PDA

View Full Version : "Why balance is something desirable?"



Borror0
09-24-2008, 11:47 AM
"Why do you want to balance everything?"

That was what someone asked, a day or two ago. At first, I didn't know if I should reply. I first told myself that this was unrelated to the topic. But then, I told myself "It's a very legitimate question. Why do I want to balance the classes, races and fighting styles?!"

The answer to that is quite simple: because it makes a better game.

Ok, that's a bit short of an answer, so let me elaborate a bit. (Looking back to it now, it's more than "a bit"... sorry about that.)

A Challenge is Fun:
DDO is a game where we play character to complete quests. It's Turbine's job to make sure we have fun playing, because otherwise we stop paying, quit and they stop making money. Part of making the game fun for us is to make sure we always have a challenge. Challenges are very important in a game. I would be very impressed if, by polling the population, a poll would indicate that the playerbase would rather play the kobolds in Waterworks rather than overcoming a challenge.

Thus, part of making the game fun is making sure we don't breeze through content. Obviously, we can master the quest and complete it easily, but it is not like the quest was a cakewalk from the very start. If you play poorly, you're going to wipe. (Which is why PuGs are less attractive than a guild run.)

For example, if character A completes the quest way too easily, that's not good. First of all, because it's not fun for the five other guys in the party with him, they barely contribute. We play the game to play, not to have someone clearing but the quest for us all the time. And secondly, because the game interest will fade with time if quests are too easy. That's what happen in the Module 4.1 area. Quests were so easily completed by spellcasters it was a joke, and it got worse by Module 5.0. Heck, you were seeing complaints on the forums around the lines of "Turbine! Your quests are too easy!!" and there was competitions between guilds to see who did the quests the fastest. (For reference, this - with the previous complaints about easy raids - is what lead to the Abbot.)

Once that happens, once a class, race or fighting style becomes overpowered Turbine has to react. In the case of spellcasting being overpowered in the post-Module 4 era, Turbine increased mobs HP by a ton! (They also made the module focused on fire immune mobs with high SR, but that's not important.) Ever tried to DPS an Orthon? It's pretty long. Meleeing wasn't any fun, so Turbine reacted.

Keeping the Challenge for Everyone:
That leaded to something not really 'fun' either.

They increased the HP so high that the best ways to kill are now Banishers, Vorpals and WoP! Well, to be honest, that's not much more fun either. Killing a mob with DPS and seeing his HP going down is fun. You feel like contributing. Swing at a mob seeing small yellow numbers poping and then seeing fall to the floor at half HP is not very fun. You don't really have a real feeling of accomplishment, you rather feel like anyone moron with a Vorpal could do it. It's less fun than it was, but you don't see any post about how overpowered casters were, which was really frequent back then.

Now, where am I getting at?

Because Turbine had the 'obligation' (they are not really obligated to, but that is the obvious logical way to act) to keep the game a challenge and fun for everyone, and not only spell casters, Turbine gave crazy insane HP to their mobs. They made the game more balance and more fun for a wider selection of characters and classes. Success from their part? Partly. By balancing the challenge from the content, they introduce an 'unfun' tactic into the metagame (Vorpalling).

But, overall, that was a decent reaction to the issue from Turbine. (Although there would have been better ones.)Balancing via content is one of the most common way to react. Turbine have proved themselves very skilled with that type of balancing, as module 7 shows. However, balancing via content is not something desirable sometimes. It's no problem when it can be avoided, but sometimes it is unavoidable.

The new crazy inflated AC values of monk splashed TWF builds are an example that will lead to that.

Turbine, again, has the 'duty' to keep the game challenging for us. So, having Str-base TWF Tempest with nearly max Str running around with more AC than a S&B build can... is not something they will like much. If a character's DPS is too high for the DPS it deals, it's a bad balance. Characters with crazy high AC and DPS, like that ranger, will blow through content getting barely hit and dealing tons of damage. It gets even more problematic when you consider he has +10% speed with WoP/Vorpal and makes no sacrifices for Evasion.

What's the logical reaction to this? Raising the mobs' to-hit.

This way, those with high Str will be where Turbine will want them to be at, and those that are Dex-based (ie made a greater DPS sacrifice) will be higher and taking less damage. Perfect solution? Not at all. This alienates all the S&B builds that were made in order to "tank". They can't anymore! They're way behind in AC and their 'blocking DR' doesn't compensate for that, as TWF builds can just take out the shield and block if need be. Furthermore, it penalizes the ThF builds who were build for crazy DPS. That's no longer the case, not only do TWF deal more damage in most situations than THF but TWF can get good AC while at it unless they are barbarians (which penalizes the barbarian). Oh, and TWF Vorpals and WoP faster than the two. (THF can't WoP, also.)

Balancing for More Options:
What's my point? Imbalance kills options and fun.

If TWF is overpowered, you're more likely to make a TWF build than S&B or THF. There will, obviously, always be variety, though, as people like to try different things. As it's a game, being less effective isn't that much of a problem, since it's all about having fun. But, being less good, feeling like you bring less to the party than you could... that's not fun. Or at least, less fun.

Balancing, unlike some may think, is not about making everything the same. But rather, it's about defining how others are supposed to be different: barbarians are pure damage with no AC at all, rangers are TWF and Bow specialist with good DPS and crazy DPS vs their favored enemies, fighters are trained warriors capable of many things and they rely on feat to gain their power, etc. Once you've define it, once you've decide in what way all the components should perform, you balance.

If you define that S&B is about defense, THF about offense and TWF is about either decent AC with really good DPS or just pure DPS that will be slightly better in 1 vs 1 fights (definitions would have to be more complete than that, but I think this post is long enough like this), then you just got to stick to that and make sure no style comes significantly ahead of others.

In fact, if there is a think imbalance and inflation are good for, it's pigeonholing.

Opiate for the Masses:
Now, let me open a parenthese. If some think that imbalance is OK, what is their way of thinking?!

The answer? Opiate for the Masses!

It's actually a very spread out way of thinking in real life. Throw things left and right, without thinking of the consequences to keep the population busy while you make the profits. It's the way politics works nowadays, most politicians don't really go by what they think is best but what will make sure they get reelected even if the request is kind of stupid sometimes.

Heck, it's even possible Turbine runs DDO this way! Give one overpowered ability there, buff that fighting style, oh another overpowered ability there, "OK they've complained about this enhancement enough, let's nerf it to oblivion so they keep quiet", etc.

To be honest, it's an arguably valid way to see the whole balancing issues.

Most people are not going to question much. Complain? Maybe a bit but they'll stay. They have many factors keeping them in the game: friends, tradition (it's really hard for some to change their habits so they rather they with something they know than change), current progression (gear, multiple characters and just a great love for a unique feature (think of DDO's combat system). Most will just rejoice of the new ability, there will be some complaints at first but they will be enjoying the new content so their frustration will pass before they get 'bored enough' to risk leaving. It's even highly possible that, by then they will be making the 'flavor of the month' build.

And when the games becomes to imbalanced it's unplayable? Trash can, make a new one.

Of course, the flaw in that is that you have to throw the game at one point. The flaws are that it may become more imbalanced too quick for you to make good profits and making a new game is costy. After all, the longer you keep the game, the better it is for you. But, on the other hand, balancing properly is hard and requires more manpower... so...

But, from a player point of view, we should always request balance.

Anyway, hope that clears up the question.
Borror0

PS: Sorry for the horribly long post.

Silverjade
09-24-2008, 11:51 AM
Don't have the time to read all of that but i`m going to say while balance is a good thing to much of it is not i`m not saying i like it unbalance but some times to much is a bad thing to the point every every body is the same.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 12:02 PM
Don't have the time to read all of that but i`m going to say while balance is a good thing to much of it is not i`m not saying i like it unbalance but some times to much is a bad thing to the point every every body is the same.

Read the "Balancing for More Options" section. I answered that there.

Thrudh
09-24-2008, 12:04 PM
Don't have the time to read all of that but i`m going to say while balance is a good thing to much of it is not i`m not saying i like it unbalance but some times to much is a bad thing to the point every every body is the same.

I think his point was the opposite... that if classes are too unbalanced, if one class or playstyle is vastly superior to the rest than everyone makes THAT class or uses THAT playstyle, and then everybody is the same...

With a balanced game, there are more choices... You can go THF, TWF, Sword & Board, and all are balanced... better at some things, worse at others...

Right now TWF can have the highest AC, highest DPS, and evasion!

S&B should have highest AC and DR (Shields need to be worth more in AC and DR than they are now)
THF should have highest DPS, lowest AC
TWF should be best at vorpal, banish, etc.

One fix... get rid of the monk AC bonus unless you're centered... meaning that if a TWF wants AC, he'll have to give up DPS (kamas instead of khopeshes).

Rameses
09-24-2008, 12:17 PM
Thread of the Year.

'nuff said.

I am, Rameses!

smatt
09-24-2008, 12:20 PM
Of course SOME balance is a good thing.... No I don't want all the classes to be exactly the same. But I'm seeing now is a wide gap int he balance of power. There are a few builds/classes that VASTLY outpower every other calss and build in the game. Surely, there are always goign to be some really great builds, with really great equipment, and really good ploayers, that will stand-out. But at this point the huge gap taht say a two weapon fighting ranger/monk dueling wops is way out of wack.... As a longtime fan of multi-classing within PnP,a s well as DDO.... .I hate to say it... But there's too many +'s to multi- classing at this point and almost zero negatives. It's just stupid that one can get almsot all benefits of the rogue class with 2 or 3 levels, and get allt hat extra AC from 1 or 2 levels of the monk.

Same old arguement...... But I think the main problem at this point is the lack of penalties for splashing......

swooshrp
09-24-2008, 12:30 PM
Not to hijack the thread completely since its somewhat related, but every other class has gotten some kind of love except clerics. I recall Turbine added some faith based enhancements to essentially make clerics more melee balanced, but clerics are from balanced when comparing to how other classes.

My point is clerics tend to be the hardest class to get in a group. Obviously so since clerics require a lot of management, resources and are vital to an end game success.

With the effort to balance classes, i.e. Pallys and Fighters getting way of enhancement lines to increase their effectiveness, I think Clerics need to be looked at closely. They are least desired class to play except for a select few and there is a reason for this. As Borror points out, people stop playing when its not fun...either class, quest or the game completely.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 12:41 PM
think Clerics need to be looked at closely. They are least desired class to play except for a select few and there is a reason for this.

Actually, not to derail my own thread, but clerics are actually one of the most powerful class in the game right now.

The problem, with cleric, is that healing people's ass is not really fun and... that's what the playerbase expects a cleric to do. Why? Because the end game is really healing-dependant. But, take a part of 6 clerics and they'll blow through anything. With GREAT EASE, to point it's riddiculous.

They are healing capable, have blade barrier and a few other neat spells they are not to pity.

That said, something new stimulating the creation of new clerics wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

prodigy
09-24-2008, 12:51 PM
If TWF is overpowered, you're more likely to make a TWF build than S&B or THF. There will, obviously, always be variety, though, as people like to try different things. As it's a game, being less effective isn't that much of a problem, since it's all about having fun. But, being less good, feeling like you bring less to the party than you could... that's not fun. Or at least, less fun.



I have some hope that future crafting options may make the old Sword and Board king of the hill again, and perhaps more options for heavy/medium armours would be a good thing too.

frugal_gourmet
09-24-2008, 12:53 PM
He does raise a point, though. I recall reading an article on D&D version 3 in which a designer basically admitted clerics were intentionally given more powers than other classes. Primarily because they are the least enjoyable class to play in D&D and testing showed it.

While I concur that balance is generally something to strive for and this game needs lots of it, there are other types of balances besides a perfect balance of power. I believe a cleric's job is actually less fun for the average player than -- say -- a barbarian's. There is a sort of balance in making the classes equally *fun* as well. Not just equally powered. It's a more nebulous task, though, because it requires a bit of psychology.

maddmatt70
09-24-2008, 12:58 PM
Well if it were more balanced then you wouldn't have much to post about Borro; and therefore, probably would have left the game a while back..

Monkeytoe
09-24-2008, 12:58 PM
"Why do you want to balance everything?"

Once that happens, once a class, race or fighting style becomes overpowered Turbine has to react. In the case of spellcasting being overpowered in the post-Module 4 era, Turbine increased mobs HP by a ton! (They also made the module focused on fire immune mobs with high SR, but that's not important.) Ever tried to DPS an Orthon? It's pretty long. Meleeing wasn't any fun, so Turbine reacted.

Keeping the Challenge for Everyone:
That leaded to something not really 'fun' either.

They increased the HP so high that the best ways to kill are now Banishers, Vorpals and WoP! Well, to be honest, that's not much more fun either. Killing a mob with DPS and seeing his HP going down is fun. You feel like contributing. Swing at a mob seeing small yellow numbers poping and then seeing fall to the floor at half HP is not very fun. You don't really have a real feeling of accomplishment, you rather feel like anyone moron with a Vorpal could do it. It's less fun than it was, but you don't see any post about how overpowered casters were, which was really frequent back then.


I wondered why everything seemed to have so much more hp than it should.
The way to keep casters balanced is to keep them fighting each other. Wizards are supposed to have more important things to do than throw fireballs at at angry MOBs. Their full attention should concentrated on the great metaphysical questions of "how much longer can I maintain the defenses preventing my party's enemies from stripping off our skin and sucking out our souls?" or "If I can just keep that anti-paladin's protections suppressed long enough, maybe our paladin will be able to actually damage him!"

You know, an intellectual plane elevated beyond the mundane smashing and grunting of blood and sweat and merely physical DPS.

And I kind of agree about this game evolving into a way more "item driven" game than D&D. I mean, sure every character has favorite items, and almost every quest has necessary "plot items." But D&D has never been a game where the ownership or non-ownership of certain items so completely determines a character's actual viability in practice as it does in DDO.



While I concur that balance is generally something to strive for and this game needs lots of it, there are other types of balances besides a perfect balance of power. I believe a cleric's job is actually less fun for the average player than -- say -- a barbarian's. There is a sort of balance in making the classes equally *fun* as well. Not just equally powered. It's a more nebulous task, though, because it requires a bit of psychology.

