Melee Survivability Changes - Some First Steps

[sjbb87]

Keep the 25% but make it stack with fighter and paladin instances. The spell range reduction is a good trade off.

fighter and paladin instances give 20%
assimar 10%
Strength of Vitality: Passive Bonus: 20%(tank destiny)

Note sure if need a other extra 25~50%

even being exclusive with fighter and paladin instances (hp only) will still give a bonus to tanks(5~25%).

Or simply tanks can pick up the other stance options like: Hardy Defense, Sacred Defence, and still have all the benefit of Epic Defensive Fighting

[sjbb87]

OK this one just for some laughs.

My English is not perfect, but I think you can understand the meaning of the joke.

[LT218]

Your the 1 misinformed and completely out of touch with 50% of the player base. I am asking you if you can to come out of your echo chamber step out of the bubble of elite power gaming so you could see it differently.

Words of wisdom

1. This change, which I would have done differently were I developing it, is designed to target a specific issue which exists in some content, not just reaper, that disproportionately affects a subset of builds/classes.?* ?*It's a balance pass.?* ?*The problem is that the methodology in question is flawed and builds are so varied that it is very difficult to target the builds you want to provide a benefit to.?* ?*

2. One of the biggest community feedback issues will be builds/classes this change is not intended for thinking it should be intended for them.?* Ranged and casters will see "ooohhh?* HPs!!!!!?* I gotta have that.?* I deserve to?* have that.?* SSG is screwing me by nerfing my character when I get the HPs!!!!!"?* ?* No caster/ranged/monk The HP are not for you.?* ?*?* ?*(That's part of why this solution is flawed.?* You need one that clearly keeps it where you want it to be)

3. It is possible that the better solution is to make changes on the content side in the particularly problematic content.?* (Hint.?* It's not R10 6 man content or high skulls in general.?* If you think this is about high skulls/R10, then you don't know what you are talking about.?* Time to keep quiet and learn first or ask questions and learn first before you give your opinion)

These are not my words but right on the money!

So many things wrong with this, but clearly you're just going in circles rather than actually addressing facts. And if point #3 is any indication, you're starting to think you're a DDO forum cop. Here's a tip - when you get to the point where all you've got left is to start telling other people to be quiet and not offer their opinion, you've generally lost the debate.

I'll leave you to that particular flavor of *wisdom* and go back to running my elitist reaper missions with my woefully unsurvivable DPS melee toon.

[noobodyfool]

[QUOTE=LT218;6125948]So many things wrong with this, but clearly you're just going in circles rather than actually addressing facts. And if point #3 is any indication, you're starting to think you're a DDO forum cop. Here's a tip - when you get to the point where all you've got left is to start telling other people to be quiet and not offer their opinion, you've generally lost the debate.

I'll leave you to that particular flavor of *wisdom* and go back to running my elitist reaper missions with my woefully unsurvivable DPS melee toon.[/QUOTE

The facts mam just the facts!

Facts are not debatable although returning to your elitist reaper missions as you yourself put it and as to how you got there is debatable.

You have the right to remain silent any thing you say can be used against you.

Now I would like to ask you a few questions

Do you yourself or anybody you know use exploits?

Have ever use or been a party to others using exploits?

Do you intend to use exploits in the future?

[elvesunited]

The spellcasting range limitation means Hybrid melee/casters won't be able to use it. Those Eldritch Knights, Warpriests, and war souls are obviously powerful enough already.

I'd say the bonus should apply to shield mastery and improved shield mastery too. Just make it so it doesn't stack with the bonus from single weapon and two handed fighting for those characters that manage more than one fighting style.

Sacred Defender and stalwart defender should stack with the new hp bonuses. They were designed to be tanks which means they should have more hp then those not designed to be tanks.

[redoubt]

The fact that charms haven't been nerfed yet is hilarious, given SSG's mission statement against stealth. They don't want to have the possibility of players sneaking past a few mobs, ignoring the obvious fallacy that most of their quest design has become boring *must kill mob* hack n' slash.

