this creativity.

It breaks (needlessly) a whole lot of live builds because generic class enhancements are in PrE trees instead of a core enhancement tree.

I agree with this one. I don't know why some classes (like Barbarian) have to make choices about which enhancement they get when before they had access to everything. Why should only one tree get improvements to Power Attack, for example? That was core for the Barbarian class if I'm not mistaken. Why should a Sorc have to choose ONE elements when they could theoretically bolster multiple elements, as on live without needless gating? Why are already weak classes like Warchanter Bards losing access to their spell power and wand and scroll mastery when they need that for self-sufficiency to survive?

Even if "AP spent in tree" was changed to "AP spent in X trees", where X is a given class, it would free up more diverse creativity for these classes (well, except maybe Sorcerer. Poor Savants....)

It necessitates the +20 LR that they're giving us, because we can't recreate live builds with it in place.

To be fair, even if the "AP spent in tree" was removed, I think many builds would still need a +20 LR to remove feats that they otherwise wouldn't need anymore with the removal of many feat requirements.

It forces them to stuff PrE's with "filler" enhancements that might otherwise have been thrown out.

Minor buffs to skills and things like Wand Heightening come to mind, for sure. I never had to take any of those on live (except in place of PrE requirements) but often times I'm juggling between a couple "bad" enhancement choices just to open up the higher tiers.

[redspecter23]

If AP-in-tree enhancements were removed, and replaced with total-AP-spent, then you could make a vastly OP character.

As mentioned, a good fix for that is to use the prerequisite "arrows" to determine paths for some of the more powerful abilities. In this way certain powerful abilities can still basically have a type of "points spent in tree" system to keep them in check, but less powerful abilities can be left without prerequisite arrow paths, allowing you to take them simply by qualifying through your class levels. Yes, it does change some balance and trees would have to be looked at individually to keep balance in check, but I think it would allow for more customization than the blanket "AP spent in tree" restriction we currently face. It would allow you to take certain higher tier abilities of classes without wasting points on useless abilities just to unlock higher ones. If something is unique or powerful like tier 5 abilities, there is no reason they can't simply use prerequisites to keep it in check. There are many different prerequisites that could be used other than the very bland points spent in tree model. Turbine should think outside the box and get a bit more creative there.

[patang01]

I felt the same way about the "AP Spent in Tree" gate, until someone pointed out a very valid reason: a multiclass character hits 20, then resets all their AP and takes only higher-tier enhancements, skipping all the filler and no longer relevant ones.

You can't do that now, because of level gating - as an example, if you want immunity to level drain as a paladin, you have to take 12 levels and HotD II. Another example - you want to have an undead shroud option as a wizard? At least level 6 and taking the PM ! prerequisites.

If AP-in-tree enhancements were removed, and replaced with total-AP-spent, then you could make a vastly OP character.

However, being able to see what all three tiers of an enhancement do would be really nice - like that DWS Stealthy 3 grants an extra SA die, or that Henshin ability that gives +1 passive Ki regeneration.

1 solution is to have a core class tree where we find things we expect that class to generally pick from. Then a prestige tree with specialization - you can formulate a smart spend in tree cost there - so you don't get people doing what you point out.

Spend in tree across the board creates constriction. Splitting core class features into prestige trees creates pigeonholing. Like lay on hands in one prestige tree and smite in the other? Or as with ranger, favored enemy stuff in deepwood? I mean as ranger I will pick a favored enemy feat every so many levels but the actual true benefit as enhancements is split into deepwood - something I as a tempest now never have to bother with.

In other words; on lam I don't even take that stuff because I have to spend extra AP on stuff I'll never use. And that is bad.

There are lots of good with this system like the ability to branch into new features - marrying tempest with AA so both melee and ranged is boosted. But then you get the oddities that 'remove' the true nature of ranger class since I'm no longer investing in stuff that screams ranger. And that is bad.

[IronClan]

I felt the same way about the "AP Spent in Tree" gate, until someone pointed out a very valid reason: a multiclass character hits 20, then resets all their AP and takes only higher-tier enhancements, skipping all the filler and no longer relevant ones.

There are 7 ways already in the system besides AP spent in tree to limit or balance choices so you can't just get only the most powerful. Of these 7 there are 5 that specifically can gate your concern: These are: Red Arrows, feat and enhancement prereqs. The number of Trees allowed although that has been expanded in the latest version so it's barely restrictive any more (IMO they opened this up too much but whatever you'll never be able to get most of them anyway due to total AP available, and AP spent in tree) and there's the rule that only allows you to pick tier 5 choices in one tree, that's four, last but not least there is simply the AP cost of the abilities.

AP spent in tree is simply unnecessary any combination of two or three of those 5 restrictions will serve, let alone having ALL FIVE interacting to gate the concern you have. We don't need 6 gates.

Eliminate AP spent in tree and tweak the total trees you're allowed to take enhancements from down to 4, make the best choices tier 5's make the better tier 4's cost more AP's, and make the really strong tier 5's have an arrow pathway that makes them even more expensive. Lastly make PrE's more expensive than core class enhancements. Just like they currently are (once you consider their "tax" enhancements like Heal skill II and etc. for Radiant Servant)

Put all the "generic" class enhancements in a core "tree" and put all the PrE's in there own smaller trees. This fixes almost every major issue people are complaining about, and leaves a more intuitive and less fluff filled system that doesn't break many (or any) live builds.

It's a classic "win win" scenario.

[hi_sa1nt]

Meh, or you could give us 2 more APs for every level we complete after 10 for a total of 90 ap at the end. This might fix a few things at level 20. But I do like a few of the suggestions mentioned in this thread.

