Against the new cleric turning

[Chai]

Besides that this proposal will never happen, the data that comes from it is completely meaningless.

The data isnt meaningless at all. They already did the leg work and posted what their feedback shows.

Suppose you give people a better car, but people like the seats in their old car better. Naturally the data show that almost all people pick the better car. That doesn't mean the seats of the new car shouldn't be improved.

Once again, My proposal offers those people one domain which is clerics as is today. So in your analogy, they could buy the kit package for that car which has the seats they want. What they cannot do, is deny those people who want the new kit, their new kit. Just like someone could go buy a kit delorian or a kit 57 chevy today if they choose to. They wont be driving what the majority drives, but thats what they want, right?

[nat_1]

Nope, because my proposal once again, includes making one of the domains EXACTLY what you have now. The data would show that when compared to the other options, most people do not desire that which they have now, do not use it, and would be perfectly willing to trade it off for something that synergizes with their abilities they have already cultivated. This would handedly refute the nerf claim.

So you are against the changes from HD calculation to DC and instakill immunity? Because that would be EXACTLY what we have now.

The domains are a distraction. They are the new vending machine in the break room to distract from the changes the company is making to your 401k. Shuffling how you get to TU destroy is immaterial to the discussion. This thread is about turning, not domains. Opportunity costs and possible builds under the new domains are not relevant to the core TU mechanic changes.

Talking about the domain changes allows one to argue (falsely) that players are simply being given more options, that you can build a turning cleric just the same as before, it's just that you will get to it slightly differently. It seems nice and reasonable to give people more options while allowing them to keep playing the way they are if they choose. Except that's not what's going on. Stop conflating the issues. Domains shuffle how you access TU destroy but the DC and instakill restrictions are where the nerf lies. You are trying to make those who object to these restrictions seem unreasonable by claiming that they can have EXACTLY what they have now, plus more options besides, when that is demonstrably false.

Also, if someone else predicted what "the data would show" you would dismiss any of their points because nobody has that data yet. Can you attempt to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others?

[Chai]

So you are against the changes from HD calculation to DC and instakill immunity? Because that would be EXACTLY what we have now.

The domains are a distraction. They are the new vending machine in the break room to distract from the changes the company is making to your 401k. Shuffling how you get to TU destroy is immaterial to the discussion. This thread is about turning, not domains. Opportunity costs and possible builds under the new domains are not relevant to the core TU mechanic changes.

Talking about the domain changes allows one to argue (falsely) that players are simply being given more options, that you can build a turning cleric just the same as before, it's just that you will get to it slightly differently. It seems nice and reasonable to give people more options while allowing them to keep playing the way they are if they choose. Except that's not what's going on. Stop conflating the issues. Domains shuffle how you access TU destroy but the DC and instakill restrictions are where the nerf lies. You are trying to make those who object to these restrictions seem unreasonable by claiming that they can have EXACTLY what they have now, plus more options besides, when that is demonstrably false.

Also, if someone else predicted what "the data would show" you would dismiss any of their points because nobody has that data yet. Can you attempt to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others?

It isnt false to say the new domains give people more options. Your continued accusations of conflating the issue are incorrect. Theres no objective reason why youd still be against this change while having a domain that does exactly what clerics do now, unchanged.

[Forzah]

Once again, My proposal offers those people one domain which is clerics as is today. So in your analogy, they could buy the kit package for that car which has the seats they want. What they cannot do, is deny those people who want the new kit, their new kit. Just like someone could go buy a kit delorian or a kit 57 chevy today if they choose to. They wont be driving what the majority drives, but thats what they want, right?

My question is: what conclusions can you draw from this data about TU if the other offered options are better and people naturally gravitate towards those? I don't think you can draw any conclusions unless the experiment is very carefully designed, i.e., let people choose from two builds which are exactly the same except for the new and old version of TU. Obviously with all the domains being added simultaneously with the TU change, the data no longer give a clear answer since there is bias in the experimental design.