The fact that a single caster can solo r10 night market in 15 minutes at cap (about the same time that a well geared 6 man party can clear the dungeon) and some how, despite that fact, they have not even begun to explore any viable means to change charm mechanic leaves you wondering.

If they cannot change charmed mob dmg to be insignificant and unviable for soloing (the method they should go for), then the only viable second option to leave the content unbroken is to remove charms period.

In an earlier response to Kaboom I did say I'd rather they were honest and just removed charms completely. The long, long chain of nerfs to charms needs to end.

If reaper is broken, fix reaper. Leave the rest alone.

They could remove charms.

Admit they don't care about stealth.

And lastly admit they don't care about turning and I could finally leave.

But they want us hanging on and keep saying that they'll look into it so we'll stay... and apparently i'm dumb enough to put up with it.

[EllisDee37]

I read through the dev tracker posts in this thread and see that they've already backed off this idea, though I haven't read player posts beyond around page 9. An alternate idea came to me so I thought I'd share.

- Melee "physically dodge" less attacks than Ranged To be clear I mean avoiding the mobs swing detect or projectile outright, no hit roll even. Not even talking about static defenses yet... less distance to threat equal less time to react. We realize some players are exceptionally good at doing this even in melee, but it's much harder.

This is the crux of the biscuit, but then you went in a different direction with...

- Why HP? Couple of reasons. 1> HP works on every damage type 2> It pushes healing gearing/trees to be more useful 3> Because its being done in a lump sum here it'd be really hard to do it as PRR/MRR which is better delivered piecemeal because it's more effective at lower values.

You don't need this "balancer" effect to work on every damage type. In fact, you kind of don't want it to.

You want the new balancer mechanic to help specifically against the "more attacks that melee can't really dodge compared to ranged." The vast majority of those are physical melee attacks. PRR is the mechanic to handle that damage type.

Instead of a feat granting hp, make armor, shields and melee weapons being equipped in your main hand PRR multipliers. This would make it scale for leveling, wouldn't require an awkward new feat, and should be somewhat sensible. If I have a sword in my hand I can deflect your incoming axe swing better than if I were holding a longbow or a throwing dagger.

Totally made up numbers, just now, that I haven't thought out at all. Obviously need major tweaking, but just as an example:

PRR Multipliers

0.75 Cloth Armor
1.00 Light Armor / Mithril Body
1.25 Medium Armor / Densewood Body (hint hint)
1.50 Heavy Armor / Adamantine Body

1.00 No shield equipped
1.05 Buckler equipped
1.10 Small shield equipped
1.15 Heavy shield equipped
1.20 Tower shield equipped

1.25 Melee weapon equipped in main hand
0.75 Main hand not currently holding a melee weapon

Comparing some build types now with made-up numbers comparing with and without this mechanic:

- Thrower monk with 200 PRR now would end up with 200 * 0.75 (cloth armor) * 0.75 (thrower main hand) = 113 PRR
- TWF ranger in leather armor with 200 PRR now would end up with 200 * 1.25 (melee weapon) = 250 PRR
- Heavy armor THF melee with 200 PRR would end up with 200 * 1.50 (heavy armor) * 1.25 (melee weapon) = 375 PRR

Adjust numbers as you see fit. The underlying principle is that the very act of equipping a melee weapon in your main hand increases your physical damage avoidance by virtue of the fact that your dominant hand is holding something you can physically parry incoming blows with.

No feats required. No waiting for a kludgy epic feat to make your play style workable. No requirement to take melee feat lines. Scales well; works for all levels and difficulties. Addresses the core issue.

You can drop the armor and shield aspects if that's too much; the core idea is to offer a positive PRR modifier when a melee weapon is equipped in your main hand, and a negative multiplier when you're not holding a melee weapon.

[Grace_ana]

I read through the dev tracker posts in this thread and see that they've already backed off this idea, though I haven't read player posts beyond around page 9. An alternate idea came to me so I thought I'd share.This is the crux of the biscuit, but then you went in a different direction with...

