U45 Preview 2: Balance: Two Handed Fighting Changes

[Tuxedoman96]

I still want what I've wanted all along...

THF should not be limited by number of targets. It should be AOE. Area of effect. Not simply two- or three-target.

I should be able to pull as many mobs as I can tank, and whack them all together. Maybe not all for 100% full damage multi strikes every time, but the "right way" to play THF shouldnt be trying to pull exactly 2-3 mobs at a time.

The current implementation just invites min-maxing with SWF, and that's a fight its going to lose. Having it be agnostic to number of targets means there's an appreciable, fundamental playstyle difference between THF and SWF/TWF, because you can scale your total outgoing DPS by skillful gameplay, with the inherent tradeoff of being in melee range with many enemies.

It encourages you to play the game completely different than you would with SWF/TWF, and that's a sign that its found a good rolespace. Right now it doesnt really, it just encourages you to pull two instead of one, which pretty much feels like the same thing.

The problem is that we really need to nail down several different factors:

Single vs Multi (i.e. how much damage should THF do to a single target as opposed to AoE)

Risk vs Reward (how should we balance the DPS so that we do not have to fight, say, 8 monsters to compete with a SWF or TWF melee build that does that same dmg against 1, since fighting 8 monsters for the same amount of dmg is significantly more risky for the same reward)

DPS vs Monster HP (obviously, if the DPS isn't high enough to handle hp inflation, then it won't be worthwhile no matter how many mobs you can hit)

Time vs Mobs (how much time should it take to kill a group? Should it be similar to the time it takes for other combat styles? And if not, how much of a time difference should there be?)


Because this matter has apparently been left to us (by Coco's own admission), we should honestly be discussing this as much, if not more so, then the changes to THF itself. We've been tasked to decide what the metric will be, and just throwing around that it should do great AoE dmg but not be top single-target DPS is too vague to really decide how well we're accomplishing this.

[Xgya]

You're nerfing the line that benefited most from two-handed weapons aside from THF in the process.

Cleave/Great Cleave/Any other class- or ED-specific Cleave

The reason they benefited from it more is because THF is the slow and steady combat style, and Cleaves don't care about attack speed, and they give [W]s of which two-handed weapons have the highest base.
At lower levels, those are a big part of melee DPS, even single target, and now they lost about 30% of their effectiveness at those levels.

They were already fading out of usefulness come epics because they can't doublestrike. The most I see of their use in higher epics is OUT of combat, where people mindlessly click it to recharge Lay Waste.

If you want two-handed weapons to be the best at AoE, give them buffs specific to the melee AoE attacks. Right now, this is direct nerf to those for two-handed weapon users, while the other combat styles will continue cleaving with absolutely no downside.

[Zretch]

The problem is that we really need to nail down several different factors:

Single vs Multi (i.e. how much damage should THF do to a single target as opposed to AoE)

Risk vs Reward (how should we balance the DPS so that we do not have to fight, say, 8 monsters to compete with a SWF or TWF melee build that does that same dmg against 1, since fighting 8 monsters for the same amount of dmg is significantly more risky for the same reward)

DPS vs Monster HP (obviously, if the DPS isn't high enough to handle hp inflation, then it won't be worthwhile no matter how many mobs you can hit)

Time vs Mobs (how much time should it take to kill a group? Should it be similar to the time it takes for other combat styles? And if not, how much of a time difference should there be?)


Because this matter has apparently been left to us (by Coco's own admission), we should honestly be discussing this as much, if not more so, then the changes to THF itself. We've been tasked to decide what the metric will be, and just throwing around that it should do great AoE dmg but not be top single-target DPS is too vague to really decide how well we're accomplishing this.

Listen, as long as the same attacks are being leveraged for both single target and AoE, you'll NEVER get the balance right. Strikethrough was the worst possible implementation of an "AOE Focused" melee as it's modeled on the Warlock / Wizard / Sorc / IPS AoE model of "my AoE hits as hard as my single target does", just with a target cap. When the nerf eventually comes (like it did for Warlock), then single target gets nerfed right along with AoE. If you tune the AoE to be able to deal decent damage to a single target, then your Aoe capability will be WAY out of line on multiple targets.

