Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[red_cardinal]

You talk a lot about the UI. While the UI was messy, and you sometimes had to respec Enhancements with a webpage/list open (especially for MCs), that's not the main advantage I see with this revision - at all.

I talk about the GUI a lot because I'd rather see prestiges done in the current GUI, without some radical GUI changes.
Missing pieces of puzzle are missing prestiges all tiers for bard, etc.

Yeah, because you are ultimate arbiter of good game design.
Kick it down... you act as if you own DDO.

I'm just nailing down what I think. It's not important at all what I think, but if I can, I'll express my thoughts. Give a better argument than me and I hope, as a player - not a game designer or owner, we'll all benefit from it.

Yah, I kinda laughed when I read that Promised line, Planned does not equal promised.

Promised, not meaning - 'Oh dear Santa, but you promised'. I never meant it in that manner. I meant to say that they failed in their plans - that's all.

[Razcar]

2, I have spent three years perfecting and equipping an Old School Crit Rage Bowbarian. The proposed changes to enhancements leave me very nervous indeed even with the ''maybe's and ''possiblies'' from Eladrin later in this thread

While I feel for you, I never really understood why they grand-fathered Crit Rage in the first place. There's been many hard nerfs in this game over the years, but that one they treated with kid gloves. And while that sure was nice, and commendable, I cannot really see why compared to other nerfs that weren't gentle in the slightest.

[red_cardinal]

I seriously doubt a lack of screen space is the only reason for why they have suggested to limit the amount of trees. It is no problem making tabs, or scrolling windows.

There isn't, on one hand. But, as you said somewhere else, when you need to respec a multiclassed character, it would be easier that the enhancement list/tree is a little better rendered, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, screen width and height matters. They asked the community which resolution people play on. So, in a way it does matter. If you can't show 4 tab panes on 1024x768 but can show them in 1920x1080, it's a problem.

[Drona]

You missed the point. What was promised are the missing pieces of the puzzle. With this, they aren't fitting the missing pieces in, they're changing the puzzle. How many puzzle pieces will miss in the new puzzle?

Also, while I do have some optimism about this, worries strike me more.

You missed the point. It is not all about UI. It is about making the planning process of building a toon much easier. It is about dumping useless "pre-requisites" to get a PrE or other enhancements. If this process if going to speed up finishing all the PrEs, it should be encouraged.

This is a thread for providing constructive feedback. So far you have given none. We dont need your "mockings".

[orakio]

I don't think that 3 way multiclasses are going to be as negatively effected as some people may think. How often do you currently do small level multiclasses purely for the sake of enhancements? The variety of class enhancements currently for 1-3 levels in a class is next to nothing, and certainly no PrE's, so there really won't be any sacrifice by not choosing that tree.

If anything it would increase the viability of those types of builds (17/2/1 or other builds that don't hit 18 in a primary class) by allowing access to more or higher tier PrE's than you had access to before. Of course we have no real information other than what was posted about tempests but, it seems odd to me think that those small splits will somehow be worse off for enhancements.

Overall I am extremely excited to see what happens primarily because I have wanted to see the PrE's finished for so long and because rebalancing some of the costs of certain enhancements and classes has been overdue as well.

[Calebro]

There isn't, on one hand. But, as you said somewhere else, when you need to respec a multiclassed character, it would be easier that the enhancement list/tree is a little better rendered, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, screen width and height matters. They asked the community which resolution people play on. So, in a way it does matter. If you can't show 4 tab panes on 1024x768 but can show them in 1920x1080, it's a problem.

Look at your example numbers and then read the opening post from that thread again:

What screen resolution do you use in DDO?

For those running at anything less than 720 vertical (e.g. 800x600), how vital is this for you?

1024x768 is more than 720 vertical, not less than.
1920x1080 is significantly larger.
That thread wasn't asking you what res you run at. That thread was asking if you run at an extremely low setting, how important is it to you?

If you run at anything higher, that thread wasn't directed at you at all. It was only asked in a general sense so that it wouldn't be exclusive, but the information he was really looking for was from other people, not you or I.
The implication (which we didn't understand at the time) is assumed to be that the new GUI was proposed to run at 720 vertical, and if you ran less than that how upset would you be if that became the minimum functional res?

[Failedlegend]

Ok been following this for a while and haven't said much because frankly we don't have enough info to make a legitimate desicion one way or the other but I am worried about the 3 pane limit not only because of multiclassing but also because of stuff like Monk stances for example...is this going to be split up into different PrEs does ninja spy get earth & fire than shintao gte wind & water and mystic get i dunno fire and water...cause thats broken...there really should be a tab for stuff like that even if its only a few things.

[katz]

Promised, not meaning - 'Oh dear Santa, but you promised'. I never meant it in that manner. I meant to say that they failed in their plans - that's all.

heh. planned ≠ promised. no matter how you slice it. when you write in ALL CAPS "YOU PROMISED" it reeks of "but Santa!", not pointing out failure

[Dragavon]

We're thinking of changing the "You can only reset your enhancements once every three days" rule to an increasing plat cost to reset enhancements if you reset them too frequently within a three day period.

