DDO and the Future of Combat Styles

[Pyed-Pyper]

....

Nerfing, aka balancing, comes at the end of all of these questions which must be answered first. If you balance before you framework, the balancing has no context, and will never achieve the overarching goals, because you had none in the first place.

+1

I'd also suggest that fixing whats broken should precede balancing, or at least taken into account.

[Pyed-Pyper]

I'm basically with you, but I'd say there's a sliding scale with cap "endgame" play being the primary focus for balanced, epic/legendary in general being in the middle, and heroic a lower priority. As long as various forms of reincarnation are a big part of the game I don't think you can totally throw out balance in any phase.

I agree that you've got to set you're expectations pretty low when it comes to balancing the vast, set, and wildly varied heroic content.

Since reincarnation is the default end-game, I suggest that fixing balance vs heroic is fixing end-game.

[Jasparion]

+1

I'd also suggest that fixing whats broken should precede balancing, or at least taken into account.

Which is what they are doing here. Imbues were broken, and are now being fixed.

[Pyed-Pyper]

Which is what they are doing here. Imbues were broken, and are now being fixed.

To which I say, good, its about time! One down, how many more to go?

[Jasparion]

To which I say, good, its about time! One down, how many more to go?

This Update we get content, class changes, item changes, and bug fixes. Hopefully something we see with every update from now on.

There is a Dev who is devoting a lot of time to fixing the more annoying (but easy) bugs and Devs who seem to be listening and trying to work on the more difficult issues.

As long as they have each Update fix a bunch of things we are definitely heading in the right direction. But there is a LOT of stuff needing fixing.

[Pyed-Pyper]

This Update we get content, class changes, item changes, and bug fixes. Hopefully something we see with every update from now on.

There is a Dev who is devoting a lot of time to fixing the more annoying (but easy) bugs and Devs who seem to be listening and trying to work on the more difficult issues.

As long as they have each Update fix a bunch of things we are definitely heading in the right direction. But there is a LOT of stuff needing fixing.

I haven't read the "please fix" thread, but since it is at least as long as the typical "nerf warlock" thread, it appears to be a step in the right direction.

[blerkington]

Nice post, Jakeelala. I agree that this area is one that needs attention and would like to see the various ranged styles brought closer together in effectiveness. I'd really like shiradi to become a more effective ED for ranged characters overall rather than just a source of good twists for people mainly running in Fury and less commonly in LD. Making non shuriken throwers competitive would also be great, as would be adding a reason to consider using a shortbow over a longbow.

It seems to me like one of the main issues for ranged is how this combat system handles procs and additonal damage (eg, SA) for weapons that have such greatly varying rates of fire. If ranged combat styles are going to be balanced against each it seems like the solution will need to include some sort of levelling of base damage, additional damage and chances of getting procs from individual missiles. I'm not saying it needs to be the same for all styles; it would be more interesting if they were better at different things, but something more has to be done to iron out the advantages the higher RoF styles generally have.

Not sure I agree with your assessment of bows being more cumbersome than throwers up close though. It is difficult to use a bow on a moving target that is up close and threatening you, but if you want to get a decent amount of power throwing something it's a full body movement requiring full extension of the arm. Keeping your hands close to your body and snapping the wrist just isn't going to do it, no matter what martial arts films claim. But maybe that level of realism isn't required in the game.

Thanks.

[Jasparion]

Non shuriken thrower builds being viable would be great. They have released a few really cool throwing weapons which I just cant imagine ever getting used in any serious manner. Which seems like such a waste.

[Niminae]

Turbine had stated that bards were the baseline that they were setting for the power of (updated) classes.

Bard was buffed with the "bar" of Swashbuckler in June, 2014 with U22.

Warlock was released in June 2015 with U26.
And as of the U36 release tomorrow Warlock will have been nerfed four separate times times across the two year interval since its release. And there is no way to know if this fourth nerf will be considered successful in correctly matching up to that bar.

Clearly there is some issue in meeting the bar they have set for themselves. Or remembering that there is supposed to be a bar. Or perhaps even seeing the bar.

throwing weapons have an infinite range in DDO. Honestly, their damage should degrade with increasing range, much faster than a bow or crossbow. However, that trade should go in reverse: larger bows and crossbows should have less range degradation, but much slower fire rates, and much lower effectiveness in close quarters and short range. A thrown weapon can easily be effective over a couple of feet. It's much harder with a longbow to make an accurate shot quickly while being attacked over a few feet. Ditto a crossbow.