Separate AoE and single target attacks. Make sure single target attacks are scale across styles:
THF his slow and hard, scale up base damage and damage adders automatically to account for the slower attack speed
TWF hits often, scale down damage adders from the offhand to account for the additional strikes
SWF hits fast, scale up base damage to account for single weapon, but scale down damage adders to account for faster attack speed

Then balance AoEs based on cleaves:
THF feat progression decreases cleave cooldowns (cleave alacrity), increases the hitbox size, increases the radius hit, and allows increased chance to doublestrike.
TWF feat progression adds a chance to hit with offhand on cleaves.
SWF feat progression increases cleave attack animation.

Then you have a "master of melee AoE" type along with the ability to balance single target raid boss DPS along with AoE DPS.

And for the love of all that's holy, before you give in to nerfing Sorcs from orbit like you just did to Inquisitives despite having buffed them only a few months ago, please reassess the unbelievably crappy single target options in the Sorc and Wizard spell trees. 2 single target spells at spell level 9 that have 12 second cooldowns doesn't cut it. Heck, give a single target alternative version of each core AoE spell that does the same damage with the same spell levels on the same cooldown with half the mana cost (as we have currently) and then you can go ahead and tune the AoE spells to where they should be in heroics and non-reaper (while leaving the single target version damage alone). Then assess max caster levels through epics so those spells stay relevant and people stop using nothing but Energy Burst from Draconic as a twist.

Thanks.

[Ryiah]

If they respond to something then they are acknowledging it exists, if they ignore it then to them it doesn't exist.

I know that sounds crazy but i work with developers all day every day, it's really a thing.

As a developer who has been in communities with and worked with other developers, both in the software and game industries, I can safely tell you that your experience is not at all the norm. Very few developers will take the approach of ignoring a topic and hoping it goes away, and in my experience the developers that do have this attitude have it because they don't enjoy their work, are working in the industry because of the pay rather than any passion they might have, and are trying to get through the day doing as little work as possible. A passionate developer won't just ignore a problem and hope it goes away. Just look at Lynnabel's attitude while she was an intern and that will give you an idea of what a passionate developer is like.

[salmag]

I just have one question thought not sure if this has been answered or not.

Is Strikethrough a toggle? Can it be turned off, if needed?

I can think of 1 quest that this would be a detriment to... The Meridia Spider one...

[axel15810]

I just have one question thought not sure if this has been answered or not.

Is Strikethrough a toggle? Can it be turned off, if needed?

I can think of 1 quest that this would be a detriment to... The Meridia Spider one...

No, it's not a toggle. Can't be turned off afaik.

[Tuxedoman96]

Listen, as long as the same attacks are being leveraged for both single target and AoE, you'll NEVER get the balance right. Strikethrough was the worst possible implementation of an "AOE Focused" melee as it's modeled on the Warlock / Wizard / Sorc / IPS AoE model of "my AoE hits as hard as my single target does", just with a target cap. When the nerf eventually comes (like it did for Warlock), then single target gets nerfed right along with AoE. If you tune the AoE to be able to deal decent damage to a single target, then your Aoe capability will be WAY out of line on multiple targets.

Separate AoE and single target attacks. Make sure single target attacks are scale across styles:
THF his slow and hard, scale up base damage and damage adders automatically to account for the slower attack speed
TWF hits often, scale down damage adders from the offhand to account for the additional strikes
SWF hits fast, scale up base damage to account for single weapon, but scale down damage adders to account for faster attack speed

Then balance AoEs based on cleaves:
THF feat progression decreases cleave cooldowns (cleave alacrity), increases the hitbox size, increases the radius hit, and allows increased chance to doublestrike.
TWF feat progression adds a chance to hit with offhand on cleaves.
SWF feat progression increases cleave attack animation.

1st paragraph: That's fair, but my point wasn't to PERFECTLY balance anything so much as to make it so that there isn't an option that should obviously be/not be chosen. I'm looking at the give and take of each of the combat styles, so that each one is weighed with equal consideration and so that each combat style provides similar contributions. With that in mind, perhaps a different question should be asked. How many targets should a THF have to hit to have similar dmg for the other types? Keep in mind that while I'm looking at how close the styles are in terms of DPS and how that would be a balance consideration, their path to this DPS is equally important (TWF has more atks per monster, SWF has faster atk speed, THF can hit harder and hit more targets usually).

2nd paragraph: Having the atks scale based on the combat style is not a bad idea at all.