[Chai]

So you are against the changes from HD calculation to DC and instakill immunity? Because that would be EXACTLY what we have now.

The domains are a distraction. They are the new vending machine in the break room to distract from the changes the company is making to your 401k. Shuffling how you get to TU destroy is immaterial to the discussion. This thread is about turning, not domains. Opportunity costs and possible builds under the new domains are not relevant to the core TU mechanic changes.

Talking about the domain changes allows one to argue (falsely) that players are simply being given more options, that you can build a turning cleric just the same as before, it's just that you will get to it slightly differently. It seems nice and reasonable to give people more options while allowing them to keep playing the way they are if they choose. Except that's not what's going on. Stop conflating the issues. Domains shuffle how you access TU destroy but the DC and instakill restrictions are where the nerf lies. You are trying to make those who object to these restrictions seem unreasonable by claiming that they can have EXACTLY what they have now, plus more options besides, when that is demonstrably false.

Also, if someone else predicted what "the data would show" you would dismiss any of their points because nobody has that data yet. Can you attempt to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others?

It isnt false to say the new domains give people more options. You r continued accusations of conflating the issue are incorrect. Theres no objective reason why youd still be against this change while having a domain that does exactly what clerics do now, unchanged. If what Im saying is demonstrably false as you claim, then demonstrate how its false. Wait - cant do that before implementation.

[karatemack]

Suppose you give people a better car, but people like the seats in their old car better. Naturally the data show that almost all people pick the better car. That doesn't mean the seats of the new car shouldn't be improved.

It's more like this... we asked the car manufacturer to offer us black leather seats as opposed to the standard seat we have today.

Instead, the car manufacturer offers us the standard seats with a new heated option but colored purple in a car with poor efficiency when it comes to miles per gallon and a second alternative with polka dot seats made out of terry cloth in a car with excellent efficiency when it comes to miles per gallon.

Many of us argue that while we are grateful for the upgraded fuel efficiency and the option for heated seats... that we would really just like the black leather seats we originally asked for.

Others shout us down telling us to just go out of our way and purchase black leather seat covers and either be happy with the heated option or the better fuel efficiency (why would you offer paying customers two good options at once???).

Meanwhile the company just decides to roll live with the two options they have proposed so they can DATAMINE the ever loving **** out of their purchase logs. Turns out more people choose the car with the polka dotted seats... not for the seats... but for the fuel efficiency. Company declares that those asking for black leather seats were clearly wrong before since their "data" shows that customers prefer polka dotted seats. Those arguing we should just buy seat covers move on to arguing semantics and other non-related arguments... only this time with the customers requesting better in-flight service from airlines.

[Forzah]

It's more like this... we asked the car manufacturer to offer us black leather seats as opposed to the standard seat we have today.

Instead, the car manufacturer offers us the standard seats with a new heated option but colored purple in a car with poor efficiency when it comes to miles per gallon and a second alternative with polka dot seats made out of terry cloth in a car with excellent efficiency when it comes to miles per gallon.

Many of us argue that while we are grateful for the upgraded fuel efficiency and the option for heated seats... that we would really just like the black leather seats we originally asked for.

Others shout us down telling us to just go out of our way and purchase black leather seat covers and either be happy with the heated option or the better fuel efficiency (why would you offer paying customers two good options at once???).

Meanwhile the company just decides to roll live with the two options they have proposed so they can DATAMINE the ever loving **** out of their purchase logs. Turns out more people choose the car with the polka dotted seats... not for the seats... but for the fuel efficiency. Company declares that those asking for black leather seats were clearly wrong before since their "data" shows that customers prefer polka dotted seats. Those arguing we should just buy seat covers move on to arguing semantics and other non-related arguments... only this time with the customers requesting better in-flight service from airlines.

Haha, that's spot on, Karatemack!