These are good points, and it doesn't escape me that PnP D&D 3.5 has exactly this kind of drawback built into all ranged combat. Depending on the weapon there is a To Hit penalty applied for each range interval, with (just as you describe) a throwing weapon having a much shorter range interval than a bow or crossbow.

And what you describe as being the very realistic challenges of firing a bow at point blank range is also built into PnP D&D 3.5, with opponents getting an attack of opportunity on someone who tries to use a missile weapon in hand-to-hand combat.

If ranged players were slowing down their groups (or their own solo play) with a bunch of misses when firing at maximum visual range, or if they were doing a lot of missing until the opponents closed half the distance to them, then that might bring about a change in player combat tactics.

Whether or not this would be a good thing, for either combat or the game, I don't know. I am just a simple caveman. I fell into some water and was frozen, and years later your scientists thawed me out. Sometimes when I see a Warlock I wonder if he has made a Pact with some demon. I see a repeating crossbow and I think "Does some Wizard make this thing work?" I don't know. But what I do know is that it would be a little more true to the PnP roots, but that that reason by itself isn't a valid reason to make a change.

[cru121]

Here are my observations about Ranged Power

* I guess Ranged Power met your design goal, as one of the tools for
balancing melee / ranged / casters. Whether you succeeded in balancing
em all is another matter, but you have the tool.
* By granting significant "free" RP from epic levels and epic
destinies, you're reducing the impact of heroic class. Not sure if
this was a good idea.
* One traditionally ranged class that stands out as lacking Ranged
Power is Artificer, but let's see what U36 will bring.
* One not-ranged-at-all class that gets RP is... Warlock.
* One curious fact is that Warforged are the only race that can get
racial bonus to Ranged Power. This is pretty weird imho.

[jakeelala]

Here are my observations about Ranged Power

I appreciate this input, though not exactly sure what to do with it. Ranged Power is a very specific part of the ranged discussion, and to be fair, the player council application was very strangely worded.

Did they mean the state of ranged combat style power? Or the actual values of ranged power, which without context have absolutely nothing interesting to bring up for debate. It's just the same as several other coefficients used to scale a number up or down.

[jakeelala]

Bard was buffed with the "bar" of Swashbuckler in June, 2014 with U22.

Whether or not this would be a good thing, for either combat or the game, I don't know. I am just a simple caveman. I fell into some water and was frozen, and years later your scientists thawed me out. Sometimes when I see a Warlock I wonder if he has made a Pact with some demon. I see a repeating crossbow and I think "Does some Wizard make this thing work?" I don't know. But what I do know is that it would be a little more true to the PnP roots, but that that reason by itself isn't a valid reason to make a change.

great reference, +1

[Chai]

Scenario:
1 thing is far better than every other thing.

Possible solutions:
a) Nerf the 1 thing
b) Buff every other thing

Given how how hard it is to get 1 thing right, you think the better solution is to try it on for a dozen or more things? I assume then you need to go and look at all the content too, because now every thing can do that content a whole lot easier.

If you ever wonder why it feels like you are yelling at the wind, I think you could read this post.

No need to, as that list of options is incorrect, due to false dichotomy fallacy being invoked.

Add to the list of possible solutions.

Possible solutions:
a) Nerf the 1 thing
b) Buff every other thing
c) Create content where the "1 thing" isnt the best solution for defeating said content.

Those who think the game is trapped into a binary class vs class system, simply havent done any thinking outside that class vs class box. When "1 thing" is better than the others, this is not the problem itself, but a symptom of the real problem, as it indicates the reason why the "1 thing" is always better. The content in the game is designed with the same challenges. Groups of 6-8 mobs, with the same scaling HP, same saves strengths and weaknesses falling into the same range needed to be built for, etc.

No one thought a game with D&D in the name wouldn't attract players that would master the system and figure out the meta, then figure out the best build which is closest to god mode to grind out all the power with? When theres essentially 1 kind of content, they will build the "1 thing" which is "always best" in that system.

The bonus question which refutes your claim entirely: Which was better, warlocks or throwers? When you claim "one thing that is better than every other thing" you dont get to cite both. Yet you have done just that, and recently. Its clear to see how this hyperbole and misinformation is repeated often and loudly on the forums in order to push the nerf agenda forward. Regardless of what it is, just keep shouting that its the best at everything, over and over again, regardless of how untrue that claim is, or if the same thing was shouted by the same people about a different class / build a day or two ago.