3rd paragraph: Honestly, without numbers to work with, it'd be difficult to see just how much impact this would have. Also, I'm unsure what you mean by increase cleave atk animation (do you mean you get more atks from using the ability?) and whether the suggestion for TWF cleaves imply that you have a chance to cleave again or just have an extra chance per target to hit that particular target again (the difference is if it's the former, you'd hit each target another time, whereas the latter implies that the second hit only applies to any one particular target according to a dice roll). It'd be important to decide if there would be a cap to the procs if it's the first definition, since theoretically you'd have the potential to cleave several times.

[palladin9479]

As a developer who has been in communities with and worked with other developers, both in the software and game industries, I can safely tell you that your experience is not at all the norm. Very few developers will take the approach of ignoring a topic and hoping it goes away, and in my experience the developers that do have this attitude have it because they don't enjoy their work, are working in the industry because of the pay rather than any passion they might have, and are trying to get through the day doing as little work as possible. A passionate developer won't just ignore a problem and hope it goes away. Just look at Lynnabel's attitude while she was an intern and that will give you an idea of what a passionate developer is like.

SSG has already done this as evidenced by the preview 1 and 2 threads combined with the live Q&A. It took a lot of people asking the same questions over and over again before the answered and their answers was borderline hostile. As the update stands right now both THF and KoTC are being nerfed not buffed.

We had the feedback up within hours of Preview 1 threads being posted, hours. It was easy to see the weakness's in the proposed solutions because we are the players who run those builds frequently along with running other builds that serve as a point of comparison. THF StrikeThrough doesn't hit enough targets to be even worth discussing, the proposed STR buffs only go a little ways to repairing the DPS loss, most like 5~10% instead of the over 20% it was before. We're still on this point and the feeling I got from the devs is the have no intention of deviating from a realistic 2 target limit. We could be wrong though, Como and friends might wake up tomorrow and think "wow we really were wrong in our assessment", not likely though.

Ultimately the only thing we can do as players is to keep hammering home a point.

[Vorachtin]

SSG has already done this as evidenced by the preview 1 and 2 threads combined with the live Q&A. It took a lot of people asking the same questions over and over again before the answered and their answers was borderline hostile. As the update stands right now both THF and KoTC are being nerfed not buffed.

This pretty much spot on, we provide data, they ignore and say we are meany heads. RIP 2hf and kotc.

[Zretch]

1st paragraph: That's fair, but my point wasn't to PERFECTLY balance anything so much as to make it so that there isn't an option that should obviously be/not be chosen. I'm looking at the give and take of each of the combat styles, so that each one is weighed with equal consideration and so that each combat style provides similar contributions. With that in mind, perhaps a different question should be asked. How many targets should a THF have to hit to have similar dmg for the other types? Keep in mind that while I'm looking at how close the styles are in terms of DPS and how that would be a balance consideration, their path to this DPS is equally important (TWF has more atks per monster, SWF has faster atk speed, THF can hit harder and hit more targets usually).

2nd paragraph: Having the atks scale based on the combat style is not a bad idea at all.

3rd paragraph: Honestly, without numbers to work with, it'd be difficult to see just how much impact this would have. Also, I'm unsure what you mean by increase cleave atk animation (do you mean you get more atks from using the ability?) and whether the suggestion for TWF cleaves imply that you have a chance to cleave again or just have an extra chance per target to hit that particular target again (the difference is if it's the former, you'd hit each target another time, whereas the latter implies that the second hit only applies to any one particular target according to a dice roll). It'd be important to decide if there would be a cap to the procs if it's the first definition, since theoretically you'd have the potential to cleave several times.

Decreasing the attack animation means that the time elapsed from when you press cleave to when cleave is "finished" and you can attack like normal again takes less time. This is critical for someone who has fast base attacks as when you're cleaving, you're losing normal attacks. If you cleave 4 mobs, but lose 6 attacks due to the animation, then you're losing DPS.

For TWF, in your cleave pass, you hit each mob once, but you have a chance for a 2nd hit on each mob with your offhand weapon at the reduced offhand weapon damage bonus using the offhand weapon's procs, etc. So the latter, and extra chance to hit per target. It's not sexy, because TWF is a better single target stance so its AoE synergy isn't as strong.