You don't need this "balancer" effect to work on every damage type. In fact, you kind of don't want it to.

You want the new balancer mechanic to help specifically against the "more attacks that melee can't really dodge compared to ranged." The vast majority of those are physical melee attacks. PRR is the mechanic to handle that damage type.

Instead of a feat granting hp, make armor, shields and melee weapons being equipped in your main hand PRR multipliers. This would make it scale for leveling, wouldn't require an awkward new feat, and should be somewhat sensible. If I have a sword in my hand I can deflect your incoming axe swing better than if I were holding a longbow or a throwing dagger.

Totally made up numbers, just now, that I haven't thought out at all. Obviously need major tweaking, but just as an example:

PRR Multipliers

0.75 Cloth Armor
1.00 Light Armor / Mithril Body
1.25 Medium Armor / Densewood Body (hint hint)
1.50 Heavy Armor / Adamantine Body

1.00 No shield equipped
1.05 Buckler equipped
1.10 Small shield equipped
1.15 Heavy shield equipped
1.20 Tower shield equipped

1.25 Melee weapon equipped in main hand
0.75 Main hand not currently holding a melee weapon

Comparing some build types now with made-up numbers comparing with and without this mechanic:

- Thrower monk with 200 PRR now would end up with 200 * 0.75 (cloth armor) * 0.75 (thrower main hand) = 113 PRR
- TWF ranger in leather armor with 200 PRR now would end up with 200 * 1.25 (melee weapon) = 250 PRR
- Heavy armor THF melee with 200 PRR would end up with 200 * 1.50 (heavy armor) * 1.25 (melee weapon) = 375 PRR

Adjust numbers as you see fit. The underlying principle is that the very act of equipping a melee weapon in your main hand increases your physical damage avoidance by virtue of the fact that your dominant hand is holding something you can physically parry incoming blows with.

No feats required. No waiting for a kludgy epic feat to make your play style workable. No requirement to take melee feat lines. Scales well; works for all levels and difficulties. Addresses the core issue.

You can drop the armor and shield aspects if that's too much; the core idea is to offer a positive PRR modifier when a melee weapon is equipped in your main hand, and a negative multiplier when you're not holding a melee weapon.

I think this is an interesting idea worth exploring. I do take issue with the armor, though. Monks are forced into wearing cloth armor but are melee. They don't need yet another proxy nerf. You would have to add more equivalent PRR to monk inherently (perhaps when using any monk stance).

[Silverleafeon]

The big problem that I see with this thread is that you classifying the new buffs as the same type as tank hp buffs.

The biggest problem that I see with reaper is an encounter a red named boss that CC does not work upon.

For example, players so far in my experience have the most problem with the red named crab boss in the new white plum quest.
A place where tanks would be needed.

Another example is Slaver's part III end fight having a lot of deaths due to the red named that cannot be CCed.

Tanks give up so much in feats, epic destinies and gear already.
Excluding this group from a new melee defensive buff makes no sense, as it reduces the role/class difference between melee dps and tanks.

Given that Class/Role difference is one of the most important points of creating a new class, one could conclude that a developer intent on reducing class/role distinction is actually working countproductively against the typical goal of the design teams.

It is understandable that a Developer might be hesitant to grant a tank a free 50% hp buff of any sort, but perhaps that is because the proposed buff is too large?


One of the more popular Druid build combines a level of Tank-like ness simply because raids often lack tank toons.
You can find Gingerspices' thread in the druid section, and I understand the philosophy because I have often filled tank type roles with many different classes including Sorcerer for lack of any toon available during filling a raid.


In summary, suggesting you go less big with the hp buffs - think 2-3% per feat group including the shield feats in your feat list and making the buff untyped instead of competence. Also, consider removing touch spell range and replacing with the wording of "Spells have three times their normal cooldown when this mode is active."