/signed

Impaqt
09-24-2008, 12:59 PM
Had to scan though some of that... Too long.. But I get the jist. Well said.

That being said, I think the Major balancing issue isnt necessarily PC's VS. Mobs. I think the game is indeed pretty well balanced for the Casual gamer is some aspects and Skewed horribly twoards the power gamer in others. Its this inconsistancy in the game development that causes the most issues.

Many quests are balanced around the casual gamer.. Stormcleave for Example...... This is still one of the best most run quests int he game. You see everything from casual gamers at level 8ish running it to the powergamers at level 4-5 doing the same quest. It offers excellent XP, Constant action, and the challenge scales pretty consistantly over the settings......

THen you have quests balanced on the Powergamer..... Running with the Devils for example... Most groups can get through it on Normal or maybe Hardas long as they have one PGer in the group, but scaleing to Elite? Forgetabout it... Its a Power Gamer Paradise and if you dont have the gear, its a serious chore to complete.

Then you have the Abbot.... I dont even think the devs know what they were thinking.....

I see more imbalance inthe way the quests are designed rather than imbalance in the Players..... THe Problem is that most quests in this game are designed around a single mob type, Singular Goal, and many have that One trick/Puzzle/obstacle that is repeatably overcome without much thought.

I think thats the huge draw to stormcleave..... the quest is Diverse... Kobalds, Trolls, Giants, Minateurs, Undead, Mephits, Scorps, Dogs, Lots of Named boss's.... THere really is no "Shorcut" or trick to it. Kill Lots of Stuff and get your reward. Its a Brilliant design and its really sad we didnt see more of that as the game progressed.....

Zenako
09-24-2008, 01:00 PM
Actually, not to derail my own thread, but clerics are actually one of the most powerful class in the game right now.

The problem, with cleric, is that healing people's ass is not really fun and... that's what the playerbase expects a cleric to do. Why? Because the end game is really healing-dependant. But, take a part of 6 clerics and they'll blow through anything. With GREAT EASE, to point it's riddiculous.

They are healing capable, have blade barrier and a few other neat spells they are not to pity.

That said, something new stimulating the creation of new clerics wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

aw Borror0, let them keep that illusion of the clerics inferiority....

until they wield the true power of a well focused minion of destruction and death (aka Cleric) they will never understand....:)

Elkor
09-24-2008, 01:11 PM
After playing many, many on-line FPS games .. I find that most of the truely great ones have unbalanced classes (or guns).

Why? Because it's a class that allows newbies/casuals to perform well enough right from the beginning and this keeps them playing. If you had every class that had a steep learning/reward curve .. you would not have much of a player base.

What's important is to have secondary classes (or guns) that can offer similar success, or in some cases, surpass those overpowered classes. Human nature eventually kicks in and people really DON'T like playing a role/class that is seen as "too easy" or "noob friendly". After a certain amount of time, people want to be respected for being awesome in a class that isn't considered upper tier.

So, that's the role of the devs. Have a mix of classes that can all be effective, but each has their own learning curve or ones that operate on delayed gratification.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 01:13 PM
Had to scan though some of that... Too long.. But I get the jist. Well said.
hehe, sorry about the length and thanks for the compliment.

I think the game is indeed pretty well balanced for the Casual gamer is some aspects and Skewed horribly twoards the power gamer in others. Its this inconsistancy in the game development that causes the most issues.
Agreed to that.

The problem, at the origin, comes also from how powerful the 'rare gear' has became:

Chattering Ring for +3 AC
Mineral II
Tharne's Goggles
Exceptional HP/SP/skill bonus
...

The power gap has became so big that... well... this is what we observe.

I think thats the huge draw to stormcleave..... the quest is Diverse... Kobalds, Trolls, Giants, Minateurs, Undead, Mephits, Scorps, Dogs, Lots of Named boss's.... THere really is no "Shorcut" or trick to it. Kill Lots of Stuff and get your reward. Its a Brilliant design and its really sad we didnt see more of that as the game progressed.....
Agreed. Same could be said about Gwylan's, although in a more modest way.

frugal_gourmet
09-24-2008, 01:18 PM
The problem, at the origin, comes also from how powerful the 'rare gear' has became:

Chattering Ring for +3 AC
Mineral II
Tharne's Goggles
Exceptional HP/SP/skill bonus
...



I think that's a big part of it.

Forceonature
09-24-2008, 01:21 PM
Balancing, unlike some may think, is not about making everything the same. But rather, it's about defining how others are supposed to be different

Good post Borr. I thought I'd highlight the main important point (at least according to me).

Borror0
09-24-2008, 01:31 PM
So, that's the role of the devs. Have a mix of classes that can all be effective, but each has their own learning curve or ones that operate on delayed gratification.
There already is a learning curve in power, actually.

Play a barbarian. Pretty simple.

Step One: Rage.
Step Two: Drink Rage potion.
Step Three: Kill stuff!!
Now, play a sorcerer. Is it as easy?

The same can be said when comparing melee classes, but the difference isn't as obvious. It's an healthy thing, as you said, to have different learning curves with the classes. But, it doesn't mean balance in not important. It's good to have many different classes with different level of difficulty.

That's why 'less good choices' are still played by veterans. They like to play many different characters.

Varr
09-24-2008, 01:35 PM
Really this would be a better game if there were only casters clerics and rogues. There should be only a fighter class that has no dps and has a +500 to intimidate that is auto spamming........for my belovid rogues. All fighters would be human and dual wield stacking +5 tower shields.......bolted to there forearms.

On a more serious note, to me it makes perfect sence that demi god type dex and speed will allow for better ac than a s/b er can develop. (I might have a chance to hit a really good fighter in plate mail with a tower shield with a stone, but not that super quick ranger or monk) However, I could not do any damage to that fighter with the platemail because of his thick armors..........damage reduction makes more sence to me, inherant dr that is dynamic and significant for a s/ber is what makes sence to me (something like 3 pts per level (past level 5) dr for fighter/pali with plate and heavy/tower shield equipt. This would also be a bit of a bone for some of the purer players class wise to justify less multiclassing or more splashing and less deap multi.)

swooshrp
09-24-2008, 01:36 PM
aw Borror0, let them keep that illusion of the clerics inferiority....

until they wield the true power of a well focused minion of destruction and death (aka Cleric) they will never understand....:)

I understand that clerics are powerful, but look at the tactics a cleric would use if not for a band of blood thursty melees going to get killed or at least find out how much damage they can take before the mob dies. Clerics wouldn't melee something, they are similiar to casters and use stretgic placement of their spells.

6 clerics in a group will always be powerful since all they have to do is worry about themselves for healing, not 5 others and themselves. what makes a cleric less powerful is the other classes around them, as you say, we are played out to be healbots. And yes I have a cleric too.

Again, apologize to hijack, but the overall point is as classes are "balanced", clerics need to be adjusted to relate to the changes of the evolving class.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 01:43 PM
Again, apologize to hijack, but the overall point is as classes are "balanced", clerics need to be adjusted to relate to the changes of the evolving class.
As someone said previously, clerics in 3.0 and 3.5 are purposely overpowered to attract players into playing.

Sure, you can boost them a bit again for that reason, but be careful with it. Clerics aren't really a 'weak' class. Even with the recent updates, they haven't became any close to weak. Module 4.1 helped them a lot. So did Module 5.0 and the Metamagic changes. They aren't close to lacking behind. They don't need to be 'boosted', but tossing something their way to create an interest again isn't a bad idea.

SableShadow
09-24-2008, 01:48 PM
Beautifully articulated and elegantly written.

Varr
09-24-2008, 01:48 PM
Personaly I would put a cleric behind only a drow high umd sorc in power and capability. Ie, the most powerful and impactual class, able to overwhelm a quest single handedly better and faster (faster being better of course...hehe) than any other class. I can see more specialization for clerics and even sorcs, but not 'love' or power tweeking, they are dominate as is.

negative
09-24-2008, 01:52 PM
Just to throw my 2cp in for why balance is important, from a different angle. If you don't aim for balance, and just let things continue to escalate, you will end up at a point where one group of players/classes [my personal fear is powergamers] find the elite setting of a quest a snoozefest while another group [my fear being casual or average gamers] not even having a chance at finishing the same quest on normal.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but it is something to watch out for. Of course, that's why the norm/hard/elite quest setting is such a brillant idea, because it does give you much more flexibility in dealing with this problem. Though, favor kinda ruins the point of the whole thing.

And while my fear is powergamers vs. casual gamers, this same gap in power could manifest on a class vs. class basis or a build vs. build basis.

MysticRhythms
09-24-2008, 01:52 PM
One thing to consider is that the inherent balance in the game will be flawed simply becaue of the basic flaws associated with D&D3.5 - at high levels, spellcasters dominate.

The same thing is happening in DDO because the core rules of the game make spellcating a lot more relevant than BaB.

That's going to be an issue for Turbine to deal with throughout the history of the game.

In PnP, TWF actually takes a backseat to Sword&Board and even more of a backseat to Two-Handed Fighting simply because of the way power Attack and Attack bonuses scale. It's rather amusing to see that Turbine completely flipped this characeristic around in the online version.

As it stands, the pen-and-paper rules just don't carry over to an MMO without a lot of tweaking but the power gap between spellcasting and non-spellcasting is pretty obvious regardless. It should have been no mystery.

Cowboy
09-24-2008, 02:25 PM
very well thought out post with some great points

Mithran
09-24-2008, 02:38 PM
One thing to consider is that the inherent balance in the game will be flawed simply becaue of the basic flaws associated with D&D3.5 - at high levels, spellcasters dominate.

The same thing is happening in DDO because the core rules of the game make spellcating a lot more relevant than BaB.

That's going to be an issue for Turbine to deal with throughout the history of the game.

In PnP, TWF actually takes a backseat to Sword&Board and even more of a backseat to Two-Handed Fighting simply because of the way power Attack and Attack bonuses scale. It's rather amusing to see that Turbine completely flipped this characeristic around in the online version.

As it stands, the pen-and-paper rules just don't carry over to an MMO without a lot of tweaking but the power gap between spellcasting and non-spellcasting is pretty obvious regardless. It should have been no mystery.

How many casters for a Shroud raid? Typically one. Hound of Xoriat/Vision of Destruction? One or two. The current demand for glass cannons is pretty small, right now.

Mithran
09-24-2008, 02:41 PM
All my melee characters are now TWF, but the TWF imbalance is a logical one apart from A/C. I think A/C is what the core issue is, these days, but my main still wears a shield for going into turtle mode.

frugal_gourmet
09-24-2008, 02:46 PM
One thing to consider is that the inherent balance in the game will be flawed simply becaue of the basic flaws associated with D&D3.5 - at high levels, spellcasters dominate.

They mainly dominate because of the imaginative openness of the game, though. Take the straight PNP versions of the abilities arcanes been given in this particular game into a pen and paper dungeon and they shouldn't dominate at all. They can't actually do the same creative stuff in this game. In D&D, an arcane spellcaster didn't do imbalanced amount of direct damage. Their imbalance came from a wide range of other powers that could be used creatively. DDO inflated spell damage to insane proportions here (whilst removing touch attacks and spell resistance to said damage), and then -- oddly -- decided to fix the problem by inflating the hit points of enemies. Bizarre fix, in my opinion.

frugal_gourmet
09-24-2008, 02:47 PM
How many casters for a Shroud raid? Typically one. Hound of Xoriat/Vision of Destruction? One or two. The current demand for glass cannons is pretty small, right now.

I agree. It's such an artificially created imbalance, too. It feels all wrong.

Ryavin
09-24-2008, 02:52 PM
that experience plays a lot into this as well. By trying out tons of different builds since headstart a player knows how to customize his toons to his playstyle and abilities. I have heard all the arguements. Elves suck as melees, barbs are the best, Rangers suck (this one was my favorite)...the list will go on and on. Thing is, if you know how to play your toon you will be able to contribute. You can't expect someone new to be able to keep up with an experienced player. Of course they will drag behind in kill count, die more, use more resources. While some classes need some boosts it doesnt' mean that you can't make effective ones. I have seen great players rock in very difficult quests with these so called underpowered classes. The player behind the keyboard mean a ton in this game. This is my first MMO, but that is what I have noticed. Exp and the person playing the toon means more than the build or class.

BorrorO: Great post and well spoken

Borror0
09-24-2008, 02:53 PM
Bizarre fix, in my opinion.

It's not bizarre at all.

Since HSinclair left, the DDO Developers are very cautious about nerfing. It's seen as bad, bad, bad even though the effect is the same (or less disastrous) at the end of the day. Inflating the HP isn't that bad, but they had to put it so high that Vorpal was faster than DPS...

A better way would have been energy absorption, IMO.

Naso24
09-24-2008, 02:57 PM
Good post.

While not per D&D game mechanics, I think it would be better to balance S&B with better damage reduction, rather than focus so much on AC.

The AC spread is a problem that is made worse by non-progressive/regressive mob attack chains. The D20 window fails to work when the spread is greater than 20.

Almost any character can get to 35 AC with some thought and reasonable equipment (non-named or raid specific loot). It takes specific builds with specific equipment to hit 65+.

It would take a combo TWF nerf and S&B buff to make S&B the AC kings, without further increasing the spread.

I'd rather see an inherent damage reduction from using shields (when not even blocking) to add value to S&B fighting style. Existing S&B feats or a new one should be required. The balance could be kept with enhancements (easy way to scale the reduction available to certain character levels, and not make it so equipment dependent).

Balance is important to provide a variety of tactics and playstyles that can be utilized to accomplish quests. = More fun

frugal_gourmet
09-24-2008, 03:05 PM
Since HSinclair left, the DDO Developers are very cautious about nerfing. It's seen as bad, bad, bad even though the effect is the same (or less disastrous) at the end of the day. Inflating the HP isn't that bad, but they had to put it so high that Vorpal was faster than DPS...

A better way would have been energy absorption, IMO.