But regardless, those were just ideas. The important bit is to separate single target from AoE so you can balance them independently. It boggles my mind how SSG did this for IPS vs Archer's Focus (lowered DPS on IPS while raising DPS on Archer's focus) while in the exact same patch took glancing blows which was unlimited target lower DPS and turned them into strikethrough were multiple targets are hit with full single target DPS, which of course leads to the call for more targets and more targets because....look at what arcanes can do.

AoE damage for melee should be handled through cleaves, they're a perfect mechanic for doing so. You're not going to auto-fail Let Sleeping Dust Lie due to uncontrolled strikethrough, you just stop using your cleaves and Devs can adjust the single target DPS for bosses / raids without having to worry about making those cleaves too strong.

[Xgya]

Listen, as long as the same attacks are being leveraged for both single target and AoE, you'll NEVER get the balance right. Strikethrough was the worst possible implementation of an "AOE Focused" melee as it's modeled on the Warlock / Wizard / Sorc / IPS AoE model of "my AoE hits as hard as my single target does", just with a target cap. When the nerf eventually comes (like it did for Warlock), then single target gets nerfed right along with AoE. If you tune the AoE to be able to deal decent damage to a single target, then your Aoe capability will be WAY out of line on multiple targets.

Separate AoE and single target attacks. Make sure single target attacks are scale across styles:
THF his slow and hard, scale up base damage and damage adders automatically to account for the slower attack speed
TWF hits often, scale down damage adders from the offhand to account for the additional strikes
SWF hits fast, scale up base damage to account for single weapon, but scale down damage adders to account for faster attack speed

Then balance AoEs based on cleaves:
THF feat progression decreases cleave cooldowns (cleave alacrity), increases the hitbox size, increases the radius hit, and allows increased chance to doublestrike.
TWF feat progression adds a chance to hit with offhand on cleaves.
SWF feat progression increases cleave attack animation.

Then you have a "master of melee AoE" type along with the ability to balance single target raid boss DPS along with AoE DPS.

And for the love of all that's holy, before you give in to nerfing Sorcs from orbit like you just did to Inquisitives despite having buffed them only a few months ago, please reassess the unbelievably crappy single target options in the Sorc and Wizard spell trees. 2 single target spells at spell level 9 that have 12 second cooldowns doesn't cut it. Heck, give a single target alternative version of each core AoE spell that does the same damage with the same spell levels on the same cooldown with half the mana cost (as we have currently) and then you can go ahead and tune the AoE spells to where they should be in heroics and non-reaper (while leaving the single target version damage alone). Then assess max caster levels through epics so those spells stay relevant and people stop using nothing but Energy Burst from Draconic as a twist.

Thanks.

I just wanted to quote this so more people see it, really.

As for my own take, I'd want AoEs to hit for less damage depending on the amount of targets hit in the end, with a cap.
Give a feat line that either increases that cap, so it gets capped sooner but doesn't decrease as fast, or a feat line that makes the scaling slower, meaning it takes more targets to reach that cap.

Make it a stat on items, so melees and arcanes can hunt for the same DPS items sometimes.

That way we don't need to add new spells either - if that Fireball hit only a single target, it does its damage; if it hit more than one, it does, say, -20% damage per target, down to 50% damage to all 20 of the slimes that Artificer just split from a black pudding.

Fighter Cleaves. It stops their animation, so it adds some damage (the current Ws). If it hits a single target, well, it hit for those +Ws. If it hits two, both get hit for 80% of the damage.

That new-fangled helm of aoes would then get this Splash Damage buff that increases the base damage by 50% before calculations. So two targets would now get hit by 100% (150% -20), and it would take at least 6 targets before you reached the bottom of 50% again, instead of 3.

My numbers are straight from where the sun don't shine, I'm just citing something numeric to give a better impression.

Once that's done, once we've figured out what numbers to plug in and how much damage should be lost from hitting more than one target, then we can figure what everyone's single target damage should be and go from there.

[DRoark]

This change to THF will stop many people from ever playing one again. If the strikethrough was 100/200/300, plus the extra, so hitting at least 4 targets, and
sometimes a 5th... maybe, but losing glancing blows and implementing a cap of "two mobs maybe three" is useless for fighting groups as a THF meatshield.
I'm never fighting only 2 monsters at a time, and without being able to hit them, I can't keep agro to peel them off the casters (actual AOE damage-dealers).