[Niminae]

fighter and paladin instances give 20%
assimar 10%
Strength of Vitality: Passive Bonus: 20%(tank destiny)

Note sure if need a other extra 25~50%

even being exclusive with fighter and paladin instances (hp only) will still give a bonus to tanks(5~25%).

The issue with the non-stacking is that the devs (well, Torc) are saying "Melee need more HP. Just not if they already invested in more HP." Classes which don't have that option will see the benefit while Fighters and Paladins won't. It's half-assed, because on one hand they are saying it is needed and on the other they are saying that two classes can't access it.

The message is very mixed. "We have determined that melee need this. But we're excluding some melee just because." With no hints as to the design decisions that led them to this conclusion so the player base might better understand what is going on here.

[noobodyfool]

The issue with the non-stacking is that the devs (well, Torc) are saying "Melee need more HP. Just not if they already invested in more HP." Classes which don't have that option will see the benefit while Fighters and Paladins won't. It's half-assed, because on one hand they are saying it is needed and on the other they are saying that two classes can't access it.

The message is very mixed. "We have determined that melee need this. But we're excluding some melee just because." With no hints as to the design decisions that led them to this conclusion so the player base might better understand what is going on here.

This is step 1 more steps to come with fighter and pally tweeks.

[noobodyfool]

There is at least half the player base that understands that melee should have more HP.
The things that we don't understand are why no shield feats why keep it from tanks?
Why we cant heal our friends?

[KingNite]

Instead of a feat granting hp, make armor, shields and melee weapons being equipped in your main hand PRR multipliers. This would make it scale for leveling, wouldn't require an awkward new feat, and should be somewhat sensible. If I have a sword in my hand I can deflect your incoming axe swing better than if I were holding a longbow or a throwing dagger.

Totally made up numbers, just now, that I haven't thought out at all. Obviously need major tweaking, but just as an example:

PRR Multipliers

0.75 Cloth Armor
1.00 Light Armor / Mithril Body
1.25 Medium Armor / Densewood Body (hint hint)
1.50 Heavy Armor / Adamantine Body

1.00 No shield equipped
1.05 Buckler equipped
1.10 Small shield equipped
1.15 Heavy shield equipped
1.20 Tower shield equipped

1.25 Melee weapon equipped in main hand
0.75 Main hand not currently holding a melee weapon

Comparing some build types now with made-up numbers comparing with and without this mechanic:

- Thrower monk with 200 PRR now would end up with 200 * 0.75 (cloth armor) * 0.75 (thrower main hand) = 113 PRR
- TWF ranger in leather armor with 200 PRR now would end up with 200 * 1.25 (melee weapon) = 250 PRR
- Heavy armor THF melee with 200 PRR would end up with 200 * 1.50 (heavy armor) * 1.25 (melee weapon) = 375 PRR

Adjust numbers as you see fit. The underlying principle is that the very act of equipping a melee weapon in your main hand increases your physical damage avoidance by virtue of the fact that your dominant hand is holding something you can physically parry incoming blows with.

No feats required. No waiting for a kludgy epic feat to make your play style workable. No requirement to take melee feat lines. Scales well; works for all levels and difficulties. Addresses the core issue.

You can drop the armor and shield aspects if that's too much; the core idea is to offer a positive PRR modifier when a melee weapon is equipped in your main hand, and a negative multiplier when you're not holding a melee weapon.

Just NO. It is a terrible idea if the intention is to help melees only. That would keep ranged dps out of the equation but any caster with heavy armor and/or tower shield would benefit more than most of the twf or thf melee dps and almost as much as any swf dps.

- A Caster with tower shied and heavy armor holding a weapon with 150 PRR would end up with 150 * 1.5(heavy armor) * 1.25(melee weapon) * 1.20 tower shield = 337 PRR

More than the monk or the ranger in your example and only slightly lower than the thf. The more you add to de base PRR the worse it gets. And with new and higher PRR values in future items and abilities it's ony a matter of time till it gets even worse.