Agreed on the last statement.

I believe what's most "bizarre" or problematic to me is that it completely reverses the experience. The spellcaster has a finite amount of resources at his disposal. He is (originally) balanced by not always being able to constantly fling said spells infinitely. So, if he is smart, he saves them for the hardest battles. Now that his entire spell pool cannot directly even dent the main bad guy, his role changes abruptly. He goes from kill specialist to 100% support or utilitarian. Now the steady but lesser stream of DPS is where it's at.

It's actually not a problem so long as not all future quests are like this. I'm fine with classes adjusting strategies.

But it worsens the game experience, IMO, if one class is featured significantly less in the end game in every single end-game raid just as it worsened it when one class was featured significantly more.

I guess I feel the change was a little too unnecessarily much in one direction.

swooshrp
09-24-2008, 03:10 PM
Personaly I would put a cleric behind only a drow high umd sorc in power and capability. Ie, the most powerful and impactual class, able to overwhelm a quest single handedly better and faster (faster being better of course...hehe) than any other class. I can see more specialization for clerics and even sorcs, but not 'love' or power tweeking, they are dominate as is.

Yes, I agree. My choice of words wasn't accurate in the point I was trying to give. More of a specialization is right on course for what I meant.

Cold_Stele
09-24-2008, 03:16 PM
There already is a learning curve in power, actually.

Play a barbarian. Pretty simple.

Step One: Rage.
Step Two: Drink Rage potion.
Step Three: Kill stuff!!

Silly Borro, it's

1. Drink Rage pot
2. Rage

Your completely game breaking Rage lasts longer if you take the pot first.

Turial
09-24-2008, 03:21 PM
Silly Borro, it's

1. Drink Rage pot
2. Rage

Your completely game breaking Rage lasts longer if you take the pot first.

Especially if barbs are suddenly unable to drink rage pots while raged anymore. Dun Dun Dun!

Gennerik
09-24-2008, 03:25 PM
I actually did read the entire post, and you do have a number of good points, however I wanted to know a few things.

First off, have you played DnD4.0? It really is a game about balance. Pretty much, all the classes have been balanced, so much so that they all seem to play the same. I think that's one of the biggest problems of balancing characters against each other is that they all become the same. That's seriously the problem with 4.0 since pretty much every character has many of the same abilities, just with different names.

Impaqt really touched on it when he was talking about things being balanced for only a few monster types. You really didn't touch on another method of balancing a game, and that's by making classes unbalanced so that they actually have a role during the quest. I'm not talking about haphazard monster distribution like what you find in Threnal, but a more balanced approach where there might be more effective classes during parts of the quest, but overall each character actively contributes to completion. Imbalance is fine between classes as long as your accept that there will be situations where someone else is better at something than you.

Our problem is that because monsters take so much development time, when we get a new monster, that tends to be all we see, resulting in quests that all seem saturated with a single type of monster. We need more monster variety throughout the quests, where some playstyles excel at certain points, so then the party is balanced, nor necessarily each class.

Our classes could still stand to be balanced some, especially when you have a character type that is better at many things (such as the two-weapon fighting AC master that can out-DPS any but a max strength Barbarian while having an AC higher than a sword-and-board melee, or quickly switch to ability score damage and kill something faster than a caster can insta-kill it, all while being able to heal themselves. I honestly think that one quick way to solve the splash problem is to institute the actual favored classes for races, including the XP hit for becoming unbalanced. Maybe getting 50% XP would keep everyone and their mother from playing the same type of uber character.

Cold_Stele
09-24-2008, 03:28 PM
Seriously though, you're right on the money with the whole post.

I see two solutions to the problem myself -

1. A respec option, so the devs can nerf bomb builds that are out of control without damaging customer relations too much.

2. High level enhancements - players should have a difficult decision to make between (for example) Barb 20 or Barb 14/Rgr 6 Tempest - both should have interesting abilities, but neither should overshadow the other.

Varr
09-24-2008, 03:40 PM
Ill go a step further than cold steel.......actually 3 steps farther........I would like to see level 20 pures get abilities that are significatly more dominate than split classes can obtain. I am a firm believer that the game would be a better game at level 20 cap with 80% of the characters being pure and 20% being utility split classes that are unique...........and not the 70% split/30% pure we see today (very guessy percentages at todays mix.) So the power gamers (I foolishly consider myself one of these even though I probably focus to much on the abstract to be a real power gamer) will have to spend a month rerolling there favorite character or two..........give you slackers something to do instead of getting bored of the new content anyway.

With pure classes making up the lion share of the parties, a rogue will be needed for traps.....not the wiz rog or ranger rogue........a paladin will be a monster for undead killing and potent evil bosses not the fighter/pali splash..........so forth and so on. I am likely alone here, but believe the devs could put together better level 12 fullfilling quest if they knew that tehre woudl be a level (?) 12 pure caster, cleric, fighter, rogue, fill in the blank, fill in the blank.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 03:41 PM
First off, have you played DnD4.0? It really is a game about balance.
I haven't played it, but read about it.

I dislike that they totally killed ingenuity of the 3.5 multiclassing system. Yes, it had faults. Yes, it was far from perfect. But, it was awesome. And I don't mean that from a powergaming point of view. (I don't really powergame on tabletop, by the way. Video games are for powergaming and tabletop for RPing.;)) It was just great on how much control you had over your character.

By fear of making something imbalanced again, they made a boring game...

Like I said, "Balancing, unlike some may think, is not about making everything the same. But rather, it's about defining how others are supposed to be different." That's what they didn't get in 4 Edition. That's why it's boring. To me, it just doesn't have the same D&D feel. (I started with 3.5)


I'm not talking about haphazard monster distribution like what you find in Threnal, but a more balanced approach where there might be more effective classes during parts of the quest, but overall each character actively contributes to completion. Imbalance is fine between classes as long as your accept that there will be situations where someone else is better at something than you.
Exactly.

The challenge, here, is to make that balanced quest by quest, because having some class better in some quests is not really a fun mechanic. For example, if rangers were properly balanced, a ranger that chooses his favored enemies right would fight against a few of them each quest. He can out-DPS a barbarian against these without problem, but at the end of the quest a barbarian would have dealt more damage than the ranger. That is to balance for all the abilities a ranger has that a barbarian doesn't. (Barbarians are a fairly restricted class because of rage.)

Of course, a ranger would be really good in a quest crowded with one type of creature that he happens to have as his favored enemy. The trick, here, is to avoid maknig of favored enemies an obvious choice, unlike now, where 90% of the end game is nothing but Evil Outsiders...

I honestly think that one quick way to solve the splash problem is to institute the actual favored classes for races, including the XP hit for becoming unbalanced. Maybe getting 50% XP would keep everyone and their mother from playing the same type of uber character.
Nah. Just give good (good, NOT overpowered) high levels abilities instead.

Good enough to think about it and be sad you've lost it but not an OMG I need it either. An XP penalty doesn't address the problem much... it's just frustrating.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 03:43 PM
I see two solutions to the problem myself -

1. A respec option, so the devs can nerf bomb builds that are out of control without damaging customer relations too much.

2. High level enhancements - players should have a difficult decision to make between (for example) Barb 20 or Barb 14/Rgr 6 Tempest - both should have interesting abilities, but neither should overshadow the other.
We're on the same wavelength. Having both being the best of all worlds.

Zuldar
09-24-2008, 03:48 PM
I'd say the biggest reason for the imbalance is inflation. Everything has been inflated to such a degree as to make balancing the game incredibly difficult. A slight change in one area ends up having sweeping changes across the board.

MysticRhythms
09-24-2008, 03:53 PM
They mainly dominate because of the imaginative openness of the game, though. Take the straight PNP versions of the abilities arcanes been given in this particular game into a pen and paper dungeon and they shouldn't dominate at all. They can't actually do the same creative stuff in this game. In D&D, an arcane spellcaster didn't do imbalanced amount of direct damage. Their imbalance came from a wide range of other powers that could be used creatively.
That's not the only ource of imbalance in P&P. Save-or-die mechanisms were a great portion of the issue and they are quite plentiful in DDO. Sorcerers and Wizards and even clerics wander around casting Finger of Death or Banishment or Destruction on everything. It's the caster-version of vorpal and it can be done at range and without any particularly hard-to-acquire equipment. Add to that the fact that caster defensive buffs (Stoneskin, Displacement, Haste, Jump, Energy Resistance, Greater Heroism, Spell Resistance, True Seeing, etc) are better defenses than AC and saving throws and you still maintain that level of super-power. Then throw on self-healing on top of that and you have the perfect DDO soloist.


DDO inflated spell damage to insane proportions here (whilst removing touch attacks and spell resistance to said damage), and then -- oddly -- decided to fix the problem by inflating the hit points of enemies. Bizarre fix, in my opinion.
There's no way to fix save-or-die or defensive buffing though. Well, not without playing 4e :)

Borror0
09-24-2008, 03:58 PM
I'd say the biggest reason for the imbalance is inflation. Everything has been inflated to such a degree as to make balancing the game incredibly difficult. A slight change in one area ends up having sweeping changes across the board.

Very true.

MysticRhythms
09-24-2008, 03:59 PM
I haven't played it, but read about it.

I dislike that they totally killed ingenuity of the 3.5 multiclassing system. Yes, it had faults. Yes, it was far from perfect.

While this is truly a topic for another thread, the 4.0 multiclassing system is still very rich in customization and options.

In my opinion, Prestige Class twinking is part of the problem of 3.5 game balance. Prestige Class options far overshadowed the things that base classes could do and that's part of the essence of the balance argument.

For instance, there were no pure base-class builds in PnP that weren't spellcasters. If you played a non-caster, there was little motivation to stay within your own class. The enhancement system of DDO makes some base classes more Pestige-y than others (Tempest Ranger and Ridiculously critting Barbarian vs ... basically nothing for Fighter and Paladin).

Borror0
09-24-2008, 04:01 PM
For instance, there were no pure base-class builds in PnP that weren't spellcasters. If you played a non-caster, there was little motivation to stay within your own class..

Never said it was perfect, I said there was a lot of potential in it. They should have 'fixed it' rather than trash it.

MysticRhythms
09-24-2008, 04:04 PM
Never said it was perfect, I said there was a lot of potential in it. They should have 'fixed it' rather than trash it.

I like the new version much better. It seems more balanced and still allows for a lot of very interesting character concepts. It costs you only feat choices now (which retains the mechanism of the old system) but you're still allowed to multiclass as freely as you desire and pick and choose powers from the classes you belong to.

Cold_Stele
09-24-2008, 04:05 PM
Some real careful thought being put into the BAB 20 attack chain could help with balance too.

- Fast THF animations.

- Giving a good reason to go pure melee instead of splashing Monk for the uber AC.

Remember how it used to be? You couldn't wait to get to cap at 10th level to get that BAB 10 attack.

Again, I'm not talking overpowered but something more appealing than the system we have now where full BAB can actually mean less DPS due to slowing up of attack animations.

Naso24
09-24-2008, 04:12 PM
Seriously though, you're right on the money with the whole post.

I see two solutions to the problem myself -

1. A respec option, so the devs can nerf bomb builds that are out of control without damaging customer relations too much.

2. High level enhancements - players should have a difficult decision to make between (for example) Barb 20 or Barb 14/Rgr 6 Tempest - both should have interesting abilities, but neither should overshadow the other.

Totally agree here, but I would take 2) further. We need L16 and L18 enhancements and abilities so it is not all about end game character design - but covers the in between and journey along the way.

The respec option would completely satisfy me if they wanted to make sweeping changes. Walk into the pillars of change - pull the lever. Are you sure? Are you REALLY sure? Remake character from L0 - Stats, skills, feats, everything. Get XP credit (full or %). Character is marked, cannot use pillars again. Happy customers, better game.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 04:17 PM
Totally agree here, but I would take 2) further. We need L16 and L18 enhancements and abilities so it is not all about end game character design - but covers the in between and journey along the way.

That would be obviously needed.

Take the paladin example. Even if there would be something nice at level 20, you'd have to ponder a lot about it. Why? Because there is very little from level 11 to level 19 to gain. A few SPs, a few useless spell slot, Bulwark of Good IV and unimpressive level 4 spells.

Is that level 20 ability really worth 9 levels you could have put in anything else? Most likely not.

Making the levels between 11 and 20 more attractive would help in making that level 20 ability much better.

Naso24
09-24-2008, 05:00 PM
[quote=Cold Stele;1868977]
...
- Fast THF animations.
...
.quote]

And yet another balance issue. Ever use a greatsword or falchion? Not only does the attack rate go down as you level up, it goes down when you switch to a different two handed weapon.

These are not technical problems. They are simply choices turbine accepts. We obviously can swing faster (haste, fighter haste boost) within the game mechanics. Just like TWF, a single swing could also register multiple attacks.

2-handed swords need to have the same attack rate (animation speed) as mauls and greataxes. Adding a double attack (not just another glancing blow) on the last animation would do a great deal for THF popularity.

Turial
09-24-2008, 05:03 PM
....
2-handed swords need to have the same attack rate (animation speed) as mauls and greataxes. Adding a double attack (not just another glancing blow) on the last animation would do a great deal for THF popularity.

I would go so far as to say that THF should get the same number of attacks as one-handed single weapon fighting. If not that then there should be either full damage (holy, pure good, etc) or a chance for each of the damage adds to trigger with the chance to trigger increasing as you get higher along the THF feat line, 25%, 50%, 75%.

Turial
09-24-2008, 05:05 PM
That would be obviously needed.

Take the paladin example. Even if there would be something nice at level 20, you'd have to ponder a lot about it. Why? Because there is very little from level 11 to level 19 to gain. A few SPs, a few useless spell slot, Bulwark of Good IV and unimpressive level 4 spells.

Is that level 20 ability really worth 9 levels you could have put in anything else? Most likely not.

Making the levels between 11 and 20 more attractive would help in making that level 20 ability much better.