I'd want AoEs to hit for less damage depending on the amount of targets hit in the end, with a cap. Give a feat line that either increases that cap, so it gets capped
sooner but doesn't decrease as fast, or a feat line that makes the scaling slower, meaning it takes more targets to reach that cap.
Make it a stat on items, so melees and arcanes can hunt for the same DPS items sometimes. That way we don't need to add new spells either - if that Fireball hit only a single target, it does
its damage; if it hit more than one, it does, say, -20% damage per target, down to 50% damage to all 20 of the slimes that Artificer just split from a black pudding.

You don't want to walk down that path. If they do the same thing to everyone, that they are forcing on NON-AOE ranged builds, we're just going to all quit at once.
It's bad enough they think IPS is AOE, when they change core gameplay to try to balance things that aren't the same (and never were), you may as well cancel DDO.
Yeah, my ranger never did as much damage as the barbarian, and my paladin can't nuke a room, but that's the CLASS. Stop being fancy and let us play what existed,
you don't have to permanently damage a class because "mystery tester X" thinks something is a good idea. It really, really... wasn't a good idea.

I encourage people to stop spending bucks in this game, until they come out with a reasonable fix (with the testers builds so we can see too), instead of blanket-nerfing a decade
of things that were working. You wouldn't buy a broken TV set, why pay for a game you can literally see they're making poor changes to.

If you DO, I have a broken TV, cheap. Only 4995 DDO points, but you have to pick it up.

[Tuxedoman96]

As a developer who has been in communities with and worked with other developers, both in the software and game industries, I can safely tell you that your experience is not at all the norm. Very few developers will take the approach of ignoring a topic and hoping it goes away, and in my experience the developers that do have this attitude have it because they don't enjoy their work, are working in the industry because of the pay rather than any passion they might have, and are trying to get through the day doing as little work as possible. A passionate developer won't just ignore a problem and hope it goes away. Just look at Lynnabel's attitude while she was an intern and that will give you an idea of what a passionate developer is like.

I'm sure that's the case, but it's only fair to ask for both sides to consider the other perspectives. When a person talks about "look at my perspective", it comes across at times as an attempt to validate certain actions, even if said perspective isn't enough. In this case, when you look at the situation as a comprehensive whole, one starts to see that there is some breakdown of communication somewhere. That's what we should be looking to resolve. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the monthly uprisings on the forum is really starting to suck the fun and passion out of what the devs are doing.

That's where discussing in great detail is very helpful. Especially when we are doing this with the devs. We have limited authority on how the game changes, being customers, but they still own the creative property. Yes, players will leave over certain changes. Others will tough it out to see if it gets better. Still others will approve of the changes. But there comes a point where the deafening silence promotes further silence. I've seen several players with insightful comments turn mute because they feel that their words are being unheard or drowned out, and quite honestly, it's hard not to get into that mindset myself. After all, why waste the breath for those who won't listen? I'm not trying to imply that the words aren't being heard, but that that is the perception.

When the devs inquire about constructive criticism, which is a form of communication, that has to apply both ways. We have to give constructive criticism, but they also have to communicate that it's actually being heard and appreciated. I mean this on a case-by-case basis not the "devs read pretty much everything that you guys put on the forums" generality. We can't ascertain that. When the devs talk about the issues, though, it shows (or at least implies) that they are paying attention to the issues we're bringing up. They've made some changes, which shows that they did listen to some of what was going around, but that doesn't address the main issue. I know some people think about aphorism "actions are louder than words", but while thinking about that saying, remember this: communication is also an action. Even if one has the best intentions at heart, without communicating their intentions they'll seem malicious. Whose fault is it then that people start labeling said person as evil or villainous? Both sides; the one for not saying anything and the many for assuming. I just want to clarify that when the devs say that players make it difficult to communicate, that both sides can do things better to alleviate the problem.

One of the things I'd start with for improving the communication further is to address the most glaring issues with each of these balance threads. It's difficult to promise anything - I know, and I'm not asking for that - but showing active participation with the majority of the forumites' concerns goes a long way towards preventing backlash. I say this for these particular cases because the concerns in these preview threads have been more or less unanimous. I don't speak for everyone, but I'd say that many here would probably want to know more details about these changes. The math, the intended goals in removing something or adding something, plans for the future, considerations for collateral, scaling considerations, etc. Most of us actually want to have cordial discussions about the changes and work with the devs, not against them; but cooperative games (game theory), only work well when the friendly parties actually know what each other is doing. In this case, since we don't really know much, we're as likely to hurt our friendlies as we are to help them.