Why? I mean, SERIOUSLY, WHY?

I cannot think of a single reason why we can not change our enhancements as often as we like. If all I want to do is stand at a trainer and redo my enhancements, why not?

Beeing able to change a characters enhancements as often as you like does in no way break any game mechanic or anything. It is just a lame and annoying limitation.

And how often have you realised just as you closed the chat with the trainer that you made a silly mistake somewhere that you have to live with for 3 days.....?

Get rid of artifical and silly limitations like this

[Nataichal]

Why wouldn't Rogue Int be in the Assassin or class tree? My rogue has been around since 06, when he was made as a trap monkey. When the game swapped to heavy rogue DPS, he became relatively useless, until his INT score (which is high enough to make most Wizard's proud) made him an assassinating fiend.

[Calebro]

I don't think that 3 way multiclasses are going to be as negatively effected as some people may think. How often do you currently do small level multiclasses purely for the sake of enhancements? The variety of class enhancements currently for 1-3 levels in a class is next to nothing, and certainly no PrE's, so there really won't be any sacrifice by not choosing that tree.

If anything it would increase the viability of those types of builds (17/2/1 or other builds that don't hit 18 in a primary class) by allowing access to more or higher tier PrE's than you had access to before. Of course we have no real information other than what was posted about tempests but, it seems odd to me think that those small splits will somehow be worse off for enhancements.

Overall I am extremely excited to see what happens primarily because I have wanted to see the PrE's finished for so long and because rebalancing some of the costs of certain enhancements and classes has been overdue as well.

It isn't the 17/2/1 builds that we're worried about. It's the 12/6/2 and 13/6/1 builds.
Previously you'd have a smattering of enhancements from the 6 level class, enough that you could get the PrE. The rest would be from the 12 or 13 level class. But with the 3 trees only, you'll (probably) be losing access to enhancements that you had right now, effectively creating less build options.
Take the commonly used Rogue as an example.
Haste Boost is likely to be in Acrobat.
Sneak Attack and Subtle Backstabber are likely to be in Assassin.
Skill Boost, DD and Wrack Construct are likely to be in Mechanic.
These are enhancements that the majority of Rogues currently take. That's all three trees, so which of them do you want to give up to get your PrE from the other class?
Which other one do you want to give up to possibly get a racial PrE?

Multiclass characters will surely be impacted under the proposed system. How much they will be affected will vary on a case by case basis.
That was the entire reason for this post and the conversation that followed. While the suggestion in that post would still be restrictive to a certain degree, it would be MUCH less restrictive than the current proposal.

[Aderbal123]

Now, it seems to me that the new enhancement system greatly favors pure builds, while hurting multiclassed builds (on some cases at least).Here's two examples:

Classic build with many names : Bard 16/Figher2/Rogue2
Logical assumption on the breakdown for bard trees:
Virtuoso
Extra song enhancements (vital for all bards)
Song duration enhancements (vital for all bards)

Spellsinger
+SP enhancements
healing/sonic damage/lore enhancements
Charisma enhancements(vital for all bards)

Warchanter
Inspire courage enhancements (vital for all bards)

So as a bard you dont really get any choice of a tree to drop.Now, as that build, the system as it is now, you can get fighter haste boost,fighter strength +1, and rogue sneak attack +3 damage.
That would require dropping two trees with the new system while its not possible to drop even one as a bard.

Another classic build : Blitz (12 fighter/6barb/2rogue)
Logical breakdown for Fighters:
Kensai
Haste boost
Fighter strenght
+weapon damage enhancements
(all vital for all fighters)

Stalwart
Armor maestry enhancements
Tower shield maestery enhancements
Armor class boost
(none vital for this built so this tree can drop)

Purple Dragon knight
Toughness enhancements (vital for any class that can have it)

Now, you can drop one fighter tree with this build, i cant even imagine what the breakdown would be on barbs, but it seems that rage enhancements of all kinds, + con enhancements and +power attack enhancements would not be all packed in the same tree.More likely the frenzied berserk ones would only contain the +rage enhancements then you'd have to give up PA and +con ones to get it.And again, the +3 sneak attack damage from rogue is lost in the process.

Now.In order to not hinder/ or even destroy existing builds, you should be able to use the first enhancements from any tree of any class without having to give up and entire tree, but then would still have to drop an entire tree to get higher enhancements on a specific tree.Thats what i think :P

[etelan]

We've also been debating turning the Lesser and Greater marks into enhancements that have the Least mark as a prerequisite, freeing up some feats on Dragonmark builds.

Yes please!

[Jastron]

Many others in the lengthy topic have already stated this more eloquently, but here are my thoughts to ponder:

Overall, an enhancement system revamp is exciting, and I do look forward to it, especially if it gives us even more flexibility. The first time enhancements were changed, my guild lost members due to that, but in the end I am much happier with the current system than the one the game launched with in 2006, it is far more flexible, it doesn't "lock us in" to exactly 4 items or prestiges as we were locked in at game release.

Wait a minute, what did I just say, and what is being proposed? Four tab limit "locking" us into a predefined selection?