Holy Avenger may change that depending on the powers it provides. Eladrin said the powers would unlock based on the number of paladin levels one had.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 05:12 PM
Holy Avenger may change that depending on the powers it provides. Eladrin said the powers would unlock based on the number of paladin levels one had.
Yes, but making these abilities or spells rather than stupidly putting them on a weapon would have been much better and clever.

Gennerik
09-24-2008, 05:13 PM
I would go so far as to say that THF should get the same number of attacks as one-handed single weapon fighting. If not that then there should be either full damage (holy, pure good, etc) or a chance for each of the damage adds to trigger with the chance to trigger increasing as you get higher along the THF feat line, 25%, 50%, 75%.

If they'd only put back the glancing blow effects for weapons... That could boost up at least Two-handed Fighting to be close to Two-weapon Fighting.

Turial
09-24-2008, 05:38 PM
Yes, but making these abilities or spells rather than stupidly putting them on a weapon would have been much better and clever.

Meh, depends on the powers. A holy avenger shield might play out better then the weapon.

Drinkin
09-24-2008, 05:44 PM
"Why do you want to balance everything?"

That was what someone asked, a day or two ago. At first, I didn't know if I should reply. I first told myself that this was unrelated to the topic. But then, I told myself "It's a very legitimate question. Why do I want to balance the classes, races and fighting styles?!"

The answer to that is quite simple: because it makes a better game.

Ok, that's a bit short of an answer, so let me elaborate a bit. (Looking back to it now, it's more than "a bit"... sorry about that.)
[quote/]
I've played ddo since august 06 and it's only been pretty recently that I've been bored enough with the game where I actually started reading the forums. I was soo blindly content playing this game that I didnt care what people had to say. The more I read the forums the more I see posts and threads by you(and other people with opinions I dissagree with). I just wanted to point out the fact that you pawn off your OPINIONS as facts and speak of what will make this game better... and that may be better for you but I dissagree with a lot of your opinions and I think there are tons of other people that feel the same way I do(many of them are too busy enjoying this amazing game to read the forums like I was for so long) If turbine can get back to making new content and forget about fixing silly problems I'd be much happier(just my opinion). When I first started playing this game new content came out monthly I'd guess anywhere from 3-5 quests then when a mod came out it'd be more. I miss those days I figure for my $15 every month it's the least I deserve. To your op I think balance is a bad thing I think one of the very few problems with this game is s&b ac and I think there are tons of ways to fix it and I also think that we've stated the issue and that turbine will hopefully eventually fix it but if not... I guess I'll have to delete my s&b pali and reroll a twf superbuild!! Either way I'll just enjoy this game till they nerf so much stuff it's no longer fun for anyone and then I'll move on.

[QUOTE=Borror0;1868498]PS: Sorry for the horribly long post.
This is one point I can definately agree with you on!!

Borror0
09-24-2008, 05:58 PM
If turbine can get back to making new content and forget about fixing silly problems I'd be much happier(just my opinion). When I first started playing this game new content came out monthly I'd guess anywhere from 3-5 quests then when a mod came out it'd be more. I miss those days I figure for my $15 every month it's the least I deserve.
You're aware that this has nothing to do with balancing? Turbine somehow slowed their development rate.

Beofre, they were producing much more spells for every module, more enhancements, more quests. Then, somewhere post-Module 4, it slowed down. A lot. They were late for update 4.1. Then, even more late gain for update 4.2... and lastly, Module 5 was delayed by over a month! Following Module 5, they announced they would remove the small updates and only make big modules instead but they would;d have more content...

To your op I think balance is a bad thing

Care to elaborate?

Varr
09-24-2008, 06:25 PM
I wonder if bor has me on ignore.........he never responds to my posts in his threads, even though I make a point of bumping them for him with insightful deep thoughts on all types of topics all the time. He is always responding to others...........hum, maybe its becuase I dont know spit about the figther classes, Ive tried to be more controversal latley to stimulate the conversations...........I think my feelings are hurt.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 06:29 PM
I wonder if bor has me on ignore...
Yeah. You're on ignore. ;)

Nah, seriously it's more that I have nothing interesting say about your comments. :P

I think my feelings are hurt.
Awww, poor little halfling. :(

Varr
09-24-2008, 06:32 PM
Hehehe, Im deff going to bring the heat on your next thread then! Your orgional posting here by the way was worht the read, Im not a lazy slacker like some, just skimming it! Carry on, carry on............off to get eaten, I mean slay a dragon.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 06:35 PM
Hehehe, Im deff going to bring the heat on your next thread then!
hehe, ok

Off to get eaten, I mean slay a dragon.
Ouch! PuG? If not, who's leading?

DoctorWhofan
09-24-2008, 07:15 PM
Balanced?

First: Clerics are the powerhouses. I acknowledge that, even as a healing Generalist. I may not use it alot the clerics have, but I know it exists. They can put Sorcerers to shame, and can fill just about every role/ Splashing will allow every role in the party. They are the only class that I know of that can take TWO stats for enhancements. All other classes can only take one. DO they need extra stuff? Well, I would like the enhancement Divine line to continue but that's it. Not game breaking for me.


Second: There is balance in the game if one chooses to use it. Sure, my clogue is designed to heal and pick locks, but the chances are greater he is going to fail, especially on elite. We won't discuss him in battle. Rogues, even my trapmonkey non-DPS rogue, are leathal in combat. One good hit and that's all she wrote.

BUT: as it has been said, we don't look at the other aspects of the class, we pigeon hole and move on. Not that is a bad thing. If one is new to the game, saying rogues do traps and locks helps them to understand their primary job. It also defines our JOB in the party, the reason out characters chose the field in the first place, the reason that the class exists.

Many of us got tired of the cleric=heal, rogue=trapmonkey aspect and created somevariations on the tune, some good and some bad. BUT many forgot the real reason we have the class in the first place and there are many mostly rogues and even pure rogues out there that have traps blown in their face while my clogue has no problem with it.

There is nothing wrong for playing the class for what it is, but people often get tore up here and in the game if they have a healing cleric, a trapmonkey rogue, and so forth. The stigma is to think outside the box and if you don't, you are not needed.

WHat's that got to do with balance? The classes: tank, rogue, healer, caster are supposed to work together for a goal, to help each other out where one falters, the other picks up. Alot of PDers do that on a daily basis. Alot of PuGgers do too. That's balance in the game. Red mobs are usually not being killed by the casters, but by the tanks. SAving mana to use as offensive abilities for a cleric is nice, and the rogue, by disabling traps, does this. Casting at mass amount of mobs is a caster thing, and so is instakill. And so on.

So the is balanced, to me. We just forgot that. Am I saying down with the batman builds or the DPS rogues? NO. 3.5 is all about flexible and I like that. But to ask for balance in this game is a dangerous thing, for balance can mean Nerf or over powering. Especially, in the most basic and simplist terms, the game IS balanced, to me. For me, there is enough people looking for XYZ raid loot so they can be uber elite gods and do everything all by themselves. I'd rather bring my heling cleric to a party with a fighter, rogue and wizard (all strangers) and figure out the quest and have the satisifaction of working together and helping each other through our shortcomings to accomplish the goal and getting all the objectives, including loot.

My two rather worthless coppers.

Zuldar
09-24-2008, 09:39 PM
Really, there isn't going to be an easy solution to the balance issues short of wiping and remaking the game exactly by the books.

What I'd recommend would be examining each style of play (twf, thf, s&b, casting, etc) and determining it's inherit strengths and weaknesses. Then create things that will reward it's strength and punish it's weakness, in this way it'll achieve some semblance of balance by making each needed.

For example:

The glancing blows off of two handed weapons should be enhanced, perhaps by allowing some of the weapons special properties to be applied. I'd recommend applying any damage properties and possibly, key word being possibly, stat damaging properties to the glancing blows.

Another option for two handed fighting would be to have the relevant feats apply a higher str bonus to damage. Say one feat makes it 2x, another 2.5x, and the last 3x. They'd end up getting twice the str bonus to damage with the 3 feat investment.

As for sword and board, the biggest recommendation I could make would be to have the shield mastery feats apply some of the damage reduction as a passive reduction while not blocking. As for the exact number, I'd recommend a sliding scale. Going by just a set pecentage would apply too little early on and too much later. A sliding scale that offers diminishing returns at higher values would be the best way to go.

Just as an example I'd say go 1:1 up to 5, 1:2 up to 15 and 1:3 above that, rounding down. So a person with 30 dr would have a 15 passive damage reduction, good enough to help out while tanking but not so much as to be immune to every attack (especially since dr only applies to physical damage).

Two weapon fighting is already fairly strong, so it'd be best to leave it as is for now.

Now spell casting is a bit more difficult to balance, seeing as it tends to either be overpowering or useless depending on the quest. The best way to handle it would be through quest design, perhaps adding hordes of weak but damaging creatures to be aoe'd or single creatures with enough unpassable dr to make spell casting more viable.

Drinkin
09-24-2008, 09:43 PM
You're aware that this has nothing to do with balancing? Turbine somehow slowed their development rate.

Beofre, they were producing much more spells for every module, more enhancements, more quests. Then, somewhere post-Module 4, it slowed down. A lot. They were late for update 4.1. Then, even more late gain for update 4.2... and lastly, Module 5 was delayed by over a month! Following Module 5, they announced they would remove the small updates and only make big modules instead but they would;d have more content...
Yes and I could be wrong about this but I'm assuming that the more stuff they added the more minor problems that showed up and instead of them focusing on getting the new quests right and forgetting about the minor problems they went back to fix old problems then people complain cause stuff isn't coming out on time so they hurry through put out a quest with more bugs and then they have to go back and fix that instead of working on new stuff. I'd most likely be happy with about 4-6 high level quests every other month. Now this isn't an opinion this is an uneducated guess but I think that if people stopped complaining about things that didn't make a quest uncompletable then devs could focus on making new content.



Care to elaborate?

Most of the reason I say that balance is a bad thing is because I love to play a variety of toons somedays I want to take a gimped toon out and see how close I can get in kills to those that are assumed to be a better build. I love being the under dog and coming out on top if there is too much balance then you're going to wreck some of my fun. I also play magic the gathering and when I build a deck I try to use as much jank as I can cheap rares that no one else uses. I guess if that's not enough of a explanation then simply I'll have to say it's my opinion and that should be enough.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 10:13 PM
Most of the reason I say that balance is a bad thing is because I love to play a variety of toons somedays I want to take a gimped toon out and see how close I can get in kills to those that are assumed to be a better build. I love being the under dog and coming out on top if there is too much balance then you're going to wreck some of my fun. I also play magic the gathering and when I build a deck I try to use as much jank as I can cheap rares that no one else uses. I guess if that's not enough of a explanation then simply I'll have to say it's my opinion and that should be enough.
This makes no sense.

Even in a perfectly balanced game, you can build a gimp. However, there many options of a valid build. But, there is nothing stopping you from making a 8 Str barbarian or from taking useless feats, and so on. Balancing means making stuff that should, logically, be on par with the rest... well, on par. For example, in a class-based system like D&D, all classes should be of equivalent power.

Nevthial
09-24-2008, 11:16 PM
For example, in a class-based system like D&D, all classes should be of equivalent power.


They are of equivalent power. They merely have different powers and abilites which are complementary to one another. Hence, best used together AS A TEAM.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 11:20 PM
They are of equivalent power. They merely have different powers and abilites which are complementary to one another. Hence, best used together AS A TEAM.

And your point is?

Nevthial
09-24-2008, 11:45 PM
And your point is?

Why continue to ask for something that already is. That is my point.

Borror0
09-24-2008, 11:57 PM
Why continue to ask for something that already is. That is my point.
So the low AC S&B intimitank with low DPS is complementary to the high AC TWF high DPS intimitank?! :rolleyes:
Back in Module 5, the barbarian was complimentary to the sorcerer would could nuke his way through a quest on his own? :rolleyes:

Sorry, but you're wrong.

If you were to put roles into a party, you'd notice that many classes will share the same 'roles'. Wizards and sorcerers will, most likely, fill the roll of a spellcaster. Barbarians, fighers, paladins, monks and rangers will most likely fill in the role of a DPS or tank. (Rogues and bards may be DPS sometimes, but that's more tricky.) As for healer, clerics pretty much got monopole on that but there are some quite good healing bards out there.

Within those roles, there is a lack of balance. Some classes are just better than others. Some fighting styles are just better than others.

And then, spellcasting and melee combat step on each other's toes.

Sorry, balance is absent and needed.

baddax
09-25-2008, 12:22 AM
Another way I see Turbine promoting more balanced classes is by quest design. Specifically where players must split up into smaller groups to complete the quest. This encourages players to play more traditonal roles and or forces them to be more rounded and versatile. I see this as a primary way Turbine encouraging players to build and or play specific characters and or styles.

Now having said that, you run into issues such as " PvP" builds and "Quest" builds. Where you have builds that are specced for one or the other. Not saying that one build cant do both but there will usually be trade offs. Ie. I have a capped sorc that carrys many spells that i would not need if he was a primary pvp build.