In one thread, there was a discussion about trusting the devs. The dev said that we should trust them, and other players have vocalized this before. However, the opposite also needs to be true. The devs need to trust that many (if not all) of us have the best interests of the game at heart and are willing to have respectful discussions with them provided they give us enough information. Several times we've asked for more information, both for these particular changes and the changes from the past, implying that not enough was given. And of course, NDA would apply in some areas, but addressing that as such ("not at liberty to say", etc.) is perfectly acceptable. We just want what you can give us. If we're asking for something that can't be given, then that needs to be stated upfront, so that we're not wasting anybody's time with questions that won't be answered.

[Stravix]

I'm sure that's the case, but it's only fair to ask for both sides to consider the other perspectives. When a person talks about "look at my perspective", it comes across at times as an attempt to validate certain actions, even if said perspective isn't enough. In this case, when you look at the situation as a comprehensive whole, one starts to see that there is some breakdown of communication somewhere. That's what we should be looking to resolve. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the monthly uprisings on the forum is really starting to suck the fun and passion out of what the devs are doing.

That's where discussing in great detail is very helpful. Especially when we are doing this with the devs. We have limited authority on how the game changes, being customers, but they still own the creative property. Yes, players will leave over certain changes. Others will tough it out to see if it gets better. Still others will approve of the changes. But there comes a point where the deafening silence promotes further silence. I've seen several players with insightful comments turn mute because they feel that their words are being unheard or drowned out, and quite honestly, it's hard not to get into that mindset myself. After all, why waste the breath for those who won't listen? I'm not trying to imply that the words aren't being heard, but that that is the perception.

When the devs inquire about constructive criticism, which is a form of communication, that has to apply both ways. We have to give constructive criticism, but they also have to communicate that it's actually being heard and appreciated. I mean this on a case-by-case basis not the "devs read pretty much everything that you guys put on the forums" generality. We can't ascertain that. When the devs talk about the issues, though, it shows (or at least implies) that they are paying attention to the issues we're bringing up. They've made some changes, which shows that they did listen to some of what was going around, but that doesn't address the main issue. I know some people think about aphorism "actions are louder than words", but while thinking about that saying, remember this: communication is also an action. Even if one has the best intentions at heart, without communicating their intentions they'll seem malicious. Whose fault is it then that people start labeling said person as evil or villainous? Both sides; the one for not saying anything and the many for assuming. I just want to clarify that when the devs say that players make it difficult to communicate, that both sides can do things better to alleviate the problem.

One of the things I'd start with for improving the communication further is to address the most glaring issues with each of these balance threads. It's difficult to promise anything - I know, and I'm not asking for that - but showing active participation with the majority of the forumites' concerns goes a long way towards preventing backlash. I say this for these particular cases because the concerns in these preview threads have been more or less unanimous. I don't speak for everyone, but I'd say that many here would probably want to know more details about these changes. The math, the intended goals in removing something or adding something, plans for the future, considerations for collateral, scaling considerations, etc. Most of us actually want to have cordial discussions about the changes and work with the devs, not against them; but cooperative games (game theory), only work well when the friendly parties actually know what each other is doing. In this case, since we don't really know much, we're as likely to hurt our friendlies as we are to help them.

In one thread, there was a discussion about trusting the devs. The dev said that we should trust them, and other players have vocalized this before. However, the opposite also needs to be true. The devs need to trust that many (if not all) of us have the best interests of the game at heart and are willing to have respectful discussions with them provided they give us enough information. Several times we've asked for more information, both for these particular changes and the changes from the past, implying that not enough was given. And of course, NDA would apply in some areas, but addressing that as such ("not at liberty to say", etc.) is perfectly acceptable. We just want what you can give us. If we're asking for something that can't be given, then that needs to be stated upfront, so that we're not wasting anybody's time with questions that won't be answered.