[Ballrus]

There is at least half the player base that understands that melee should have more HP.
The things that we don't understand are why no shield feats why keep it from tanks? I think that they will update shields after this HP thing.
Why we cant heal our friends? Can heal if friend is near.

..

[noobodyfool]

..

Yea bud I'm with you as pure fighters armed with cacoon and our hands full in combat heals are far and few between. So the heal thing don't effect me but for others it do.

[elvesunited]

There is at least half the player base that understands that melee should have more HP.
The things that we don't understand are why no shield feats why keep it from tanks?
Why we cant heal our friends?

Goal: Prevent characters who manage to use multiple combat styles at the same time from benefiting from extra hp. ( swashbucler / bastard sword / dwarven axe )

Consequence: There are shield mastery only types out there getting left in the cold.


Goal: Prevent offensive spellcasters from using the extra hp feat.

Consequence: Will force melees with heal spells to choose between the extra hp and being able to provide heal support for their group. Will also make melee/caster hybrids like warpriest and eldritch knight even less attractive.


Goal: Prevent end game monster tanks ( Tier 5 Stalwart/Sacred Defenders and nature protectors ) with top end gear and ridiculous levels of hp, AC and PRR/MRR from being to benefit from this new feat and become even more ridiculous.

Consequence: Dedicated tank characters who aren't maxed out and don't have top gear have limited ability to take advantage of the new feat even though they need it too.

[noobodyfool]

Goal: Prevent characters who manage to use multiple combat styles at the same time from benefiting from extra hp. ( swashbucler / bastard sword / dwarven axe )

Consequence: There are shield mastery only types out there getting left in the cold.


Goal: Prevent offensive spellcasters from using the extra hp feat.

Consequence: Will force melees with heal spells to choose between the extra hp and being able to provide heal support for their group. Will also make melee/caster hybrids like warpriest and eldritch knight even less attractive.


Goal: Prevent end game monster tanks ( Tier 5 Stalwart/Sacred Defenders and nature protectors ) with top end gear and ridiculous levels of hp, AC and PRR/MRR from being to benefit from this new feat and become even more ridiculous.

Consequence: Dedicated tank characters who aren't maxed out and don't have top gear have limited ability to take advantage of the new feat even though they need it too.

Thank you for laying it out like this you put it perfectly, it's a tough problem to solve and there has to be give and take Im for it and as a tank it don't Benefit me but it's a step in the right direction.

[Garthog77]

There is at least half the player base that understands that melee should have more HP.
The things that we don't understand are why no shield feats why keep it from tanks?
Why we cant heal our friends?

"At least half the player base" .... What stats are you using to state that? Going by forum posts it seems not to be true. Please stop claiming something that you have no stats to back up. That goes for a lot of people on here, not just you.

[Garthog77]

[QUOTE=noobodyfool;6125950]

So many things wrong with this, but clearly you're just going in circles rather than actually addressing facts. And if point #3 is any indication, you're starting to think you're a DDO forum cop. Here's a tip - when you get to the point where all you've got left is to start telling other people to be quiet and not offer their opinion, you've generally lost the debate.

I'll leave you to that particular flavor of *wisdom* and go back to running my elitist reaper missions with my woefully unsurvivable DPS melee toon.[/QUOTE

The facts mam just the facts!

Facts are not debatable although returning to your elitist reaper missions as you yourself put it and as to how you got there is debatable.

You have the right to remain silent any thing you say can be used against you.

Now I would like to ask you a few questions

Do you yourself or anybody you know use exploits?

Have ever use or been a party to others using exploits?

Do you intend to use exploits in the future?

"Facts are not debatable>" Of course they are. Facts are just something that has been proven to be true, but they can still be disproven later. The history of science is just one very good example of this.

[EllisDee37]

"Facts are not debatable>" Of course they are. Facts are just something that has been proven to be true, but they can still be disproven later. The history of science is just one very good example of this.

You're thinking of "theories", not "facts." Facts are not debatable by definition. It's the theories to explain facts that can be proven now and then disproven later, but the facts remain the same.