Lastly I dont think turbine is copmpletely dependent on feedback to determine which classes need to be balanced. Although im sure they listen to us i also believe that alot of what they do is time specific and there is an overall plan (maybe being to hopefull) ie. first fix two handed ftrs then fix sword and board ftrs. etc etc. I am sure that after they implement changes to a class thier is always problems and or consequences they didnt forsee and thus account for, but primarily i think its touch and go on to the next mod/update.

eonfreon
09-25-2008, 01:51 AM
I keep seeing all this talk on the forums about S&B, TWF, THF.
Is the shield somehow bolted onto the S&B? Can he not put down the shield and wield a GreatAxe or use any other THF weapon?
All it takes is 15 Natural Dex to be able to at least use the basic TWF feat. A S&B can grab that to at least be able to use two weapons once in awhile, if for no other reason than to use a paralyzer in one hand and another effects weapon in the other, or any two effects weapons of his choosing when he needs. Yes, ITWF, and GTWF are better but hardly necessary.
If a fighter goes with 10 Dex, max Str and max Con and then picks up a shield and puts on platemail armor, where's the sacrifice?
I'm sure a S&B build is a specific build, putting just enough points into Dex to benefit from Armor Mastery and Tower Shield Mastery enhancements to get max AC, but a fully armored fighter is not going to match the AC of a highly dextrous light armored fighter, and he shouldn't.
Armor and shield is more about DR than AC.
The only argument I hear that makes sense is that armor and shield should have some type of passive DR to go along with blocking DR and that the enhancements costs for armor and shield are too high. That I can agree with.
Yes, some things need a little more balancing. More feats need to be added to allow different builds for fighters.
But I don't see this "Oh woe is the S&B" I hear so much about. Everything is a tradeoff.
The monk splash may be a bit overpowered, but to be effective he has to balance another attribute: wisdom. The monk/ranger mix also achieves this with less hit points to absorb the damage when he is hit.
If anything the Monk/Ranger mix is unfair to the pure class monk rather than to the S&B.
I know this thread is less about specific issues you have Borr, and more of a philosophical point-of-view, but I've read all your posts in the other threads that sparked this "Balance" thread, and this AC issue seems to be your primary concern.
If a S&B's AC and DPS are suffering, put down the darn shield and pick up a two handed weapon. Or use the shield for what it's supposed to be used for: DR.

Maegin
09-25-2008, 02:56 AM
The only reason I am ok with 4e, is the fact that its still pnp. That being said, it allows for roleplaying, and no matter if you all have the same stuff, I could roleplay totally different as opposed to the same car racing the same car. You can't give the cars personallity and freedom, they're built for a purpose and thats it. But for role playing, you add an element which no game has ever mastered. The ability to do ANYTHING you could possibly think of. This, I foresee, is why they took 4e and tried to make it online-ish. But untill technology is insane-o-flex, we will never have our DO ANYTHING type of approach, which is why pnp, to me, will always be better.

As for ddo? I purposly give my self a HUGE handycap all the time, that way I know if I do actaully come out on top, that i actually had to work for it. As a successful bard, many are completly shocked in that I'm a virtuoso, and that I didnt for a while have IC:P, nor any power 5 weps, I still have no shroud items (almost by choice) and time and time again, I'm a good and respected pug bard and pull my weight in raids.

It is sad, i have to handycap myself for a challenge tho...

Maegin
09-25-2008, 03:12 AM
The sterio-types are good in that they are limited, thus relying on teamwork, as opposed to 1 uber toon to rule them all. 4e tried to do this by takin strain off healing with healing surges, a nice concept. I ran a 4e group without a cleric for a while, and it worked. tho a cleric would have spead it up, it still worked.

Leading me to see how powerful UMD is, and how that skill has just about eliminated the core idenities of individualism, because everyone wants to be equal. /cry

There is a massive identity difference in WoW and in one of my favorite simple games, Diablo2. Those games make whatever you pick feel like you have an impact based on your role, utilizing sterio types to their fullest. What the healer gets in return for healing? insurance he will never die as long as he keeps the fighters alive. But when death means nothing in ddo, to the point where barbs pwn actual needs for trapsmithing? That cheapens everyone.

To fix this, I say allow only the most sweetest of enchancements only be available to the dedicated, but give the splash what they want, which is a splash of power, but that is still notable, but will never outshine dedication.

What other game have you played where a lvl 2 rogue/14x can perform as good as, if not better than a pure 16 rogue. I mean the pure class should be better because he has focused on it his whole life! As opposed to a guy who dabbles, but can keep par with the devout. It cheapens it all.

Nevthial
09-25-2008, 04:15 AM
So the low AC S&B intimitank with low DPS is complementary to the high AC TWF high DPS intimitank?! :rolleyes:
Back in Module 5, the barbarian was complimentary to the sorcerer would could nuke his way through a quest on his own? :rolleyes:

What about the high AC S&B user with high DPS , compared to a low AC, low DPS TWF ? It is all about character design, and choices a PLAYER makes when they level up and pick feats & enhancements. It has NOTHING to do with character class. Any desired result can be achieved with nearly any class if one chooses the correct combinations.

eonfreon
09-25-2008, 04:47 AM
So the low AC S&B intimitank with low DPS is complementary to the high AC TWF high DPS intimitank?! :rolleyes:


Actually, yes. Depending on the builds and the goals.
Often I play with a friend who's got a toon who's primarily a Paladin. I forgot the exact mix but I believe he's a Dwarven Rogue/Pally/Fighter mix.
Anyway, he fights primarily S&B (although he's not afraid to pull out the Greataxe when he needs it). I mostly play my Ranger/Fighter Dwarven Intimitank.
The two of us are both very adept at Intimidating. And we know how to work together. I jump over the mobs and he stands his ground between the mobs and the casters. Then we constantly spam Intimidate, forcing the mobs to constantly spin around and switch their focus. It's very effective. Especially with a caster throwing a firewall down. We can keep mobs pinned in it without having to use a doorway even (although we do too when we can).
I only use this as an example. For one thing I doubt he's a "low AC low DPS intimitank" because he's built many toons and he knows how to build them well.
But the fact is even a "low AC low DPS intimitank" could fill this function, if he's a good player and willing to play as part of a team.

sirgog
09-25-2008, 04:54 AM
Had a recent post about some concrete examples of how to better balance future endgame quests.

Here it is:

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=157244

Borror0
09-25-2008, 05:30 AM
What about the high AC S&B user with high DPS , compared to a low AC, low DPS TWF ? It is all about character design, and choices a PLAYER makes when they level up and pick feats & enhancements. It has NOTHING to do with character class. Any desired result can be achieved with nearly any class if one chooses the correct combinations.

That is soooo false.

A Str-based ranger/monk can reach 70 AC, Evasion, HP around 400 and really good saves.
A S&B build can reach about 50% of the DPS of the previous build, tops. No matter how much you're going to push it. He can't go any higher than that. Also, he is stuck around 66 AC self-buffed. He can't beat the 70 AC of the ranger. It's impossible for him to do so.
A low DPS TWF build (ie Dex-based) will have better DPs than any S&B build. He also can reach AC in the mid-70's.

Explain me where the balance is. /wait


Now having said that, you run into issues such as " PvP" builds and "Quest" builds. Where you have builds that are specced for one or the other. Not saying that one build cant do both but there will usually be trade offs. Ie. I have a capped sorc that carrys many spells that i would not need if he was a primary pvp build.

PvP builds?! Who would make such a thing?!

Borror0
09-25-2008, 05:37 AM
I only use this as an example. For one thing I doubt he's a "low AC low DPS intimitank" because he's built many toons and he knows how to build them well.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if your friend is S&B he is both.

He has 50% of the DPS he should have and a few points less than he could have. (Even more if he wears light armor.) Thus, my point about the imbalance. Now, does that mean your friend plays a gimp? Nope. But he is weaker than he could have been. See my point?

Strykersz
09-25-2008, 05:57 AM
The point of this thread is, essentially, shields are underpowered. By assuming that you will have one out, you give up 50%ish of your dps. In return, you get somewhere between 3 and -3 ac and the ability to reduce your dps to 0 for DR. This is pretty obviously a terrible tradeoff in the vast majority of situations. The only worse tradeoff I can think of is monk handwraps(anyone interested in giving up 50%ish of their dps for stunning fist and quivering palm? Turns out, a few people are, yes.).

Borror0
09-25-2008, 06:10 AM
The point of this thread is, essentially, shields are underpowered.
Read the OP again. It wasn't the point at all... XD

Somehow, any thread I participate lately ends up gravitating around that. Anyway, you understand the issue. :P

eonfreon
09-25-2008, 06:40 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if your friend is S&B he is both.

He has 50% of the DPS he should have and a few points less than he could have. (Even more if he wears light armor.) Thus, my point about the imbalance. Now, does that mean your friend plays a gimp? Nope. But he is weaker than he could have been. See my point?

Yes, and when he wants to do more DPS he puts away the shield and wields a greataxe.
Where's the problem?
No one is strictly S&B. Every melee (except maybe Rogue's but that's another case) can also THF. Everyone has the option to change and adapt.
I guess where you see an imbalance I just don't.
Nothing's perfect, everything could use tweeks. But I don't see the problems that would call for some sort of nerf to occur. And no, I'm not a Monk splash Ranger and I don't plan on being one. I like wearing my Breastplate of Destruction.
If you want more DR and some sort of passive DR available to S&B, then I can agree.
If you think that S&B AC should be higher than a Dex toon or a Monk, then I have to disagree.

Borror0
09-25-2008, 06:44 AM
Yes, and when he wants to do more DPS he puts away the shield and wields a greataxe.

Yes, but:

his DPS while in S&B is low.
his AC, while ThF, is non-existent.
he does less DPS than if he was fully spec'd for ThF.
the TWF has none of these problems and the Str-based one will deal more damage than a ThF.

He can adapt, but the TWF doesn't need to.

eonfreon
09-25-2008, 07:05 AM
Yes, but:

his DPS while in S&B is low.
his AC, while ThF, is non-existent.
he does less DPS than if he was fully spec'd for ThF.
the TWF has none of these problems and the Str-based one will deal more damage than a ThF.

He can adapt, but the TWF doesn't need to.

Yes, because the TWF spent the FEATS to be more versatile.

And put build points into Dexterity.

And has practically no DR while dual-wielding.

A Paladin needs Charisma and even a bit of Wisdom too for his abilities.
Perhaps another toon would rather have Constitution and therefore more hit points.

I have a 13/2/1 Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger who went for hit points and strength. He sits at 476 unbuffed (with a +5 Con item). When he's at his lowest AC he is very, very low. I believe he's at 30. He does not get hit by every blow because I know how to move around and use the terrain and enemy numbers to my advantage. And he deals a lot of damage. He is fully spec'd for THF and has just enough Dexterity (15 w/ +1 tome) to grab the basic TWF for when he wants to use effects weapons, and OTWF feat so that he has no weapon size restrictions.
He has a 32 Strength and can self-buff to a 38 strength- will have 40 strength when he gets a +2 tome.
It's all about the choices we make.
And I have a Paladin who is primarily S&B because I like his Bastard swords and can also THF when he wants to.
Once it was the S&B that required no thought or finesse to play. Now it's no longer the case. Nothing has changed in the lower levels. The game has evolved at the upper levels.

Gennerik
09-25-2008, 08:14 AM
Yes, because the TWF spent the FEATS to be more versatile.
And put build points into Dexterity.
And has practically no DR while dual-wielding.

To your first point, not really. Most Two-weapon Fighters take 6 levels of Ranger, meaning that they get Two-weapon Fighting and Improved Two-weapon Fighting for free as part of their class. So really they are only taking one (maybe two if they select Oversized Two-weapon Fighting) additional feat to be more versatile. That's corresponding to a Sword-and-Board Fighter that normally picks up Shield Mastery and Improved Shield Mastery to mitigate as much damage as possible if they completely stop attacking. They still put points into Dexterity, and spend a large number of their AP on getting their AC up to even close to that of the Two-weapon Fighter.

For point three, yes, they do get hardly any DR while dual-wielding, but they can just as easily switch to a shield at no extra cost to themselves and get 15+ DR (or 6 under the maximum that a Sword-and-Board can). The Sword-and-Board Fighter needs to get at least one more feat to effectively use two weapons and hit something, unless they are beating on a portal for just a switch.

I can see Borror0's point in at least this argument (not necessarily the original post). There no longer is a need for a Sword-and-Board class build when compared to any other melee class build. They can't get the AC that a Two-weapon Fighter can, and without getting all the feats for Two-handed/-weapon Fighting, they can't possibly deal out the damage that either one of those builds does (and if they did take them all, why bother having a shield in the first place).


A Paladin needs Charisma and even a bit of Wisdom too for his abilities.
Perhaps another toon would rather have Constitution and therefore more hit points.

I have a 13/2/1 Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger who went for hit points and strength. He sits at 476 unbuffed (with a +5 Con item). When he's at his lowest AC he is very, very low. I believe he's at 30. He does not get hit by every blow because I know how to move around and use the terrain and enemy numbers to my advantage. And he deals a lot of damage. He is fully spec'd for THF and has just enough Dexterity (15 w/ +1 tome) to grab the basic TWF for when he wants to use effects weapons, and OTWF feat so that he has no weapon size restrictions.
He has a 32 Strength and can self-buff to a 38 strength- will have 40 strength when he gets a +2 tome.
It's all about the choices we make.
And I have a Paladin who is primarily S&B because I like his Bastard swords and can also THF when he wants to.
Once it was the S&B that required no thought or finesse to play. Now it's no longer the case. Nothing has changed in the lower levels. The game has evolved at the upper levels.

It hasn't evolved so much as created a dead-end of evolution for the Sword-and-Board style of play. No matter what role you try to pick for them short of turtling up and taking hits with DR you end up being worse than another character build (And I think a Barbarian could probably still match or beat your DR while turtled, too).

Borror0
09-25-2008, 08:24 AM
Yes, because the TWF spent the FEATS to be more versatile.
Oh, really?

Rangers get it for free. Non-rangers have so little good feat to chose from that spending three fetas are not much of a sacrifice.


And put build points into Dexterity.
S&B needs that too, about as much.


And has practically no DR while dual-wielding.
Neither does S&B.

It's all about the choices we make.
Yes. And balance is all about making more choices suck less so that we have more options.

baddax
09-25-2008, 08:41 AM
I would say this last mod, with the addition of the monk, was the TWF mod. I would bet the next mod is where more traditional fighers ie. S&B gets some love. Now maybe some other classes specificaly the dual wield ranger/ monk is enjoying some benifits from the last mod to both classes. I dont see how anyone here could disagree with you borror that S&B needs some love too, and hopefully this will be addressed in the next mod.

baddax
09-25-2008, 08:45 AM
DDO, Fair and Balanced!

Turial
09-25-2008, 09:44 AM
Oh, really?

Rangers get it for free. Non-rangers have so little good feat to chose from that spending three fetas are not much of a sacrifice. I think all the good feats are caster feats really.

S&B needs that too, about as much.

Neither does S&B.

Yes. And balance is all about making more choices suck less so that we have more options.