[Rys]

As I was not asked to join this or any future player councils in the last round

May I ask why?

[KoobTheProud]

What I don't get in general about the "class balance" issue at this point is why people think classes should be balanced? I have never played an MMO in which the classes were balanced. This was true in EQ in 1998 and in WoW in 2004 and in DDO in 2006. There were always outlier classes that were more powerful and weak classes that were less powerful than the average class. There were always classes that could solo better and classes that were semi-required in groups (e.g. tank and healer for instances).

In DDO the lack of balance has always been even more obvious than in other MMO's due to the multi-class nature of the game. Balancing Rangers, Rogues, Fighters and Monks was kind of an exercise in futility given the fact that many very successful builds incorporated as many as 18 levels of one of the above and up to 6 of any of the rest. Multi-classing was a thing that produced more power and more self-sufficiency back in the day when you needed leveling sigils to take level 4 and level 8 on the way to a cap that was much lower than today's.

With 20 Heroic class levels, 80 Action Points, 10 Epic levels available and 12 Epic Destinies available it would seem impossible to produce a balanced game at cap. There are just too many different combinations that drive things like character power, utility and self-sufficiency.

Given that reality attempts to balance around one "broken" class or even the top outlier builds are doomed to fail. People will just move on to the next broken thing which will leave the same number of players whining as it becomes the top kill producer, runs ahead and leaves them in the dust, makes them feel like pikers all the time. You can't produce balance that is equal for all players and all builds those players will choose to run. You can't even come close when many players are playing sub-optimal builds for flavor, or due to not really understanding the meta or just plain unwillingness to play a top build. Trying to balance the game so that a superfluous build is capable of showing well in high end content is a useless endeavor. Nerfing a high flier because too many people are playing it may be a valid response however it isn't going to do anything for the people playing weak builds or who are weak players.

We've already got people complaining about the Cleric domains and they haven't even been enacted yet. If Clerics become the flavor of the month after the domain change, as is likely, we'll have many people complaining that Clerics are too powerful and as a result their fun is being impacted. You can't balance around the people who won't play powerful things when they are available or who are incapable of performing well with the build they choose to play. That just reduces the fun for everybody and it does not appease the people for whom DDO will never be fun due to their goals and the choices they make to try to reach those goals.

[jakeelala]

May I ask why?

I don't know you'd have to ask the Devs

[Renvar]

I would love if, a la Vish earlier, we kept this major theme of this thread about how Turbine can address the totally unhinged and fully lacking "meta-meta" game of combat styles. IE:

Why are ranged?
How should this combat style apply to the game vis a vis casting or melee?
Why are melee?
How should this combat style apply to the game vis a vis casting or ranged?
Why are caster?
How should this combat style apply to the game vis a vis ranged or melee?

AND THEN

How are ranged?
--subQ: how are throwing?
----subsubQ: how are shuriken?
----subsubQ: how are throwing axes?
----subsubQ: how are throwing daggers?
----subsubQ: how are darts?
--subQ: how are bows?
----subsubQ: how are short bows?
----subsubQ: how are long bows?
--subQ: how are xbows?
----subsubQ: how are great xbows?
----subsubQ: how are heavy xbows?
----subsubQ: how are light xbows?
----subsubQ: how are heavy rptr xbows?
----subsubQ: how are light rptr xbows?
...and then....
How are melee?
...
How are caster?
...

Nerfing, aka balancing, comes at the end of all of these questions which must be answered first. If you balance before you framework, the balancing has no context, and will never achieve the overarching goals, because you had none in the first place.

Here's a question related to the above: What is the point of having short bows and long bows in the game? Short bows seem to be nothing more than a weaker base damage version of a long bow. With no advantages. There are only two named short bows in the game: Collapsible Short Bow(with no damage mods. Just bonuses to swim, jump, and tumble...because that's what you want on your weapon...) and Scorpion Tail Short Bow, which does 1d6 of poison damage.

Why not just change those to long bows and eliminate short bows entirely?

Same thing with Composite Long Bow and Short Bow. Which exist, but have no named weapons and appear to offer no differences from regular long bow or short bow. So, why do they exist? Seems we only need 1 bow type at all, if there isn't going to be any reason to use 3 of the 4.


