Rogue - Assassin Changes

[CThruTheEgo]

I disagree. assuming that any character can go fully INT based would be assuming that any haracter has access to the harper tree... which I think is not the case by a long shot. also it reminded me painfully of how long it took me to farm out the shard for the epic midnight greeting. pretty sure there is still a lot of finesse based assassins in the game. also asking to replace 2 dex with 4 INT is kind of brazen.

I agree, rogues need some big boni to be able to catch up with other classes again, but that's not it, that's a very individual and rather minor adjustment.

I do not assume access to the harper tree. I went int based before harper was even released. You have to if you want assassinate to be effective in EE content. And yes, it should be built around the hardest content because lower difficulties are so easy you can do whatever you want and still succeed. This isn't my fault, it's just the resulting condition of the game when Turbine equated challenge with inflated stats. Besides, harper is so cheap it can be obtained solely from free TP earned through favor, and anyone serious about playing an assassin will get it because it's just that good for them.

And I'm not asking for +2 dex to be turned into +4 int. Check the capstone, both currently on live and the proposed change. It already offers +2 int. So I'm asking for a total of +4 int instead of +2 dex and +2 int. And as others have pointed out, other revamped capstones are also offering +4 stats, so I'm not asking for anything out of the ordinary.

[bbqzor]

One benefit of this change is you can now use it with human damage boost, so this will save some AP by negating the need for a human assassin to go for haste boost from acrobat. Although damage boost + melee power boost is still less than damage boost + haste boost, but the saved AP should be a good tradeoff.

Well, if you force yourself to go human (or half elf or whatever) yea. But thatll only work (presumably) until the races receive the same pass. Point being, its not really a "gain" as the post I referenced said, its more of a lateral move everyone is receiving. There are pros and cons (con, less overall dps, pro, generally easier to access ap wise, affects some skills like envenomed blades that %dmg wont, etc). I just dont see changes like that as real "changes", it wasnt an assassin specific thing. It wasnt part of a specifically assassin targeted balance decision. Its just part of the default pass anyone/everyone will get as they go through. Thats all, I find it helpful to separate whats being done on account of assassins (or whatever tree in question) and being done as a general change to the game engine.

[Failedlegend]

If players are uncomfortable seeing enhancement passes during the raw inception phase and would rather us present to them a more polished version much later in the design cycle then we can also do that.

Sev~

No please ignore the dissenters this style is much preferred

[redoubt]

This comes across as a threat, "agree with us or we won't give you a chance to comment". Can't be helpful. Your other post said that Acrobat was done except for spinning wall comments, so does that mean the assassin is at a earlier stage still?

People have a right to complain and to compliment, trying to muzzle them would only produce worthless input that wouldn't help designers.

You should really go back and reread what is happening here.

A poster said something to the effect of, "If you thought that was good you are stupid, but why should I expect any better."

In response, Sev pointed out that it is early in the design process and it was presented to us for feedback.

Many of us feel that poster was rude and likely did not understand what he was looking at. Let me give you a bit of history. In the not so distant past, discussion threads and lamania builds were really just previews. The devs would put their idea of a finished product out. in those days our feedback was mostly ignored.

Severlin has been taking a very different track. He is going out on a limb and showing us very early ideas. Early ideas are often rough and need to change. The danger for him is jerks who want to insult him and/or the team for those ideas being rough. And on the other side, if something is proposed, many people see it as a promise and then get all pitch-forky if it changes.

I for one am glad he is willing to take that chance and actually work with us. I think if you read this thread in its entirety you will see the many places he has already taken player feedback into consideration.

Finally, there was no, "agree with us or else". He said, quit being rude or I'll walk away from the conversation. Which is fair. We can disagree politely.

[Urjak]

I'm not sure what is being articulated here. How does assassinate not work when soloing? I solo on my assassin frequently.

Are you saying that solo assassins having to wait 15 sec. to use assassinate again isn't doing enough assassinating to move quickly through content?

If the statement is about assassinating triggering auto agro from the room, that has been fixed.

It was about that IF you are solo in a quest the damage portion of the assassinate attack triggered aggro on you => assassinate auto-fail. Since that bug was in the game for years, I stopped retesting this on every update/patch some while ago. Awesome to hear it got fixed! (Though THAT should have really made it into release notes!)

=> Well, time to undust my assassin then

[UurlockYgmeov]

If players are uncomfortable seeing enhancement passes during the raw inception phase and would rather us present to them a more polished version much later in the design cycle then we can also do that.

Sev~

doing this this way is great. really helps the end result!

I felt a disturbance in The Force.




*chokes*

Oh dear.

oh dear oh dear...

[slarden]

Comments above. Youd be wise to spend those 3 new AP on the Assassin's Mark line, or find room for them otherwise. What amounts to basically -10% to mob damage is pretty good.

Honestly I expect itll play out as the base dps to come up a bit, the burst dps to stay about the same, a more consistent access to dodge for hitting dodge cap by level cap, and some slight mitigation gains in effective prr. Assuming you have points for cross tree use, move speed will help sneaking be less of a drawback, which is good. Itll make rogues a little more dps when theyre not running boosts which helps with consistency and help make spike-outs less common as long as the rogue strikes first, so those are both good things.

