Dear Turbine, about monk splashes and armor class..

[Borror0]

In your opinion.

Wrong. In the context.

Follow this logic:

1. Turbine wants to make money.
2. Changing the effectiveness of a character ****es off people.
3. ****ed off people tend to leave.
4. People that left don't pay their subscription, representing a lost of income for Turbine.
5. Since Turbine wants to make money, Turbine does not like to lose players because it reduces their incomes.
6. Since Turbine does not want to loose players, they will be more cautious when balancing as they want to avoid ****ing to many players off.
7. The ability to adapt to change reduces the likelihood of people to get frustrated about a change.
8. Since Turbine are trying to avoid frustrating too many players, what players are capable of respecing directly influences Turbine's decision when it comes to balancing.

Did I lose you somewhere?

[Angelus_dead]

Yeah, turn this into yet another respec thread.

This is already a game balance thread, and respec ability is a strong limitation on the developer's choices to modify game balance.

That's the greatest pitfall of a persistent game that doesn't allow respecs: the developers are handicapped when it comes to correcting their previous errors. I'd prefer not to get into the respec topic, but unfortunately that's the only honest way to address a large category of objections to rule changes.

In your opinion.

It's simply a fact.

That's no more my opinion than the name of the US president is "just an opinion". Anyone with even a minimal competency in the subject agrees with that position.

[branmakmuffin]

It's simply a fact.

In your opinion.

Wrong. In the context.

Follow this logic:

1. Turbine wants to make money.
2. Changing a character **** off people.
3. ****ed off people leave.
4. People that left don't pay their subscription, representing a lost of income for Turbine.
5. Since Turbine wants to make money, Turbine does not like to loose players because it reduces their incomes.
6. Since Turbine does not want to loose players, they will be more cautious when balancing as they want to avoid ****ing to many players off.
7. The ability to adapt to change reduces the likelihood of people to get frustrated about a change.
8. Since Turbine are trying to avoid frustrating too many players, what players are capable of balancing directly influences Turbine's decision when it comes to balancing.

Did I loose you somewhere?

Have you lost you somewhere? Add up your list and it still does not equal "respec," except in your opinion.

[Borror0]

In your opinion.

The Earth is round, in your opinion.

[Borror0]

Have you lost you somewhere? Add up your list and it still does not equal "respec," except in your opinion.

Lapsus on #8. Fixed it. Read it again.

[Angelus_dead]

Changing the efficiency of a character **** off people.
****ed off people tend to leave.
Since Turbine does not want to loose players, they will be more cautious when balancing as they want to avoid ****ing to many players off.
Did I loose you somewhere?

Spelling errors:
I think you meant ****es or ****s when you wrote ****. I also think "efficiency" would make more sense as "efficacy" or "effectiveness", which are broader terms. But I'm quite sure that you repeatedly used "loose" in place of "lose".

[branmakmuffin]

The Earth is round, in your opinion.

Well, now, let's see, I think it was Archimedes who is credited with having proved that the Earth is round by measuring the lengths of shadows of two sticks the same length, at the same time of day, some distance away from each other, and finding that the shadow lengths were not the same.

Play a new song or get a new fiddle.

Lapsus on #8. Fixed it. Read it again.

Same conclusion: you lost you somewhere.

[Borror0]

Spelling errors:
I think you meant ****es or ****s when you wrote ****. I also think "efficiency" would make more sense as "efficacy" or "effectiveness", which are broader terms. But I'm quite sure that you repeatedly used "loose" in place of "lose".

Thank you. Fixed it. Do I always make that many mistakes?

[Lewcipher]

Well, now, let's see, I think it was Archimedes who is credited with having proved that the Earth is round by measuring the lengths of shadows of two sticks the same length, at the same time of day, some distance away from each other, and finding that the shadow lengths were not the same.

Play a new song or get a new fiddle.


Same conclusion: you lost you somewhere.

What does this have to do with a "change" that may or may be coming with regard to monk/ranger builds?

If they are going to modify it, A_D is right. If they aren't, then we'll all be happy.

[Angelus_dead]

In your opinion.

Look, this is really easy.

There's a common pattern that happens over and over:
1. There's a problem with game balance! Rule X makes character Y too much better than character Z.
2. It would make sense to change rule X so Y is closer to Z.
3. But wait! You can't do that, because I already rolled a Y character and now I'm stuck with it.
4. Oh well, I guess we can't fix balance, so Y will be overpowered forever, or at least until Z is boosted to be overpowered too, which will cascade problems onto W, T, and R.

[Tanka]

Thank you. Fixed it. Do I always make that many mistakes?

You're French-Canadian. We forgive you.

[Angelus_dead]

Play a new song or get a new fiddle.

Is that intentional hypocrisy?

[Borror0]

[Stuff about the Earth being round]

In the same way, Codog openly admitted that whenever they talk about modifying skills or adding new ones, the topic of skill respec is brought up.

/win?

Same conclusion: you lost you somewhere.

Care to elaborate?

[branmakmuffin]

Thank you. Fixed it. Do I always make that many mistakes?

You do make a lot of spelling mistakes, but most of us know that it's because English is your second language. IMO, unless it's absolutely incomprehensible (which happens very rarely), no one should call you on your English spelling, unless maybe he reads and writes French at least as well as you read and write English.