The same seems to hold true for Heavy Crossbow and Light Crossbow. They are just more sucky versions of the Repeating Heavy/Light Crossbow. And, again, SSG has made zero named epic Heavy or Light Crossbows. They basically disappear after about level 10. It seems assumed that if you are doing crossbows you are going to invest the feat for Great Xbow or one of the repeaters or have at least 1 rogue or Arti level to get them. Because the base damage benefits are just too good.

So if they aren't going to make interesting named items for them and nobody uses them, then get rid of them. 3 types of X-bows is probably fine.

Now, if you do implement some sort of RoF difference, range of attack difference, and crit profile differences, then it makes more sense.

Take bows:

Short Bow - RoF: 1.5 times base RoF. Range:50% of base. Damage: 1d6. Crit: 19-20x2

Long Bow - RoF: 1 times base RoF. Range:100% of base. Damage: 1d8. Crit: 19-20x3

Composite Bow (Requires Exotic Feat. Rangers/Elves get for free in AA Tree: Core 4 (level 12)) - RoF - 1.25 times base RoF. Range: 125% of base. Damage: 1d10. Crit: 19-20x3.

Just as an example. Play with the numbers for balancing, and do the same with xbows and throwers.

[jakeelala]

Take bows:

Short Bow - RoF: 1.5 times base RoF. Range:50% of base. Damage: 1d6. Crit: 19-20x2

Long Bow - RoF: 1 times base RoF. Range:100% of base. Damage: 1d8. Crit: 19-20x3

Composite Bow (Requires Exotic Feat. Rangers/Elves get for free in AA Tree: Core 4 (level 12)) - RoF - 1.25 times base RoF. Range: 125% of base. Damage: 1d10. Crit: 19-20x3.

Just as an example. Play with the numbers for balancing, and do the same with xbows and throwers.

This is exactly what I am trying to get at.

If they would do all of this first, then balancing these combat styles could have some sort of rhyme or reason. But I still think the devs to need to communicate and manage toward some sort of higher up paradigm of what is meant to happen at long range, medium range, short range, and melee range for all combat styles. The rest becomes easy after that.

[KoobTheProud]

This is exactly what I am trying to get at.

If they would do all of this first, then balancing these combat styles could have some sort of rhyme or reason. But I still think the devs to need to communicate and manage toward some sort of higher up paradigm of what is meant to happen at long range, medium range, short range, and melee range for all combat styles. The rest becomes easy after that.

This would not work. It would just make players carry a range of bows/xbows for different purposes and swap as needed. Use the Longbow to snipe at range, switch to the Shortbow for rate of fire on casters and similar mobs for which the rapid impact of shots is better, etc.

If all the feats involved were for different types of weapon/bow then you might have something but as it stands doing significant differentiation of combat styles, particularly within the style will just lead to players carrying a range of weapons to use - which will further the invisible pack mule problem.

[jakeelala]

This would not work. It would just make players carry a range of bows/xbows for different purposes and swap as needed. Use the Longbow to snipe at range, switch to the Shortbow for rate of fire on casters and similar mobs for which the rapid impact of shots is better, etc.

If all the feats involved were for different types of weapon/bow then you might have something but as it stands doing significant differentiation of combat styles, particularly within the style will just lead to players carrying a range of weapons to use - which will further the invisible pack mule problem.

I disagree with your argument. There was a time in DDO when different weapons (MANY different weapons) were carried by characters to get different jobs done. You had to carry something for slash resistant mobs, something for skeletons, something for undead, something for DR breaking, etc. It was a great time in DDO, because it brought an aspect of planning and strategy that is now missing in the current Diablo 3 clone we have today.

Moreover, it would be a further improvement to the game if people we able to specialize further, if they chose, or remain more general, if they chose, in the kind of damage they deal and at what stage of a fight (long, medium, short, melee, etc). Moreover, there are sorts of interesting effects and nuances that can then be introduced. For example, if these changes were made, I would expect great crossbows and longbows to by default cause a run speed slowdown in non-giant enemies. They have incredible stopping power.

I also think great xbows should get IPS by default (maybe long composite bows too). They punch through people like butter.

There is no invisible pack mule problem for the vast majority of players. That sounds like a YOU problem. And I'm saying that as an absolute collector/hoarder who has played since 2006.