Dumping the assassinate DC problem off on items is likely a mistake, but will see how it plays out. Bucklers and Light Shields got dumped the same way and theyre left crippled itemization wise. And without retroactive changes to scale existing items, it will be very difficult for the DC to really change much... they could add a +1 item from 1-15, or a +5-6 item from 29-30, but thats not going to really do much. Adding a +6 item or something in the 20-28 range without changing the time consuming to get DW Neck, or the practically impossible (as in, theres no practical way to approach it) to obtain Mythic Veneer would essentially be punitive by proxy to existing player efforts, and actual item revamps have been extremely rare, but what else can you do. Itll probably just remain the same status quo as it is now, with it being "difficult" to use in EE lets say.

I hope they examine the agro/functionality of assassinate. Wont be able to see until Lama. Right now it is *extremely* fickle on hitting more than one target, though the agro issues seem a bit reduced than they were previously. Somewhere recently some changes happened, but its still not "working right" like it did before the big stealth overhaul. I dunno what of that was intentional and not in patch notes, or just side effects of other changes (see str based fireball). But anything less than remaining stealthed, while hitting 2-3 mobs with assassinate, is a loss compared to the functionality it had previously. So hopefully that can get checked out. Im going to just keep assuming it wasnt an intentional change until I see in patch notes "yes, we made assassinate worse on purpose" so thats where Im coming from.

If they get assassinate working right again, and the items actually get revamped or something to address the DC practicality, things will be pretty good. But without that ability kind of firing on all cylinders, itll be tough for this tree to compete with other T5 choices. Just some thoughts, cheers.

My understanding is that faster sneaking from Thief-Acrobat is being merged into stealthy and faster sneaking in Thief Acrobat is being replaced by a general rogue speed boost (% based on rogue levels).

You are probably right that I should invest in the poison strikes line to reduce enemy damage by up to 10%. It can be useful against champs i don't assassinate. I will most likely try many different combinations out until I settle on a final build. I originally thought I would pass because the 2 biggest dangers I face is a champ that can bypass fortification in which case 10% likely won't matter in high level EE quests. The other is a mob of enemies in which case I use daunting roar which works well for 15 seconds. I've never been a big fan of the poison strikes because with an Int of 74 my DC is 52 compared to Daunting Roar which is 66. So I would be taking that solely for the damage reduction benefit.

I am not sure I see the same assassin DC problem you are describing. I can get a workable DC, but compared to swashbuckler I get less opportunities to use it due to the requirements. Sometimes it seems like stealth is broke when it shouldn't be but I guess it means an enemy rolled a 20 on their spot check.

Whatever the devs decide on I am fine with. I enjoy the character now and it's going to get a little better so I can't complain.

[Severlin]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I prefer as a Producer for the team to engage in the former, even though I know at some points we will have to correct ourselves and the players will see early information. If that proves problematic, however, then we as a team can certainly operate using the latter communicative style, and many producers and companies prefer that approach.

Sev~

[Myrddinman]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I prefer as a Producer for the team to engage in the former, even though I know at some points we will have to correct ourselves and the players will see early information. If that proves problematic, however, then we as a team can certainly operate using the latter communicative style, and many producers and companies prefer that approach.

Sev~

Put me down for the raw style...wait, that doesn't sound quite right

Thanks again for the open and frank discussion. It has been quite refreshing, informative, and enjoyable. We DDO players are a passionate lot, and this style of back and forth allows us to use our powers for good, rather than evil. Well, some of us anyway...

[dunklezhan]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I prefer as a Producer for the team to engage in the former, even though I know at some points we will have to correct ourselves and the players will see early information. If that proves problematic, however, then we as a team can certainly operate using the latter communicative style, and many producers and companies prefer that approach.

Sev~

In case it was unclear, I am supportive of the current style. I realised my last post could be read two ways. The way I meant it was the one where it's funny, not the one where it's criticism. I would much, much rather get a view of the creative process and feed into it. It makes me feel involved regardless of the fact that I'm an outlier in terms of 'average customer'.

[Qhualor]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I prefer as a Producer for the team to engage in the former, even though I know at some points we will have to correct ourselves and the players will see early information. If that proves problematic, however, then we as a team can certainly operate using the latter communicative style, and many producers and companies prefer that approach.

Sev~

i see a lot more positives than negatives when it comes to dev feedback. the kind of communication that is happening right now is more than welcome. some of us don't want to go back to those "dark ages" of little dev communication. it shows me a level of care and that you guys are reading/listening even if i don't like what you have to say. i always look forward to checking dev tracker several times a day to see what the latest news is.

[Bobby88888]

~ Added 10 Melee Power to the final core to help it compete with some of the other DPS capstones.

~ Added explicit Maximum Dodge to Light Armor Mastery.

Sev~

Thanks Sev this is some much needed changes. Also the 'raw' method is much better.

How about increasing the PRR to 5/10/15 to improve damage mitigation by a small amount? This is still one of the central problems that needs fixing.

I second this.