[branmakmuffin]

In the same way, Codog openly admitted that whenever they talk about modifying skills or adding new ones, the topic of skill respec is brought up.

We've talked about that before, too. Nowhere in that discussion are respecs endorsed. And in any case, unless he's the owner of Turbine, his opinion is also just that: an opinion, although possibly one which carries more weight than yours or mine.

Care to elaborate?

That was just me being glib.

Is that intentional hypocrisy?

Accidental hypobole (opposite of hyperbole).

[bandyman1]

My human pally has a beholder ac of 63, self 67, raid 75 - mod9 will give him 3 more static (2 mdb, 1 more pally aura), plus the defensive stance 4 and whatever "your defensive auras are more powerful" means- the current ac is defintely enough at present cap and I have to hope that 7 is the mostish any ac build will be gaining from the 20cap - I don't think hit rebalancing is needed, when - am raidbuffed the only things in the game that can hit me are elite suulomades and arraetrikos; as long as I have an acsong, elite vod/hound trash can't touch me. And that seems balanced, because I am reliant on some party help for total immunity but get great defense alone

People act like ac is worthless without beiing missed on a 2, but a 56-58 ac is like a static stacking blur, low 60s like static stacking displacement etc - its very helpful even if you are hit some.


This change would hit all monks yep but seriously: I know a pure monk without ce with better ac than - have with same buffs, as well as a 14/2 cle/monk - those aren't fotm builds but they aren't gimped by a 4 ac hit, especially since excep wis etc make it just a 2-3.

They can still be quite good and their wis is helpful, but monksplashes start to need real wis investments instead of getting at min 3 ac from 8+tome+item; that one level is worth min 3 ac without any effort and that's the flaw; all other forms of ac getting require stat, feat, and big gearslot investments

The problem with the monksplash isn't that it exists, its that ots cost to most dex builds is miniscule for vast benefits

I'm not sure I agree with that bro. I'm not seeing 3 AC making THAT big of a difference betwwen your S&B and mine. Sure, Sulo and Harry sould be able to hit us. Consistantly. Especially on elite. But trash mobs in the subterrane? Not so much. And my 60 beholder, 63-64 self-buffed, should not = paper to those reavers, flensers, and renders like it currently does.

Yep. Syn will gain quite a bit of AC from the Defender of Syberis Pre. But, then again, a S&B AC build should be able to achieve a higher AC than a TWFing ranger/monk splash. And that AC should be meaningful for all content; If you're sacrificing DPS in a game where DPS is king, then there had better be a pretty big trade-off of the defense you gain for foregoing all that damage.

Anyways, like I said; I agree with ya that it needs to be looked at. I also agree with the insight " fix ". It's logical and it works. But as a player of two high AC builds, I'm not so sure high 50s AC is offering the benefits you seem to think it is.

[Angelus_dead]

We've talked about that before, too. Nowhere in that discussion are respecs endorsed.

That's not the question. Whether or not he "endorses" respecs is independent from the fact that he acknowledged that (im)possibility of respecs constrains the rule-changes they can make.

And in any case, unless he's the owner of Turbine, his opinion is also just that: an opinion, although possibly one which carries more weight than yours or mine.

No: him being the owner would not make his opinion more or less true. It might make it more likely to be reflected in future corporate activities, but power doesn't imply truth.

[krud]

don't you worry, AC will not get nerfed. Turbine lacks the cajones to fix the AC power creep, and will just continue piling more on top. Look at the Paladin PrE, they will now be the uber AC build, regularly getting 75-80AC. Soon the only high AC builds will be dex mnk/rgr or MFP siberys pally. All those other mnk splashes will be getting a huge stealth nerf when the mob to-hits are adjusted for the new pally defender builds. There's gonna be a huge ourcry when all of a sudden those used to be untouchable mnk splash builds are getting hit 50% of the time because they gave mobs a +60 to-hit. "Nerf mob to-hits, or give me a respec!"

This is exactly what happens when you have no long term plan.

[Borror0]

And in any case, unless he's the owner of Turbine, his opinion is also just that: an opinion, although possibly one which carries more weight than yours or mine.

Making that kind of arguments shows that you're more interested in "winning" the argument than having a logical argument.

It's a reasonable assumptions to say that Turbine cares about respec, as explained earlier.

[branmakmuffin]

Making that kind of arguments shows that you're more interested in "winning" the argument than having a logical argument.

It's a reasonable assumptions to say that Turbine cares about respec, as explained earlier.

Why can't you just admit you want respecs simply because you want them, without trying to justify them with all your pseudo-data? There's nothing wrong with liking something and advocating for it simply because you like it.

You are the one who needs to win by convincing everyone that respecs are "needed" for the good of the game.

No: him being the owner would not make his opinion more or less true. It might make it more likely to be reflected in future corporate activities, but power doesn't imply truth.

No, but if he had limitless control over Turbine and DDO, and the whimsy to wield it however he wished. his opinion would be the way it is. Lacking that, his opinion is just one more to add to the pot, and whatever he says about respecs do not prove one way or the other whether they are "needed," despite Borror0's gleeful play of the Codog card every once in a while.