Just building off of your post Borror0:
For instance...no one ever talks about ranged combat. Except me and a few other crazies. know why?

Because ranged combat is the single weakest form of combat outside of when you can launch a manyshot volley.

Without some balance added sword and board combat is coming very close to that same territory. Yes a few, amazing, skillful players can make it work. Infact they make it look like childs play but if you place them and their skills (assuming they aren't honed in on just that form of combat) in a more dominate form of combat they will light things up to an even higher degree.

Meriadeuc
09-25-2008, 10:56 AM
I know this thread is less about specific issues you have Borr, and more of a philosophical point-of-view, but I've read all your posts in the other threads that sparked this "Balance" thread, and this AC issue seems to be your primary concern.


This thread is entirely about specific issues that he has. All the rest of his post was just the picture frame.

Borror0
09-25-2008, 10:57 AM
This thread is entirely about specific issues that he has.

Not it's not. The only point of this thread was talking about 'balance' and not talking about what I think should be balanced.

May it drift toward that? Totally, but that wasn't the original intend. The whole point of the thread is to tell people "balance is good".

frugal_gourmet
09-25-2008, 11:10 AM
I'm amazed at the number of disagreements in here.

When I read the first part of the thread I thought: "Well, duh".

Borror0
09-25-2008, 11:23 AM
I'm amazed at the number of disagreements in here.

It's actually a normal thing.

Most, if not all, of the objections there has been are from people who thing along the lines of 'this is the way it always have been, so this is good'. D&D has been forever imbalanced. It's normal, it was barely, if at all, playtested and no matter how clever the developer is, there will always, always be flaws in the system. Always. They look at the game and say, it's like this and it's fine.

For them, "a barbarian is supposed to hit hard". There is no notion of "hitting too hard" for them, he just have to hit hard.

Of course, that's just an example and their notion of "what is right" are very personal. For some, it's atrocious that S&B doesn't have higher AC than high Dex characters! He has a shield, he has an heavy armor. So, logically, he is supposed to be very well protected. For some others, the high Dex character is good at dodging, so he should win. That's one example. They don't go by the notion of what is good, it's very emotional.

Then, they use logic to try justify why they like this or that.

(By the way, we all have a little side like that. But for some, it's stronger.)

Turial
09-25-2008, 11:58 AM
There was once a game called kingdom of loathing, go ahead and look it up.

In this game there was once 2 dominate forms of combat, Lunging thrust smack (LTS) and Stasis, out of atleast 5 ways one could go about combat.

LTS play revolved around getting the drop on your opponent (an opponent whos monster level and thus stat gains were boosted by items you had on) and hitting them extreamly hard, which allowed you to kill them in a single hit. LTS was a fairly standard way to play as it allowed players to quickly and easily deal with combat situations in a way that worked with other forms of combat depending on the monsters you fought.

Stasis, on the other hand, was a long and complicated method of combat but the end results of combat with stasis were far superior to that of LTS in terms of gains for the player. A player would debuff the monster so that it didnt hit very hard and then used several bio-feed back buffs to have HP and SP returned to them each time they got hit. Over time this type of combat was draged on over many rounds of combat which allowed players to essentially gain more resources (HP and mainly SP) then they went into the fight with.

The issue was that stasis was too powerful of a combat method, even though it was amazingly complex (my short explaination doesn't do the mechanic justice). It was so powerful that you could even use it against all the boss monsters, which players useing LTS would fail against at a regular interval. Stasis was also about as much fun as watching paint dry. It became an even larger problem because all items that were put into the game had to be designed specifically so that they wouldn't give a stasis user anymore power.

In the end the basic mechanics of the buffs powering stasis were changed so reduce its overall power. This resulted in a game world were more forms of combat were used with about the same amount of frequency and the same general power when you looked at the weaknesses and strengths of each form of combat.

Deathseeker
09-25-2008, 12:05 PM
It's actually a normal thing.

Most, if not all, of the objections there has been are from people who thing along the lines of 'this is the way it always have been, so this is good'. D&D has been forever imbalanced. It's normal, it was barely, if at all, playtested and no matter how clever the developer is, there will always, always be flaws in the system. Always. They look at the game and say, it's like this and it's fine.

For them, "a barbarian is supposed to hit hard". There is no notion of "hitting too hard" for them, he just have to hit hard.

Of course, that's just an example and their notion of "what is right" are very personal. For some, it's atrocious that S&B doesn't have higher AC than high Dex characters! He has a shield, he has an heavy armor. So, logically, he is supposed to be very well protected. For some others, the high Dex character is good at dodging, so he should win. That's one example. They don't go by the notion of what is good, it's very emotional.

Then, they use logic to try justify why they like this or that.

(By the way, we all have a little side like that. But for some, it's stronger.)


I totally agree with the general principle of the OP. With that being said, I think there are a few basic problems that have to be addressed...

1. We are at level 16 of a 20 level design...end game now may be unbalance, but may rebalance as the cap comes. Its hard enough to be balanced, let alone to design to be balanced during different caps.

2. Monk wisdom ac bonus is game breaking (or at least game changing). While it desperately needs to be nerfed, the fallout from that after we've all built these toons will be ugly. Tough problem. MY SOLUTION: Give us a full respec to anyone with a monk level, and make the AC bonus require being centered.

3. Firewall is overpowered compared to other spells. I know, I'll get hammered for this, but it is...it is the best strategy in too many situations. The last nerf was a good one...meaningful but not dramatic. Needs another like that to bring it down a notch so other strategies are employed. MY SOLUTION: Adjust the duration down and the frequency it tics damage down, but not by a ton...just a little.

4. Ranged dps needs some love (sounds like its on its way, maybe).

5. Fighters needs some love (and it sounds like its coming).

6. Speed up THF animation some.

To me, that's it...if the above were addressed, we'd be pretty darned balanced. Could be a few others (Elf needs a little more love, Pally and Bard a little behind right now, Bludgeon weapons need an option that has a crit range), but those all will probably change with the cap increase.

Thrudh
09-25-2008, 12:11 PM
I agree with Borror's philosophy on game balance...

Here's my practical suggestions...

(1) Monk AC bonus needs to be fixed. I suggest that you have to be centered to get the Monk AC bonus... Ranger/monk can have DPS (using axes, khopeshs, etc) or AC (using kamas)

(The amazing thing about this design decision was that the forums here were FULL of splash monk builds with ridiculously high ACs before monks even came out... They should have seen this as a problem)

(2) Come out with better shields... DR, AC, combo of both... I don't care... When you give up offense (DPS) for defense (pulling out a shield), the defense needs to be a lot better than it is today....

I think everyone can agree that something is broken when TWF can have higher DPS AND higher AC than the best built Sword & Board character...

Borror0
09-25-2008, 12:22 PM
There was once a game called kingdom of loathing, go ahead and look it up.

I'm sure there are plenty of good examples of that in the history of MTG too.

Deathseeker
09-25-2008, 12:22 PM
I agree with Borror's philosophy on game balance...

Here's my practical suggestions...

(1) Monk AC bonus needs to be fixed. I suggest that you have to be centered to get the Monk AC bonus... Ranger/monk can have DPS (using axes, khopeshs, etc) or AC (using kamas)

(The amazing thing about this design decision was that the forums here were FULL of splash monk builds with ridiculously high ACs before monks even came out... They should have seen this as a problem)

(2) Come out with better shields... DR, AC, combo of both... I don't care... When you give up offense (DPS) for defense (pulling out a shield), the defense needs to be a lot better than it is today....

I think everyone can agree that something is broken when TWF can have higher DPS AND higher AC than the best built Sword & Board character...

/Agreed

But if they really do this, you will see the forums light up with a massive barrage of "my toon is permanently gimped with this useless monk level...I'm leaving the game" posts. It will be ugly. I'm all for it personally, but I don't want to see population actually drop due to the change.

Give us a full respec, and we're good to go.

I've hedged my bets...I rerolled my halfling ranger/pally/rogue to a ranger/monk/ftr and moved my gear over. If they nerf it, I'll unretire my ranger/pally/rogue and keep on truckin! But I have yet to spend 2 weeks straight farming the Icey Raiments either...and won't til I know which toon to do it with...I smell the nerf bat approaching...

Rameses
09-25-2008, 12:33 PM
(1) Monk AC bonus needs to be fixed. I suggest that you have to be centered to get the Monk AC bonus... Ranger/monk can have DPS (using axes, khopeshs, etc) or AC (using kamas)
Fix the monk AC altogether. I don't have any proof to this statement other than time in game, but my Monk has a low 60 buff'd AC and gets hit more than my Mithral Chainshirt wearing Rogue with a 50ish AC. And by hit more, I am talking health bar drops rapidly in one or two strikes.
I firmly believe some mechanic is not working right with Monk AC

(The amazing thing about this design decision was that the forums here were FULL of splash monk builds with ridiculously high ACs before monks even came out... They should have seen this as a problem)
Agreed, but I also believe that adding Tempest into the game was a terrible unbalancing effect when combined with the already unbalanced Dwarf race.

(2) Come out with better shields... DR, AC, combo of both... I don't care... When you give up offense (DPS) for defense (pulling out a shield), the defense needs to be a lot better than it is today....
Yes, Yes and Yes. Give shields something to encourage their use.

I think everyone can agree that something is broken when TWF can have higher DPS AND higher AC than the best built Sword & Board character...
I can only speak for myself, but I agree. TWF should have a slight advantage because of the increase of attacks. But S&B lose everytime when compared with the unbalanced effects of Tempest enhancements and Dwarven enhancements.

I am, Rameses!

cdemeritt
09-25-2008, 12:36 PM
Well, I think this is a first. I have to admit I only read the OP and a handful of the replies, however, I completely agree with Borror, and the OP. Borror and I are usually on opposite sides when it comes to opinions about the game, due to our opposite playstyles.
I believe the game is becoming really dangerously out of balance, with over inflated mob HP, SP, DR, AC, saves, To Hits, Etc., Etc. These thing are in effect limiting my choices in a game that is all about many roads to the end.
My sorcerer is finding it more and more difficult to keep useful in quests, and has not done a VoD yet, because I refuse to give up yet another loved and used spell for one that could actually be of use in there.
my fighter recently sold all his weapons with the exception of his Mineral II's, Vorpals, and disruptors. because anything else was just horribly useless against most mobs now.
my cleric will require tremendous amounts of time to respec to do anything other than be a healbot (ok, not the games fault, I built him to be a HB),but without the SP and GSP, he's got almost no chance of landing a distruction.

AC's are in my opinion way way out of whack, and I fear what there are going to be like in Mods 8 and 9. I expect they are going to inflate the To Hits on the enemy Mobs even further, and the required AC's to have any meaning are going to be increased even further say into the 90's. This wouldn't be so bad if say there was a better DR system based on the type of armor you were wearing. The concept of AC as I understand it is that the higher the AC the less likely you will be hit. The problem with this in my opinion is that it doesn't take into account armor types. While a Dex based Character in cloth armor should get hit less often, and the STR based Man in a Can wearing Full Plate should get hit more often due to a reduced ability to get out of the way, I don't think they should take the same amount of damage when hit.

Well that's my 2CP at least

Turial
09-25-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm sure there are plenty of good examples of that in the history of MTG too.

hmmmm....

Combo winter, Affinity, Tooth and necro, Goblins, Worldgorger necro, Necropotance, and Icey lockdown come to mind.

Turial
09-25-2008, 12:41 PM
....
Agreed, but I also believe that adding Tempest into the game was a terrible unbalancing effect when combined with the already unbalanced Dwarf race.
....I am, Rameses!

I predict that ranger 15/ monk 1 dwarven defender tempests will be the top for AC soon.

Borror0
09-25-2008, 12:46 PM
I completely agree with Borror, and the OP.

You know I got it right if that happens. ;) Debate closed! :P

flash145
09-25-2008, 01:06 PM
Sometimes we get stuck in a rut and don't even know we're in that rut.

When I made my statement on Borro's other post, it wasn't about his desire to make the classes more even. It was about him critiquing aspects of classes w/ little to no thought to fundamental flavors that make a fantasy a fantasy.

Dwarves are hardy and warlike, as an aspect they get bonuses for con and armor. Yet in his statement, he wants the Dev's to yank the bonus to armor for dwarves. Why? Because it gives to great a bonus to dwarven fighter. Yet, I didnt see a same call for elven casters to have their sp reduced or their affinity for spell failure reduction while wearing armor. Humans dont get this either so, why are humans casters penalized?

Hopefully, most of the readers will see what I was trying to say about the above. Similarly, the monk AC is a facet of that class. True monks don't have the dps as main melee so the AC makes up for the lack. If you reduce the AC and not balance that by increasing the DPS, all you do is make the new monk class useless and (using Borro's term) "non-fun" to play.

Most should realize that these opinions of Borro's are just that opinions. Some of the points he makes are only valid in a narrowly defined set of parameters. Can a TWF muticlass ranger/classX out dps an equally equipped raged Barbarian? The answer is Yes and No. The ranger dps is tied to the favored enemy feats & enhancments he's taken. So currently, against outsiders since thats what we are fighting he has an advantage. But move him out of that monster group, and there goes the advantage and his dps. Have that ranger w/ outsider favored and move him to an undead setting w/ undead of equal HD to the outsiders and the barbarian will beat him every time.

I do Agree w/ Borro that Monk AC should be Monk AC. Other wisdom based classes shouldn't get the wisdom from AC unless they are willing to have the similar limitations. i.e., all AC based on being centered. If a ranger/monk wants the AC of monk, then he needs to give up dual wielding khopeshs and rapiers for dual wielding kamas.

A bulk of the OP's posts concerning balance stem from the imbalance of S&B AC vs. Dex AC. Hate to break the news but, that has ALWAYS (even in reality) been the case. A fighter, whether its martial arts, sword play or boxing, always has the better chance at avoiding a hit if he was more dexterious. And thats what being missed by a monster is really, whether its called AC or Dodge. Heavy weight boxing isn't about skill, its about which 300+ guy can absorb the most punishment. Welter weights and light weight boxing is all about technique, skill and footwork TO AVOID being hit. If you don't believe me, go put on a set of full armor Borro and try to dodge being hit by someone not wearing armor, conversely try hitting a person while u are wearing armor and they are not.