I also think that the DPS is sadly lacking. 10 MP is nowhere near enough. I would like to see either a increase in benefit from melee power to SA damage and or SA damage can now cirt (or only on vorpals if you thinking that is too much) or preferably both. Core 18 and 20 are the perfect place to put these as they are both lacking still (I recommend crit/vorp on 18 simply to keep it in the same vein theme wise)

Thanks Sev

[arkonas]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I prefer as a Producer for the team to engage in the former, even though I know at some points we will have to correct ourselves and the players will see early information. If that proves problematic, however, then we as a team can certainly operate using the latter communicative style, and many producers and companies prefer that approach.

Sev~

i prefer raw style approach. im happy you're just willing to talk. there are devs in other games where they wont listen to the consumers or just not care. then the games become broken and some unplayable. so ill take any talk with errors in it and you guys correcting yourselves then a polished more corporate look.

[Silverleafeon]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I prefer as a Producer for the team to engage in the former, even though I know at some points we will have to correct ourselves and the players will see early information. If that proves problematic, however, then we as a team can certainly operate using the latter communicative style, and many producers and companies prefer that approach.

Sev~

Well, to start with, I would go to streets of eveningstar, where the players are and listen to what they have to say about this Sev fellow. Your communication style and in depth intelligence is highly regarded. Or put bluntly, "I like Sev, we have a producer that talks to us instead of sitting in an ivory tower far away."

You are doing great, keep up the good work.

[Silverleafeon]

If players are uncomfortable seeing enhancement passes during the raw inception phase and would rather us present to them a more polished version much later in the design cycle then we can also do that.

Sev~

I'll say the same things I said on the PC when the same subject was brought up.

PLEASE bring things to us as early as possible and TALK to us as much as possible.
That is the best way for us to have a playing experience that was appreciated.
Even if it mean occasional pitchfolks and torches to let the team know where the thin ice resides.

[dualscissors]

Thanks Sev this is some much needed changes. Also the 'raw' method is much better.



I second this.

I also think that the DPS is sadly lacking. 10 MP is nowhere near enough. I would like to see either a increase in benefit from melee power to SA damage and or SA damage can now cirt (or only on vorpals if you thinking that is too much) or preferably both. Core 18 and 20 are the perfect place to put these as they are both lacking still (I recommend crit/vorp on 18 simply to keep it in the same vein theme wise)

Thanks Sev

10 MP on its own might seem underwhelming compared to certain super-powered melee machines. Also remember that at tier-5 Measure the Foe is adding +4MP per tick (up to 5x). That's another variable 4-20MP that will be up on assassin rogues for much of the duration of fights. Assassin's Trick will put on the table a more reliable source of 25% Fortification-breaking on pesky enemy types, and thus MP-boosted sneak attack.

I don't have the APs to take too much MP from Harper but some assassins will scrounge up a bit more there.

Does this still seem weak from the enhancement tree? Or is the relative weakness of DPS in Shadowdancer where the sense of assassins still being subpar in damage where a lot of this sentiment is coming from?

The way that I just framed MP derived from Measure the Foe probably sways me to what Cthru was arguing with regard to the MtF ticks vanishing 1 at a time, instead of all at once.

[Fedora1]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

My vote is for the way you are doing it here in this thread.

I've been impressed with the way you handle things so far.

[PermaBanned]

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I think you'll find that should anyone advocate for ^that^ style over the awesome level of interaction all y'all have displayed as of late, they'll be greeted with far more forks & torches than you guys

[Sebastrd]

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.
Sev~

I'll take this one every time, warts and all.

[Thar]

It's not really my intent for that to be taken as "be rude and I'll walk" as much as "which producing style do players prefer?"

If a raw style where we communicate a lot is preferred that style has drawbacks. Because we talk with the players directly there is no editing or polish phase to our posts, and that means we are subject to typos, comments that lose context, and sometimes just flat out being wrong about something. This is especially true if we are posting late and/or from home to try to catch up with threads. Some players feel this type of interaction lacks a certain type of professionalism and I respect that.

If we go with a more polished communication style then each post to the players goes through an editing phase, information is consolidated into packages and carefully combed over, and players see a much more polished level of communication. This type of communication means that problems are filtered out and errors and typos that might erode player confidence are much less likely to occur, but it drastically reduces the amount of iteration that can occur during a more raw interaction with the devs. It also eliminates posts that directly reference player feedback.

I prefer as a Producer for the team to engage in the former, even though I know at some points we will have to correct ourselves and the players will see early information. If that proves problematic, however, then we as a team can certainly operate using the latter communicative style, and many producers and companies prefer that approach.

Sev~

Even if i disagree with some of the decisions, I appreciate the communication. And I can certainly out typo you! Any email can be taken out of context and people need to be patient.

I think we all agree that we appreciate that you are taking feedback from the masses. Maybe sometimes too much feedback is going into changes or too much of the loud voices of the few are going into changes, but much better than no communication, here is the change and we then complain it's not going to work... I believe (as i'm in software development too) that the earlier issues are brought to the team, the better the end result will be as the team can focus on other things rather than tweaking and adjusting later.

AND you work late all the time posting replys to us. +1 rep point...

get another few rep points for good a ranger pass