Well said, do you think that a new section below the known bugs/issues section should be added to posts like this that detail items that might need a second look? Like an updating list on the main post to show that "We have heard that these areas are concerns and as such we will look into possible fixes." So for this thread they could have in that section lines like the following:

-Concerns of underpowering of one-and-a-half hand weapons and bear form
-Concerns that values for strikethrough may need to be adjusted to ensure satisfying AoE.

and other such things on the main page to at least show us that they are looking into it, or would that lead to people assuming that those things WILL be address as opposed to MAY be addressed?

[Xgya]

You don't want to walk down that path. If they do the same thing to everyone, that they are forcing on NON-AOE ranged builds, we're just going to all quit at once.
It's bad enough they think IPS is AOE, when they change core gameplay to try to balance things that aren't the same (and never were), you may as well cancel DDO.
Yeah, my ranger never did as much damage as the barbarian, and my paladin can't nuke a room, but that's the CLASS. Stop being fancy and let us play what existed,
you don't have to permanently damage a class because "mystery tester X" thinks something is a good idea. It really, really... wasn't a good idea.

What we're planning for here is the game's future.

I want to determine much damage is worth getting to hit more than one creature at a time, so we have a baseline.
Then, I want to determine how much damage to a single creature should be dealt over a certain amount of time.
Once we establish that baseline, we can give class-specific advantages to some specific areas.

'Stop being fancy and let us play what existed' would be akin to removing all the spell damage buffs and see sorcs cease to exist entirely, staying in the shadows where they were before MotU, with the occasional nod from the rare paladin/sorc split.
The game's adapting.

[palladin9479]

Well said, do you think that a new section below the known bugs/issues section should be added to posts like this that detail items that might need a second look? Like an updating list on the main post to show that "We have heard that these areas are concerns and as such we will look into possible fixes." So for this thread they could have in that section lines like the following:

-Concerns of underpowering of one-and-a-half hand weapons and bear form
-Concerns that values for strikethrough may need to be adjusted to ensure satisfying AoE.

and other such things on the main page to at least show us that they are looking into it, or would that lead to people assuming that those things WILL be address as opposed to MAY be addressed?

The problem with this while it sounds great on the surface, human nature gets involved and stops it from happening. When someone creates something from an idea, they really get attached to both the idea and the the work involved in that idea, even if it's not great. Trying to explain to them why the idea is bad, after the work has been done, is like rolling a boulder up a hill. By the time the Dev's present us with stuff, they've already thought of a solution and put effort into it, so regardless of if it's a good solution it's 100% going to be pushed through. Because to do otherwise would be to admit their idea wasn't a good one in the first place and that they wasted time on it. This isn't a dev thing, it's just how humans are.

That is why most places have two separate positions, the people who come up with the ideas and the people who approve and implement those ideas. They are a small shop so can't really afford that.

[Lynnabel]

would that lead to people assuming that those things WILL be address as opposed to MAY be addressed?

Yes, absolutely.

[SpartanKiller13]

THF is known as the fighting style with the best AoE damage and the worst single target damage. Except for tempests, who have excellent single target damage and excellent AoE damage since they can apply their (A-? B+?) tier single target damage to 4 mobs at once. And yet I haven't seen many tempests lately since it appears everyone's playing some sort of inquisitive and/or sorcerer build. Except for that 1 druid player who loves the class, and those 2 diehard barbarian fans in the guild and a handful of new players who don't know how to build anyways.

If Tempests are known for their AoE damage for being able to hit 4 targets, and aren't considered super popular or overpowered, then perhaps being able to hit 4 targets at a cost is not overpowered. For tempests this cost is that it locks out tier 5s abilities from other trees and that their damage is very gear/build intensive mostly restricting them from having good defenses. For THF they have a basic cost - the fact that the fighting style does less single target damage then the other styles (swf and twf) in general.

Therefore; one can come to the conclusion that strikethrough is a good idea, and thus my suggestions are to not increase THF single target damage (besides compensating for a loss of glancing blows), but rather to make it really feel like AoE damage is it's niche. With the idea that hitting 4 targets at once feels like a good AoE damage build.

+1

I wouldn't even mind slightly losing single-target DPS if it meant better and more consistent AoE; being able to clear a pile of mobs is the point of THF, after all

Please make Cleaves work at least as well as they currently do.
The current pass removes Glancing Blows from them, but does not grant them Strikethrough, which makes them worse than before the pass.

AFAIK the higher stat from THF will make them fairly comparable for that weapon style?