[SirValentine]

Meanwhile the company just decides to roll live with the two options they have proposed so they can DATAMINE the ever loving **** out of their purchase logs. Turns out more people choose the car with the polka dotted seats... not for the seats... but for the fuel efficiency. Company declares that those asking for black leather seats were clearly wrong before since their "data" shows that customers prefer polka dotted seats.

Sorry, but "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to karatemack again."

[Sunnie]

The minimal investment claim is correct through about level 10 or so, then becomes incorrect. At that point, in elite and reaper, where a large portion of the playerbase is currently, it becomes a gear investment, and a choice between gearing for cha and gearing for wis. It still works, but starts declining from that point. So in 2/3rds of the game it progresses from beginning to require investment to doesnt work regardless of investment. Thus people stop building for it and use it for the other things I listed, most of which do work throughout the entire game.

Furthermore, once you get positive energy burst that is far more effective than TU in heroics. it not only wipes out all undead most of the time, matching the effect of TU, it also heals all allies (including yourself) and removes stat damage and neg levels. In those cases where TU trivializes undead content, positive energy burst is more effective in doing so anyhow. It also saves gear slots and a feat, because the cleric is already geared for healing anyhow, and that is already what powers PEB.

You're incorrect, my claim is correct. The required investment for useful turning of undead during heroic levels is 10AP and no more than 2 gear slots since there is considerable overlap between items that give bonuses to TU.

Nope, because my proposal once again, includes making one of the domains EXACTLY what you have now. The data would show that when compared to the other options, most people do not desire that which they have now, do not use it, and would be perfectly willing to trade it off for something that synergizes with their abilities they have already cultivated. This would handedly refute the nerf claim.

This is something you have failed to state clearly previously. It is also impossible if the proposed changes that would give TU a saving throw and move it in line with DC casting are implemented.
So it is clear that any data that might be gathered after the changes have been implemented could not even be used for measuring preferences between the current status and the status after the proposed changes.

By large degree I am correct. The feedback over the years has already shown this to be true. You have a post from a company employee themselves confirming there has been alot of feedback over the years calling TU useless. Continuing to repeatedly deny this is how most feel after that point really doesnt hold water. They have already done the legwork.

Every serious post in that vein has been concerned with TU only in higher-level and -difficulty epic content. TU has functioned and continues to function well in heroic content. It surprises me that you didn't take note of this.

This is why game companies (and most software companies worth their salt) datamine. The forums represent one subset of users. Datamining gathers data from all of them. What I see on this are 8 people who are vehemently against the changes, with lots of repetition. While they can create a high quantity of feedback through that repetition, that does not mean its coming from a high quantity of people. A company employee already confirmed what they see from the highest quantity of feedback over the years, and it doesnt agree with a large number of players finding the ability useful over the spread of levels you claim it is.

Let us assume this is correct and TU is currently hardly used at all. Why would an even weaker version of TU be used more then?

If you feel so strongly that this is not the case, you should be whole handedly agreeing with my proposal of keeping one domain as clerics are now, with zero changes. That way the people who so strongly feel what is proposed is a nerf to them still have the choice to build their clerics the same way they do now, and those who want to choose to build differently can do so. There is history to back this up. Crit Rage Barbarians in 2008. People who screamed FB was a nerf to crit rage builds (though they were incorrect) had the option to keep their outdated crit rage build. People who wanted to build FB after the changes could choose to do that.

As I pointed out above, your suggestion of making it so one Domain makes TU function exactly as it does today is delusional. It cannot happen. SSG would have to program in an entirely new version of TU in addition to the one that's already there, and they don't have the required personnel for that.
Furthermore, even if it did happen, too many variables would have changed for any mined data to allow us to draw reliable conclusions about players' preferences only with regard to TU.

[Chai]

As I pointed out above, your suggestion of making it so one Domain makes TU function exactly as it does today is delusional. It cannot happen. SSG would have to program in an entirely new version of TU in addition to the one that's already there, and they don't have the required personnel for that.