[Danemoth]

Eliminate AP spent in tree and tweak the total trees you're allowed to take enhancements from down to 4, make the best choices tier 5's make the better tier 4's cost more AP's, and make the really strong tier 5's have an arrow pathway that makes them even more expensive. Lastly make PrE's more expensive than core class enhancements. Just like they currently are (once you consider their "tax" enhancements like Heal skill II and etc. for Radiant Servant)

Put all the "generic" class enhancements in a core "tree" and put all the PrE's in there own smaller trees. This fixes almost every major issue people are complaining about, and leaves a more intuitive and less fluff filled system that doesn't break many (or any) live builds.

It's a classic "win win" scenario.

I would really rather they reduced AP costs down to 1 AP per enhancement, since the UI, I find, is either incomplete or not intuitive for showing AP costs (nor does it update when you click an enhancement to spend a point. I could put all of my points into a tree but it'll still say I have that many left to spend. :P). Combine that with a "Generic class tree" to suck up some of your points and ensure that the number of enhancements in the PrE trees don't drop, and you'll end up with more choice, but without allowing people to get everything.

Hell, if we want enhancements to cost more points, they should just have more ranks for that given enhancement. /shrug

At least then it's intuitive and you get something for every point / every rank you gain.

[IronClan]

Can we get a Dev to chime in here? Maybe pass this thread around and treat this seriously? I think AP spent in tree is mostly disliked mechanic (lots of threads howling about it) and is needless. Why keep a restriction that only serves to pigeon hole, and reinforces a couple lame design choices (like needing PrE trees to have generic class enhancements so there's "fluff" to spend AP's on).

The purpose it serves can be acomplished with already existing gates like cost and arrows and prerequisites, that have none of the draw backs of creating "paths of least resistance" (AKA lots of characters with identical enhancements).

[Iriale]

AP spent in the tree is the second big mistake of this new system. But I think that not core class trees are worse. We would not have to spread so much if the general enhancements were in the same tree. Prestige trees should be limited to specialized enhancements.

Now, the fact is that “points spent in the tree” kills racial trees, which become prohibitively expensive.

[whereispowderedsilve]

Devs? Chime in on this please? Anybody? Some good thoughts in this thread here. Asking nicely/sincerely/politely some interaction would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance! Cheers! :P! !

[EllisDee37]

I felt the same way about the "AP Spent in Tree" gate, until someone pointed out a very valid reason: a multiclass character hits 20, then resets all their AP and takes only higher-tier enhancements, skipping all the filler and no longer relevant ones.

Actually no, that's the exact purpose and function of "total AP spent." Picture this as the "total AP spent" gates:

Gating (Total AP Spent)
Tier 1: 0 AP gate
Tier 2: 10 AP gate
Tier 3: 25 AP gate
Tier 4: 40 AP gate
Tier 5: 60 AP gate

Now what happens when you hit 20 and respec? Here's the absolute "maximum power" you can spend:

Distribution after level 20 respec (Total AP Spent)
Tier 1: spend 10 AP
Tier 2: spend 15 AP
Tier 3: spend 15 AP
Tier 4: spend 20 AP
Tier 5: spend 20 AP

That's pretty darn balanced. And this nice balance is achieved elegantly, while allowing the player to pick whatever abilities from whatever trees they want without concern. All while balancing power appropriately, which means the devs would have far more flexibility when adding new enhancements or trees in future updates.

Why would "total AP spent" gating give devs more flexbility? Because under the current "points spent in tree" mechanic, if they add a new tree they significantly nerf every other tree for that class by proxy, making it far more complicated to balance that class's enhancements.

Needless to say, I am fully on IronClan's bandwagon of changing the AP gating to "total AP spent."

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that in the current incarnation on lammania, if you spend all 80 points in one single tree you can end up with far more higher-power enhancements compared to the proposal in this post. Meaning "total AP spent" is actually better than "points spent in tree" at preventing people from respeccing at 20 to take only higher power enhancements.

Specifically, the current "points spent in tree" for a single-tree build theoretically allows:

Distribution after level 20 respec (Points Spent In Tree)
Tier 1: spend 5 AP
Tier 2: spend 5 AP
Tier 3: spend 5 AP
Tier 4: spend 15 AP
Tier 5: spend 50 AP

Which distribution has the better power balance?

[whereispowderedsilve]

Bump again -- hoping 4 dev feedback/interaction -- What are the Devs goals/intents? What is the vision & goal? Some good discussion & points raised in here.

Can somebody please stop by & interact with us? Asking nicely/sincerely/politely! Cheers! :P! !

[TheKeeper1981]

Oh, that would be nice! I hope the devs would like to discuss it.

[Mister_Shevek]

This would be OP. The system being developed nearly balanced (they still need to fix Barb enhancements and improve Paladin ones somewhat) and very versatile. Allowing people to cherry pick MORE is a great way to throw away what balance devs have already achieved.

[Deadlock]

I asked the question about Total AP instead of AP Spent in Tree, especially for racial enhancements in the dev chat the other night - answer was that it's a non-starter.

So if we're going to be stuck with AP Spent in Tree, then all we can do is get more bang for our buck.

Reducing the AP cost on enhancements takes us part of the way there, but I think to make this work properly, we're going to need more than 80 AP to begin with.

I would like to see us get 1 AP per rank regardless of whether it's a level-up rank or not, up to a maximum of 95 AP.

With more AP to spend, you've got a chance of spending some on racial enhancements - otherise, I fear there will be a lot of dead enhancements that nobody ever uses simply because they don't have any spare AP.

[EllisDee37]

This would be OP. The system being developed nearly balanced (they still need to fix Barb enhancements and improve Paladin ones somewhat) and very versatile. Allowing people to cherry pick MORE is a great way to throw away what balance devs have already achieved.

It's not OP, as evidenced by the fact that it has been working fine on live for years.