Therefore you see my concern. Four may be adequate for most, but for some flavor builds take my two-handed fighting Favored Soul/Barb1/Fighter1. He is a lowbie and I have little invested in him (I have about 23 other characters, many capped). However he is fun to play and I keep him as a lowbie for when that is needed. He is half-orc and has taken fighter speed boost and barb sprinting boost, for more "fun".

The concern is that I'm unsure I'll be able to keep all of that in the new system (FvS prestige, Half Orc strength and damage, plus the fighter and Barb enhancements) that makes him so fun to play, and the end goal is we need to make this game even more fun, not less fun.

It is exactly that freedom that also makes DDO special, keeps it unique among MMO's. I'm not sure we should have an open or unlimited amount of "tabs", but adding one or two more tabs would do wonders for flexibility, so I urge you to consider allowing one extra tab per extra class the character has, at a minimum, and for instance sorcs should automatically get as many tabs as they have PRE's available plus the racial.

Thanks for your consideration here and in trying to keep character building flexibility top notch in DDO.

[Missing_Minds]

This is true. Multiclass characters will have many more options to select from.

Nothing in enhancements should EVER block a character taken a PrE as currently happens. If the character meets the prerequisites, that is the choice the player must make.

We're thinking of changing the "You can only reset your enhancements once every three days" rule to an increasing plat cost to reset enhancements if you reset them too frequently within a three day period.

That will be nice. Normally it takes me 2 or 3 days to be certain I like what I've built, so I don't know how much I'd use it, but that would be darn handy to have for the min maxers.

Can we assume that if that change goes though, something similar will be under consideration for using TR/GR/LR wood and the delays there? This part is of a greater annoyance to me.

[Hafeal]

I have not played any pnp 4.0, but for those who have, it *seems* to me that the contemplated changes to the enhancement system would move it into that direction, can someone familiar with 4.0 comment on that?

[BoBo2020]

what if a TR granted access to an additional tree that you selected from one of your past lives? You are still limited to 80 APs, but you have more options then. A bit more interesting than just another feat...

I would suggest past life TR bonus tree as well as bonus AP.

Each TR could grant 5 bonus AP distributed over multiple levels.
1st life = 80 AP
2nd life = 85 AP (5 bonus AP granted at level 2)
3rd life = 90 AP (5 bonus granted at level 2 and level 3)
.
.
.
12th life = 140 AP (seems like a lot, but is it really OP for a completionist?)

This would add some added motivation to reincarnate for lives 3+ when the grind truly begins.

[orakio]

It isn't the 17/2/1 builds that we're worried about. It's the 12/6/2 and 13/6/1 builds.
Previously you'd have a smattering of enhancements from the 6 level class, enough that you could get the PrE. The rest would be from the 12 or 13 level class. But with the 3 trees only, you'll (probably) be losing access to enhancements that you had right now, effectively creating less build options.
Take the commonly used Rogue as an example.
Haste Boost is likely to be in Acrobat.
Sneak Attack and Subtle Backstabber are likely to be in Assassin.
Skill Boost, DD and Wrack Construct are likely to be in Mechanic.
These are enhancements that the majority of Rogues currently take. That's all three trees, so which of them do you want to give up to get your PrE from the other class?
Which other one do you want to give up to possibly get a racial PrE?

Multiclass characters will surely be impacted under the proposed system. How much they will be affected will vary on a case by case basis.
That was the entire reason for this post and the conversation that followed. While the suggestion in that post would still be restrictive to a certain degree, it would be MUCH less restrictive than the current proposal.

Oh i understand the higher splits especially with classes like rogues that needed a lot of function/utility out of their trees to do their jobs. Notice in my post though how i said the classes with 1-3 levels.... the minor multiclasses. Those 18/2 splits, 18/1/1, stuff like that.

There are a FEW classes that may have problems with the 3 tree limit but for most it just doesn't seem like they would need to spread quite so thin to get everything for whatever role they choose. Looking at your post though i do think that the concept of a General class tree would be a good idea, they probably just wouldn't need to flesh it out to quite the same size as the "PrE" trees.

[Failedlegend]

On the other hand, screen width and height matters. They asked the community which resolution people play on. So, in a way it does matter. If you can't show 4 tab panes on 1024x768 but can show them in 1920x1080, it's a problem.

Actually no it's not the devs have said the new UI can be freely resized

I have not played any pnp 4.0, but for those who have, it *seems* to me that the contemplated changes to the enhancement system would move it into that direction, can someone familiar with 4.0 comment on that?

No this has NOTHING to do with 4e

Bad =/= 4e and honestly it doesnt deserve the reputation but too many people feel change = bad.

[Urist]

I cannot think of a single reason why we can not change our enhancements as often as we like. If all I want to do is stand at a trainer and redo my enhancements, why not?

If there were no penalty at all, enhancements (and by extension, PrEs) could be switched on a per-quest basis.
IMO, enhancements (as an extension to race/class) should be something which exemplifies your character and playstyle, not something you swap in and out like a raise-dead clicky.