I already provided the example of crit rage barbarians where they did not have to reinvent the wheel or reprogram any entirely new version, to show evidence of how they have allowed people to keep their old build while at the same time introducing a new PRE into the game.

Youre only attacking this point because you realize that with the ability to keep what you already have, theres absolutely no objective reason whatsoever to advocate against the current proposed change. So the advocacy against the proposed change has to be couched in terms of zero possibility that they could have one of the domains be exactly what you have now, a claim which is objectively incorrect, as evidenced by them having accomplished just that, before in DDO.

The claim that they dont have the required personnel to do X Y and Z is also objectively incorrect, and an absurd claim. They are already implementing an entire domain system from scratch, but dont have the personnel to implement something that ALREADY EXISTS? Its already in the game. Its already implemented. No new personnel needed. No new time frame needed. You can play it TODAY.

This "undertaking of epic proportions, so cant happen" excuse gets tossed out alot by forumites who have no other refutation of a claim, but still insist on disagreeing with that claim anyhow. One keyword search reveals this one being made over 40 times in the past year, none of them by a company employee. Yet, some of those things people claimed wouldnt happen because they didnt have the staff to take it on, are currently in game. Some are on the drawing board, as we speak.

The content designer also posted earlier this weekend that none of this is implemented yet, and they still want to hear all feedback before the engineering team begins their work. So the idea that it cant happen is just plain wrong. The more feedback people provide that they want to be able to keep their current builds intact, the more likely that it will happen, or something similar will happen. That wont stop them from implementing domains however, which is long overdue in DDO.

[karatemack]

[chipotle47]

And for those poo poo-ing this as poor game design and wanting to keep the old ability the way it is, this is the design the game uses currently. We already have the ability to not invest anything into TU if we want, and instead use the charges for a number of other things.

Right, and it's nice to be able to use those other abilities in situations where you don't want to turn undead but right now we can't use TU the way it originally was created because it hasn't been scaled up properly like the rest of the game through ED's, gear and enhancements.

[nat_1]

It isnt false to say the new domains give people more options. You r continued accusations of conflating the issue are incorrect. Theres no objective reason why youd still be against this change while having a domain that does exactly what clerics do now, unchanged. If what Im saying is demonstrably false as you claim, then demonstrate how its false. Wait - cant do that before implementation.

So it's ok for you to state what the change will do before implementation? And it's not ok for others to state what the change will do before implementation?

How can you allow yourself such bald hypocrisy? Again, please try to hold yourself to your own standards.

[chipotle47]

Its not unreleated at all.

Yes it is. Whatever else you can use your turn undead for doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it is being changed from a HD formula to a Save formula.

What people are saying is they dont want to give up TU and use some other ability that uses its charges, and Im outlining how many already do just that, and have been doing so for years.

No again. What people are saying is that they want TU to scale up the way it is now to higher levels and reaper through gear, ED's and enhancements and the only reason they may use any of those other options is because TU currently doesn't scale properly or they are in a situation where they don't need to turn undead so they might as well use one of the other abilities.

[Chai]

So it's ok for you to state what the change will do before implementation? And it's not ok for others to state what the change will do before implementation?

How can you allow yourself such bald hypocrisy? Again, please try to hold yourself to your own standards.

TU is in the game right now. My proposal doesnt change that. It adds the other domains to it. So yet, we can talk about it now, because we already know what it does, now.

How can you allow yourself such bald hypocrisy? Again, please try to hold yourself to your own standards.

There is no hypocrisy in talking about something which already exists, factually. Please refrain from making personal accusations if you want to discuss this further.

[Chai]

Yes it is. Whatever else you can use your turn undead for doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it is being changed from a HD formula to a Save formula.

Nope. Again, there is a company employee quote on record stating 0% of this is implemented and they still want feedback. We have been over this.

No again. What people are saying is that they want TU to scale up the way it is now to higher levels and reaper through gear, ED's and enhancements and the only reason they may use any of those other options is because TU currently doesn't scale properly or they are in a situation where they don't need to turn undead so they might as well use one of the other abilities.