If you want balance, stop commenting about AC and start demanding proper DR for those in full plate amor and using shield. One, it'll be much easier to change DR by the devs then reinvite AC for the entire game engine. Two, it's really what wearing plate armor was about/is about for fighters and knights. I have posted several times that armor should be given unspecificed dmg absorbptions based on light/med/hvy classes and also based on metal(or scale) used in construction. I.E. demoinc plate like Plate of the Defenderr should have the highest DR in game atm w/ dragon scale coming in next.

Sorry for the long post to the forum readers but, I hope you take the time to actually read it. I, hopefully, haven't flamed but made my point that Balance doesn't need to be about taking the nuiance and flavor away and, making changes that follow the fantasy w/o hurting the enjoyment.

Forceonature
09-25-2008, 01:26 PM
I predict that ranger 15/ monk 1 dwarven defender tempests will be the top for AC soon.

They should remove the "dwarven" aspect and make it only for fighters/pallys.

Turial
09-25-2008, 01:29 PM
They should remove the "dwarven" aspect and make it only for fighters/pallys.

Remember that these are race PrC that were changed by turbine to be open to characters of a different race only if they are of similar class to the intended affect of the PrC.

Forceonature
09-25-2008, 01:39 PM
Remember that these are race PrC that were changed by turbine to be open to characters of a different race only if they are of similar class to the intended affect of the PrC.

I understand that, but there is no reason to continue to overpower the most overpowered class/race combo in the game (as you alluded to).

Raiderone
09-25-2008, 02:08 PM
I look at it this way in terms of Balance.

One: Class Balances:
Balance should be based on the class types and their additional capabilities.
When I mean class types, I mean fighter types ie fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian.
Rogues and Monks would be special classes within fighter type.

I believe the imbalance comes when all these types end up having the same
to hit. Fighters should have the best To-Hit and base Damage period (S&B, TWF or THF). I play all these toons and I don't see much of a difference if at all in the To-Hit
from class to class (fighter/melee type). Base Damage is very similar too except
Rogues(lower).

Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards and Clerics(Druids) in the caster/divine class type.
I feel they should be more powerful at upper levels. But I would associate a higher cost to play them. I mean the cost for spell ingredients. Double it or Triple it.

Two: Enhancements:
I believe Enhancements alone have imbalance the game. I feel they all should be gone
from the game. All they do is increase the playing field when it comes to the HP
and CR level of Mobs. Thus making kills to long and painful.

Three: Quest Balances:
Improve AI within the quests. Improve the balance of Mobs (melee and casters).
Maybe make some of the MOBS random to decrease advanced defensives.

Four: Fighting Style:
I feel the TO-HIT difference is too small between styles. I believe AC shouldn't be taken literally. It's almost like we should have two types of AC. Make one AC
and one DC (Defensive Class) for Combined AC/DC. The higher your AC the lower your DC. In other words, Higher AC the easier you are to get hit but you are protected better against it (Hence DR).

I would like to see Auto Blocking based on a % chance to block a HIT. Based on shield type and weapon used. Automatic blocking instead of Shift Key but a Percentage based on maybe Char Level and Shield Type and Weapon Type(speed of weapon).



S&B: #2(To-Hit), #4(DPS), #1(% to Block Attack), #1(DR), #4(AC/DC).

THF: #3(To-Hit), #2(DPS), #3(% to Block Attack), #2(DR), #3(AC/DC).

TWF: #4(To-Hit), #1(DPS), #2(% to Block Attack), #3(DR), #2(AC/DC).

NWF: #1(To-Hit), #3(DPS), #4(% to Block Attack), #4(DR), #1(AC/DC).

Everything would depend on Armor, Shield and Weapon Used along with Fighting Style.


One of the biggest unbalances is all the Feats for TWF.
TWF, Improved TWF, Greater TWF, TWF Defense.

Here's some suggestion's for Feats for all other Styles: Not Talking about BASH FEATS.
S&B, Improved S&B, Greater S&B, S&B Defense.
THF, Improved THF, Greater THF, THF Defense.
Unarmored.............too

eonfreon
09-25-2008, 02:15 PM
To your first point, not really. Most Two-weapon Fighters take 6 levels of Ranger, meaning that they get Two-weapon Fighting and Improved Two-weapon Fighting for free as part of their class. So really they are only taking one (maybe two if they select Oversized Two-weapon Fighting) additional feat to be more versatile. That's corresponding to a Sword-and-Board Fighter that normally picks up Shield Mastery and Improved Shield Mastery to mitigate as much damage as possible if they completely stop attacking. They still put points into Dexterity, and spend a large number of their AP on getting their AC up to even close to that of the Two-weapon Fighter.



A 6th level Ranger doesn't "get it for free" compared to a 6th level Fighter. He gets it "chosen for him". A 6th level Fighter has 7 feats, a 6th level Ranger has 4 (plus two favored enemies).
Yes, it is an advantage that a Ranger or Ranger-Hybrid doesn't have the Dexterity requirement compared to a Fighter TWF plus access to Tempest Enhancement (at which point 3 of your 4 Feats are also chosen for you). But it's not for free, it's a trade-off.
Yes, more and better Feats need to be introduced into the game to create better and more varied options.
No, most things that work today don't need to be scrapped or nerfed to achieve balance.
If a S&B needs as high a Dexterity as a TWF, then why doesn't he pick up at least the basic TWF feat?
Then he can choose to go from S&B, to TWF, to THF, if so desired.
And if he does discard his shield at some point, why can't he also use a shield clickie or wand?

And I've certainly never said that balance is already achieved or that it isn't something desirable.
That's why I agree more with the following quote, then with most of Borr complaints.


If you want balance, stop commenting about AC and start demanding proper DR for those in full plate amor and using shield. One, it'll be much easier to change DR by the devs then reinvite AC for the entire game engine. Two, it's really what wearing plate armor was about/is about for fighters and knights. I have posted several times that armor should be given unspecificed dmg absorbptions based on light/med/hvy classes and also based on metal(or scale) used in construction. I.E. demoinc plate like Plate of the Defenderr should have the highest DR in game atm w/ dragon scale coming in next.

vtecfiend99
09-25-2008, 02:21 PM
hmmmm....

Combo winter, Affinity, Tooth and necro, Goblins, Worldgorger necro, Necropotance, and Icey lockdown come to mind.

combo winter... oh god those were the days!



but....













you know some dirty part of you liked affinity. come on. admit it:-)


***edit**

btw, i have two full cases of each of the Urza block sitting in my closet unopened lol

Raithe
09-25-2008, 02:22 PM
You really didn't touch on another method of balancing a game, and that's by making classes unbalanced so that they actually have a role during the quest. I'm not talking about haphazard monster distribution like what you find in Threnal, but a more balanced approach where there might be more effective classes during parts of the quest, but overall each character actively contributes to completion. Imbalance is fine between classes as long as your accept that there will be situations where someone else is better at something than you.

Our problem is that because monsters take so much development time, when we get a new monster, that tends to be all we see, resulting in quests that all seem saturated with a single type of monster. We need more monster variety throughout the quests, where some playstyles excel at certain points, so then the party is balanced, nor necessarily each class.


I thought this definitely needed re-emphasized. A roleplaying game needs to be structured around roles and groups, not individual character power.

Though I do agree that certain extremely poor decisions in class implementation have made having unique roles among characters much more difficult than it should be.


I keep seeing all this talk on the forums about S&B, TWF, THF.
Is the shield somehow bolted onto the S&B? Can he not put down the shield and wield a GreatAxe or use any other THF weapon?
All it takes is 15 Natural Dex to be able to at least use the basic TWF feat. A S&B can grab that to at least be able to use two weapons once in awhile, if for no other reason than to use a paralyzer in one hand and another effects weapon in the other, or any two effects weapons of his choosing when he needs. Yes, ITWF, and GTWF are better but hardly necessary.


Another very good observation. A fighter's strength at high levels is going to be his versatility as a generalist, not in being dominate at any one skill or ability.

We've had several discussions about generalist versus specialist roles in the past on the forums, before anyone decides to prove me wrong. I'm not going to get into it here.


My view on this subject:

The game balance that makes a roleplaying game fun is derived from 2 sources:

1) Realism, or "Verisimilitude." The real world is balanced (or at least it used to be, in Medieval or earlier times). Attempting to replicate that balance is what a roleplaying game is all about. Quest design should be centered on this premise, and anything that seems unrealistic even within the framework of a fantasy world, should be curtailed. All statistics should be assessments of the realistic physical proportions and fantastical attributes assigned to a mythical creature or structure. If careful attention is paid to this "verisimilitude," then creators will actually find it difficult to create constructs (using the generic meaning) that don't have both strengths, and weaknesses that allow them to be overcome.

2) Roleplaying Focus, not Metagaming. When the rewards and interesting aspects of a game are all anchored in storylines and player interactions then metagamers become bored and don't really care to sit around crunching numbers while discriminating against paladins and rogues as they put together a raid group. Much of the misbalance of DDO is existent because no one cares about the storylines or player motivations, and they only care about who killed what and how many times they did it.

Many people will now tell me that DDO is not a roleplaying game, it's a video game.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have such horrendous problems with game balance.

Forceonature
09-25-2008, 02:59 PM
If a S&B needs as high a Dexterity as a TWF, then why doesn't he pick up at least the basic TWF feat?
Then he can choose to go from S&B, to TWF, to THF, if so desired.
And if he does discard his shield at some point, why can't he also use a shield clickie or wand?

What's the point of doing this, when a ranger with a shield would be better? That's the whole balance arguement. You're lowering the defensive effectiveness of the S&B build with only a minor increase in its situational DPS, and it's still inferior in both areas to the ranger.

Naash
09-25-2008, 04:28 PM
AC's are in my opinion way way out of whack, and I fear what there are going to be like in Mods 8 and 9. I expect they are going to inflate the To Hits on the enemy Mobs even further, and the required AC's to have any meaning are going to be increased even further say into the 90's. This wouldn't be so bad if say there was a better DR system based on the type of armor you were wearing. The concept of AC as I understand it is that the higher the AC the less likely you will be hit. The problem with this in my opinion is that it doesn't take into account armor types. While a Dex based Character in cloth armor should get hit less often, and the STR based Man in a Can wearing Full Plate should get hit more often due to a reduced ability to get out of the way, I don't think they should take the same amount of damage when hit.

Well that's my 2CP at least


I know its not good form to copy and paste from another thread but this is what i posted in "enhancements & reward".




AC problems aside one of the problems I have is if a creature hits a character wearing armor that armor is going to give some sort of deflection or ablative effect.
But what happens when that same creature hits a character wearing an outfit or robes?
They get the same damage as the guy wearing armor.There have been talk of DR enhancements and I do think its a good start but what about fortification?

I propose removing fortification items from the game altogether and tying fortification directly to armor,makes a lot more sense than a ring or helmet deflecting a mortal wound to the heart.

Heavy Armor = Heavy Fort.
Medium Armor = Moderate Fort.
Light Armor = Light Fort.
Clothing/Robes = No Fort.

It may be extreme but I think there has to be a massive overhaul of the way armor works to counter the shortsightedness of the past year or so and not in the little baby steps way they are handling Paladins.

hurricane333
09-25-2008, 04:38 PM
Slowly releasing new content for players lead to removal of static rewards and player grind for specific items that assisted them in very particular ways. The end game has been mastered, the incorrect response was to inflate mob hit points and resistances, so that the already specific builds were the only effective ones remaining. This squelchs diversity and creativity in builds. Turbine needs to make the end game easier, not more difficult, and what were considered "gimpy" or subpar builds would begin to have viability end game, player enjoyment would increase and raids would seem less militartisic, more diverse and more fun. It's time for Turbine to stop "pushing back" against those that have mastered the content completely ( a small percentage ) and open the end game up to more people.

Turial
09-25-2008, 05:12 PM
combo winter... oh god those were the days!

but....

you know some dirty part of you liked affinity. come on. admit it:-)

***edit**

btw, i have two full cases of each of the Urza block sitting in my closet unopened lol

Oh I liked affinity just like I liked combo winter and all the others, they were just silly though because of how they dominated the game space. Some players tend to like things that work that way.

I played a stasis build in KOL and liked it.

And here I play a modified bio-feedback ranger (currently working on several stasis type builds) who uses two-weapon, ranged, and S&B combat as well as casting and sneaking around to maximum personal potential.

Turial
09-25-2008, 05:33 PM
I look at it this way in terms of Balance.

.....

That is because the difference between the 3 combat styles you list with all the feats in place is only -2/-2. Because the fighter, barbarian, paladin and ranger class all have 1 BAB progression the only thing that separates the to-hit values will be stats and feats. High end builds all tend to have the same buffs and similar attack main stats. To change that you would have to alter DND rules more then they currently have been.

Base damage is determined by the choice of weapons so only the fighter class can really change it. It does cost feats though.

Fighters can get an exclusive +4 to-hit and damage that other classes can't obtain without a deep splash into fighter levels. Fighters just don't normally take them because the toughness feat is generally a better investment due to enhancements.

The issue with the AC/DC rules is that meaningful DR normally comes with increased damage from mobs in order to kill the players with DR (this is what happened with the mob to-hit and damage values as we gained more AC and HP). Because of that anyone without DR will take a pounding every time they get hit.

The players that would be high on the DR side would tend to have a lot more hp then those with out the DR (because they would be fighters and paladins) you have a situation where some players will encounter trash mobs that can kill them in 1-3 hits even if they have what is considered average hp now.

Also you left any form of ranged combat out of your balance.

Borror0
09-25-2008, 05:40 PM
Oh I liked affinity.

Affinity was great. It was incredibly fun to play, but not really fun to play against...

Garth_of_Sarlona
09-25-2008, 05:42 PM
I predict that ranger 15/ monk 1 dwarven defender tempests will be the top for AC soon.