Since this is the point where we should speak up and make it known that we see an issue with the THF changes I'm going to raise this point again. While there may be some intention to make further changes, and they just didn't make it into this build, nothing has been communicated and nothing in this build addresses the issue I'm raising.

Dex based thief-acrobats exist. Dex based TA's don't take the THF line of THF/ITHF/GTHF (or if they do it's only the first THF feat).

Ideally, I'd love it if you gave Follow-Through the same buff (6s of 200% Strikethrough), I'd be okay with you adding some Strikethrough to the higher TA cores that is blocked if one has the THF feats, but however you do it please consider restoring a dex based TA's ability to situationally hit two opponents with Follow-Through.

If Follow-Through was +80% Strikethrough instead for a short duration, you'd be back up to hitting two enemies consistently at base

[ThomasMink]

Yup. I have said that we do not currently have a second followup THF pass on the schedule. I want people telling us where they want THF to be and not simply begrudgingly accepting something they don't like assuming there is some grand next step.

This is the THF overhaul. What is presented in this thread. We'll likely tweak and fix problems later on but this is the full pass currently intended. If this is not satisfactory tell us now.

I'm normally not one for forum posts, so I sent in some tickets expressing how I feel.. but I'll say something here too just to get it out there. I play in a fixed group with family and friends, and we only play like once or twice a week for a few hours each time.. so we're not hardcore types in the slightest.. and we're also kinda flower sniffer-y, anti-zerg types.

Anyway.. I created a low level fighter to try things out and was severely underwhelmed. Glancing blows were always a thing, and now seeing strikethrough as only a chance was... pretty bad to experience. I mean, yea.. strikethrough was fantastic when it worked on a swing, but having only a percentage of a chance for it to work was underwhelming. Then I read it maxes out at 3 mobs anyway, and supposedly that number can't be hit to be a guarantee.. makes me wonder how THF is somehow expected to be the 'aoe' style when 3 targets is the limit.

Then you look at some enhancements because you remember there were some that affected glancing blows. 3AP for a piddly 5% strikethrough.. you could maybe argue that it adds up across the trees for whatever race and class/es.. but if you're not that, then meh.

Even breaking barrels isn't as fun, which is maybe something only a normie like me would complain about.. but no longer can you wade into a giant group of breakables and take them out with a single swing. And don't get me wrong, I know full well that's minor.. but it's just the cherry on top of everything.

The animations are nice, though. They 'feel' a bit off.. but it always bugged me that a 2h sword was swung in the same manner as a 2h axe, so there's that at least.

And no.. I don't have any solutions. Just giving my feelings.

[Ahwaric]

The problem with this while it sounds great on the surface, human nature gets involved and stops it from happening. When someone creates something from an idea, they really get attached to both the idea and the the work involved in that idea, even if it's not great. Trying to explain to them why the idea is bad, after the work has been done, is like rolling a boulder up a hill. By the time the Dev's present us with stuff, they've already thought of a solution and put effort into it, so regardless of if it's a good solution it's 100% going to be pushed through. Because to do otherwise would be to admit their idea wasn't a good one in the first place and that they wasted time on it.

That is why most places have two separate positions, the people who come up with the ideas and the people who approve and implement those ideas. They are a small shop so can't really afford that.

Indeed.
But then why ask our opinion? Why waste our time?
After yesterday's comments from Lynnabel and Cocomojambo, there were plenty of ideas posted here. Pointing what is wrong and how it can be fixed.
Yet, silence. No "that is good idea", or "we can't do it". No reverse feedback. Not even "keep them coming".
And now we are debating psychology of humans, Devs in particular. I guess we all feel tired by being ignored and do not think posting ideas means anything anymore.

I still hope there is some silent brainstorming and fixing on the SSG side. But I guess they are simply offended that we did not like the changes as much as they did and are waiting the storm out. Well, if you deal with another human being, you should expect cricisism from time to time. And know it is often well meant, and not take it as a personal offense (none intended on my side anyway). Still, I expect that the next week the update will hit live, with no changes and no plans to do some in the future - or even acknowledging that something was wrong and any problems were siganlled by the community.
I hope I am wrong. But I just can't justify to myself spending time posting here anymore.

Edit:

Yes, absolutely.

I stand corrected. Or at least I hope I will be.
Still, I posted my comments on the state of THF and proposed solutions. I better be silent from now on.