You just agreed with me, albeit in attempt to disagree. Thanks for the support.

[Forzah]

I already provided the example of crit rage barbarians where they did not have to reinvent the wheel or reprogram any entirely new version, to show evidence of how they have allowed people to keep their old build while at the same time introducing a new PRE into the game.

Youre only attacking this point because you realize that with the ability to keep what you already have, theres absolutely no objective reason whatsoever to advocate against the current proposed change. So the advocacy against the proposed change has to be couched in terms of zero possibility that they could have one of the domains be exactly what you have now, a claim which is objectively incorrect, as evidenced by them having accomplished just that, before in DDO.

The claim that they dont have the required personnel to do X Y and Z is also objectively incorrect, and an absurd claim. They are already implementing an entire domain system from scratch, but dont have the personnel to implement something that ALREADY EXISTS? Its already in the game. Its already implemented. No new personnel needed. No new time frame needed. You can play it TODAY.

This "undertaking of epic proportions, so cant happen" excuse gets tossed out alot by forumites who have no other refutation of a claim, but still insist on disagreeing with that claim anyhow. One keyword search reveals this one being made over 40 times in the past year, none of them by a company employee. Yet, some of those things people claimed wouldnt happen because they didnt have the staff to take it on, are currently in game. Some are on the drawing board, as we speak.

The content designer also posted earlier this weekend that none of this is implemented yet, and they still want to hear all feedback before the engineering team begins their work. So the idea that it cant happen is just plain wrong. The more feedback people provide that they want to be able to keep their current builds intact, the more likely that it will happen, or something similar will happen. That wont stop them from implementing domains however, which is long overdue in DDO.

They can probably do this, but it's not gonna happen. First, it leads to inconsistent design. The extra domain is inconsistent with the design of other domains and it's confusing to have spells with the same name working completely differently. Second, the extra work is probably not worth the effort. People tend to switch to stronger domains anyway. Third, one of the reasons why you proposed this, the data mining, will give biased results since not all experimental parameters are controlled for.

Relating to the third point: the fact that you are willing to draw conclusions from data mining that cannot objectively be drawn, shows that you are not as objective as you think.

[Chai]

They can probably do this, but it's not gonna happen. First, it leads to inconsistent design. The extra domain is inconsistent with the design of other domains and it's confusing to have spells with the same name working completely differently. Second, the extra work is probably not worth the effort. People tend to switch to stronger domains anyway. Third, one of the reasons why you proposed this, the data mining, will give biased results since not all experimental parameters are controlled for.

Relating to the third point: the fact that you are willing to draw conclusions from data mining that cannot objectively be drawn, shows that you are not as objective as you think.

Thanks for the support. While attempting to disagree predictably as usual, you just reinforced exactly what Im saying the entire time. Those attempting to run me out of the thread were calling this proposal a nerf to what we currently have. You guys cant call the proposal a nerf, then claim stronger domains. Youre not the first to have done this btw.

Crit rage barbarians refutes the claim that this cant be done. It also refutes that it would be extra work. Theres no bias in the datamining result whatsoever. You can gather whatever data is necessary to draw the correct conclusion. If you feel that you need every single parameter, then you can gather stats on every single parameter.

As far as inconsistent design because things work differently, welcome to DDO. Things have ALWAYS worked differently. One of the most provided reasons people claim they keep playing is due to that very diversity. If things all worked the same, DDO would be gauntlet 2.0 and there would be no reason to play different builds through different content. The fact that they work so differently is what keeps things fresh.

Objective conclusions can and have been drawn for datamining. The fact that you dont agree with them doesnt negate their objectivity.

The forums are where the incorrect conclusions are drawn more often than not because unlike data mining, it doesnt draw from the entire player base. One such example, probably the most skewed example, was the myth that "everyone was playing elite" and "elite was the default difficulty run by most" for all those years. Its easy to see how that myth is convincing if someone only reads the forums but doesnt play the game, or only plays the game a certain way. Then several quotes from several company employees confirmed that majority does not run elite, and every few years they have to say it again because people continue to ignore that and talk past it, all the while still claiming elite is the default. Datamining provides the correct conclusion as it analyzes the entire player base, rather than one sliver of one subset of the playerbase who repeats the same misinformation over and over again because the only evidence they have available is others repeating the same myth.

[Forzah]

Thanks for the support. While attempting to disagree predictably as usual, you just reinforced exactly what Im saying the entire time.

I will not respond to nonsense.

Crit rage barbarians refutes that this cant be done.

I don't understand this response. In the part you quoted I said it probably can be done.

It also refutes that it would be extra work.

It is self-evident that extra work is required to create an extra domain with all the old skills, even if it only involves copy pasting, but it probably involves some extra restrictions to prevent people from taking abilities from old and new trees at the same time.

Theres no bias in the datamining result whatsoever. You can gather whatever data is necessary to draw the correct conclusion. If you feel that you need every single parameter, then you can gather stats on every single parameter.

This statement shows a lack of understanding about carrying out scientific experiments and interpreting the data. Your experiment is biased since you don't control for other changes between the new and old situation (adding the domains). I refer to Karatemack's car analogy, where similarly it was impossible to determine the actual preference of customers when two changes occur simultaneously.

From the number of people staying in the old tree after the change you can't conclude anything. If it is 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, or 90%, what would you conclude in each of these situations? Despite being trained in econometrics, I have no idea how to interpret that number. The only objective conclusion is that we cannot conclude anything.

As far as inconsistent design because things work differently, welcome to DDO. Things have ALWAYS worked differently. One of the most provided reasons people claim they keep playing is due to that very diversity. If things all worked the same, DDO would be gauntlet 2.0 and there would be no reason to play different builds through different content. The fact that they work so differently is what keeps things fresh.

To the best of my knowledge, so far they never used two versions of the same spell.

Objective conclusions can and have been drawn for datamining. The fact that you dont agree with them doesnt negate their objectivity.

I didn't say you can't draw conclusions from data mining, it goes without saying that data is useful. I said you can't answer this specific question with the data you gathered pre- and post-change.

[Chai]

To the best of my knowledge, so far they never used two versions of the same spell.

You should check out epic destinies then. Theres spells in there which calculate their DC differently. Sound Burst for example. regular version different than bard version which has free metas, different than SLA in EDs which calcs DC differently.

Theres a cone of cold feat which is different in DC calc formula in epics.

Theres three different breath weapons for ice in this game, all of which produce damage, but calc the DC differently.

Theres 4 different versions of PK in the game, of which DC is calculated differently.

There are multiple versions of every spell that has an SLA, and the SLAs use different point costs and can be meta'd free while the real spell cannot be meta'd free. This includes 12 spells in the savant sorc PRE, 3 bard spells, 3 cleric/FVS spells, 3 druid spells.

Theres trip abilities that have no save in EDs, while the heroic version has a save.

There are a few stun abilities in heroics which all proc the exact same effect, which do not use the same DC formula.

There are multiple AOE knockdowns which all use different DC formulas, but all proc the exact same effect.

It is self-evident that extra work is required to create an extra domain with all the old skills, even if it only involves copy pasting, but it probably involves some extra restrictions to prevent people from taking abilities from different trees.

The vast majority of that work has already been done. The number of times people have claimed "epic undertaking therefore wont happen" on these forums with zero evidence to back that is amazing. This claim was also made in the crit rage barbarian era right before FB came out. It will never happen they said. Too much work they said. Only the "they" was the forumites, and not the devs. The devs allowed crit rage to exist for years for those who claimed they didnt want FB. This is a strong past example which shows that they have allowed old "obsoleted" mechanics to exist due to negative feedback about changes.