I thought (dwarven) defender was only for fighters/paladins?

Garth

Turial
09-25-2008, 05:42 PM
Affinity was great. It was incredibly fun to play, but not really fun to play against...

Two words...

Mox monkeys.

Aesop
09-25-2008, 05:43 PM
I thought (dwarven) defender was only for fighters/paladins?

Garth

And likely Dwarves... similar to Arcane Archers working for Elves regarless of Ranger Levels

Aesop

Borror0
09-25-2008, 05:45 PM
Mox monkeys.

That means peeps with all five moxes, Black Lotus and all that stuff?

PS: Dwarven Defender will most likely be something worth nerfing. Not because it's overpowered but because it will act in an unintended way.

Borror0
09-25-2008, 06:21 PM
When I made my statement on Borro's other post, it wasn't about his desire to make the classes more even. It was about him critiquing aspects of classes w/ little to no thought to fundamental flavors that make a fantasy a fantasy.
You've missed my point. Big time.

Flavor and balance are two important of a game. Ideally, a game will have both. The best of all game would be a game where both flavor, diversity and balance are present. Nerfing the dwarves is not about taking something away from dwarves, it's about bringing their power back in line with the rest. By your logic, one could argue that elves are more dodgey and should get some enhancement for that, without consideration about power of said enhancement.

That's not a good idea. Balance and flavor are both as important.

Most should realize that these opinions of Borro's are just that opinions. Some of the points he makes are only valid in a narrowly defined set of parameters.
Yup, that parameter is called 'metagame'. It's real, it's there.

As for the rest, you're way off topic.

Turial
09-25-2008, 07:43 PM
That means peeps with all five moxes, Black Lotus and all that stuff?

PS: Dwarven Defender will most likely be something worth nerfing. Not because it's overpowered but because it will act in an unintended way.

Gorilla shamans. XX1: destroy target artifact with casting cost equal to X.

Only time will tell. But the PrC give a dodge bonus to AC and dwarven rangers could really use that. ;)

baddax
09-25-2008, 09:41 PM
There was once a game called kingdom of loathing, go ahead and look it up.


The issue was that stasis was too powerful of a combat method, even though it was amazingly complex (my short explaination doesn't do the mechanic justice). It was so powerful that you could even use it against all the boss monsters, which players useing LTS would fail against at a regular interval. Stasis was also about as much fun as watching paint dry. It became an even larger problem because all items that were put into the game had to be designed specifically so that they wouldn't give a stasis user anymore power.

Fun is a relative term. For example i am a basketball/ football fan, i played basketball/ football in school. I enjoy many aspects of the game that more general fans might not appreciate. Specificaly defense, which in football and basketball has been continuosly handicapped to encourage higher scoring and thus more "exciting" games. Now the average fan might not understand and or appreciate the complexities of a beautifully executed defensive line stunt and or blitz, but i sure do. The average fan might not enjoy the beauty of a masterful defense suffocating the life out of a higher powered offense but i sure do. The changes to the game have in my opinion made the games more boring and less exciting for me but like i said Fun is a realtive term. Obvisouly the NBA / NFL disagree with my definition of Fun and or exciting!

Turial
09-26-2008, 07:47 AM
Fun is a relative term. For example i am a basketball/ football fan, i played basketball/ football in school. I enjoy many aspects of the game that more general fans might not appreciate. Specificaly defense, which in football and basketball has been continuosly handicapped to encourage higher scoring and thus more "exciting" games. Now the average fan might not understand and or appreciate the complexities of a beautifully executed defensive line stunt and or blitz, but i sure do. The average fan might not enjoy the beauty of a masterful defense suffocating the life out of a higher powered offense but i sure do. The changes to the game have in my opinion made the games more boring and less exciting for me but like i said Fun is a realtive term. Obvisouly the NBA / NFL disagree with my definition of Fun and or exciting!

Yes fun is relative but the stasis mechanic after round 2 of combat was simply 35 rounds of regaining sp and hp. Each combat would take 3-4 minutes with the only actions by the player really occuring on round 1 and 2, everything else was sitting there and waiting.

It would be like watching a beautifully executed play and then watching the player run for a touchdown for 3 minutes with no chance of being caught, imagine a football player in his prime running away from a turtle....not to much to get excited about after a few seconds.

Gennerik
09-26-2008, 08:03 AM
A 6th level Ranger doesn't "get it for free" compared to a 6th level Fighter. He gets it "chosen for him". A 6th level Fighter has 7 feats, a 6th level Ranger has 4 (plus two favored enemies).
Yes, it is an advantage that a Ranger or Ranger-Hybrid doesn't have the Dexterity requirement compared to a Fighter TWF plus access to Tempest Enhancement (at which point 3 of your 4 Feats are also chosen for you). But it's not for free, it's a trade-off.

A Fighter does get 7 feats (3 from levels, 4 from class that can be selected), but a Ranger should get 8 feats at level 6 (3 from levels, 5 selected for them). This doesn't take into the more notorious Sword-and-Board user; The Paladin. They only get 3 feats (all 3 from levels), meaning it's much more difficult for them to just pick up the Two-weapon/-handed Fighting feats just in case they need to ditch the shield and actually be effective at damage. And the problem with ditching your preferred combat method is that a Sword-and-Board character should not only be effective at sub-level 10 content. It's not like a Sword-and-Board build is a defunct build that doesn't work out. It should be a tried-and -true method of protection, which it no longer is. It doesn't compete with damage, it doesn't compete with AC, and it doesn't compete with DR (Since a Barbarian can switch to one of the better tower shields and gain more DR than the Sword-and-Board model). About the only thing that they are good for now is that they often have a good Intimidate and can often get monsters to stop beating on another member of the party.

Granted that DnD is hardly balanced at higher levels, but DDO needs to seriously look at what balance they are trying to go for. We're currently in a position where you either have it or you don't. You either have the top-notch AC, or you get hit every time. You either have the top-notch damage-dealing capabilities, or you might as well be beating on a portal with a single non-magical dagger. You either have the spells that instantly kill things all the time, or you're just wasting SP. I could go on, but the point is that DDO is currently shoehorning players into being either a powergamer, or being ineffective and getting the tar beaten out of you by every monster that comes your way. They've essentially taken the casual gamer out of the equation by reacting to the power of the power gamers and setting the attack bonuses and damage dealing and HP totals to make it so that the power gamers actually may have difficulty on Normal and Hard now. By definition, Normal should be balanced for the casual gamer, meaning that the power gamers should probably never have a problem with the content. Turbine shouldn't force the casual gamer into being a power gamer just to deal with the content that they're expected to run. I know that most of the high-level raids that I run are only on Normal, and most of the Vale quest that I run are only on Normal as well, just because it's not fun beating on a devil for 3 minutes just to kill it. But it still takes an excessive amount of time to go through that Normal content unless you have some caster that Fingers everything, because everything has such an obscene amount of HP and deals so much damage in order to deal with the power gamer.


Yes, more and better Feats need to be introduced into the game to create better and more varied options.
No, most things that work today don't need to be scrapped or nerfed to achieve balance.
If a S&B needs as high a Dexterity as a TWF, then why doesn't he pick up at least the basic TWF feat?
Then he can choose to go from S&B, to TWF, to THF, if so desired.
And if he does discard his shield at some point, why can't he also use a shield clickie or wand?

Taking this into account, the situation should end up like this:

The Sword-and-Board user picks up the Two-weapon Fighting feat. They can now switch out their worthless shield for a light weapon (1d6 + 1/2 Str) for 1 extra attack each round. In the mean time, that Ranger or Ranger Combo is able to keep both his weapons equipped, probably has the Oversized Two-weapon Fighting Feat, and is making 3 extra attacks of up to 1d10+Str while keeping their superior AC.

If anything, you're better off taking Two-handed Fighting. You'll see a better return on your damage increase, especially if you have Power Attack, but you're still nowhere near the power that the Two-weapon Fighter has, and additionally, you're behind if you need to switch to ability damage. The Sword-and-Board character has to take additional feats in order to compensate for the lack of effectiveness of their build now, while all the Ranger Combo has to do is pull out a shield if they are fighting something that gets past their 65+ AC and they're getting beat on and need DR. Turbine has completely failed to balance out the strength of the Two-weapon Fighting AC character by not instituting some of the safeguards in DnD that prevented characters from just splashing "Dedication" classes to get tremendous benefits for little cost. Instead, they've allowed the creation of a character template that can pretty much do it all, which has overwhelmed almost every other class in the game. Some sort of balancing needs to take place, to either cut back the abilities of what;s broken or increase the abilities of classes that have been pushed to the wayside.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 08:47 AM
Gennerik, you're off topic. Can we stick to balance please?

Gennerik
09-26-2008, 09:27 AM
I tried to fix it up to remain more on topic, though it's still based on balance of a specific situation.

Turial
09-26-2008, 11:11 AM
Things that may need to be looked at for adjustment:

Combat styles (S&B, THF, TWF, Ranged, Spellslinging)
AC Bonuses
Metamagics
Mob Species Diversity
Critial Rage
Smite Evil
Paladins
Rogues v. undead and constructs
Dwarves
Halflings
Drow SR
Mob AI
Elves
Defensive Builds
Rangers (specifically related to FE enhancements)
Rams Might

Just to name a few and get the ball rolling. More added.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 11:12 AM
Elves, don't forget elves.

Oh, and defensive builds all together.

Turial
09-26-2008, 11:14 AM
Elves, don't forget elves.

Oh, and defensive builds all together.

What do you have against elves?

Borror0
09-26-2008, 11:26 AM
What do you have against elves?

How many powergamed elven characters do you see? Very little.

You see humans, halflings, drows, WF, dwarves... but elves? They are very rare. They could use some help.
(Oh, and they are ugly, but I'm not too sure if that's salvageable.)

baddax
09-26-2008, 11:28 AM
Alot of the problems i can think of fall back on the D20. ie. Mobs have to have a high enough to hit to hit the 70+ ac build which means they have to have a BA of 60+ ish. This means the Non AC build with say a 40ish AC will get hit on anything higher than a 1 as i believe 1 is always a miss (not sure about that).

The only solution i can think of (other than changing to a different die) is to keep the AC builds no more than say 15 points or so apart. Or to seriously amp the DR- ability of the S&B user as elite level mobs hit in hard enough to kill most 300 hp tanks in 3-4 seconds.

/sarcasm on. Also think of the poor barbarians who lose 4 AC every time they rage and are 2 handed fighters who cant take adavantage of many of the AC bumps the two weapon fighters can, specifically weapon finesse etc.

baddax
09-26-2008, 11:32 AM
IMO humans are the most out of wack.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 11:35 AM
IMO humans are the most out of wack.

More than dwarves?

[...]

Stay on topic please.

Turial
09-26-2008, 11:42 AM
How many powergamed elven characters do you see? Very little.

You see humans, halflings, drows, WF, dwarves... but elves? They are very rare. They could use some help.
(Oh, and they are ugly, but I'm not too sure if that's salvageable.)

Well some revealing clothing may help with that. Both male and female gamers have asked for it. Yeah its not just the guys.

Elves are rare because of the focus on HP. -2 CON is a pretty big drawback for most melee types. Warforged are taking over the casting realm because of their CON boost and their nice self healing attributes.

It seems like the extra sp that your basic elf can gain (which drow also get, they make better sorcs typically from a stat point of view) isn't an incentive to make elves. Elves would likely benafit from a mechanic that allowed them to sup dex in for str for tactical feats and maybe some conversion of dex to damage on a 4/1, 3/1 type scale.

Blazer
09-26-2008, 11:44 AM
How many powergamed elven characters do you see? Very little.

Personal opinion here: this is because the majority of the player base is made up of poor players. As such, they need to play the easy characters to be successful, hence why you see so many dwarven melee running around. It's easy to play a dwarf since you always have so many extra HP to make up for your lack of skill as a player.


... but elves? They are very rare. They could use some help.
(Oh, and they are ugly, but I'm not too sure if that's salvageable.)

Elves...ugly? This coming from the dwarven intimitank? :p

Darkwolf1071
09-26-2008, 11:49 AM
The first step to balance, IMHO, would be to develop, but not immediately install, an AI that actually works. Once you're sure...and I mean SURE... that you have that, take a nerf-bat to the HP of post-Mod4 mobs to bring them in line with pre-Mod4 content. Again, don't yet install this. Now that you have that balanced you GIVE THE ENEMY CASTERS A MANA POOL just like we as players have to deal with. Once this is developed and has been Risia-tested, then you have to figure out what changes need to be made to balance the PC's, and implement ALL the changes at the same time. Once this has been done, everyone will be on a relatively level playing field.

Unfortunately, by everyone I mean the 6 people that will be left, because everyone who has a dwarven tempest, crit-rage focused barbarian and +70 AC monk-splash build will probably leave the game in anger over how their character they spent so much time and effort developing has now become so less powerful. Turbine's in a mess of its own making, and I don't know that a solution is reasonably available that will allow for the game to be balanced and not kill it from a player-base POV.

OH, and great post Borror0. Just further evidence that you put way too much time, thought and effort into this game. :D Why hasn't Turbine hired you yet?

DoctorWhofan
09-26-2008, 11:56 AM
The sterio-types are good in that they are limited, thus relying on teamwork, as opposed to 1 uber toon to rule them all. 4e tried to do this by takin strain off healing with healing surges, a nice concept. I ran a 4e group without a cleric for a while, and it worked. tho a cleric would have spead it up, it still worked.

Leading me to see how powerful UMD is, and how that skill has just about eliminated the core idenities of individualism, because everyone wants to be equal. /cry

There is a massive identity difference in WoW and in one of my favorite simple games, Diablo2. Those games make whatever you pick feel like you have an impact based on your role, utilizing sterio types to their fullest. What the healer gets in return for healing? insurance he will never die as long as he keeps the fighters alive. But when death means nothing in ddo, to the point where barbs pwn actual needs for trapsmithing? That cheapens everyone.

To fix this, I say allow only the most sweetest of enchancements only be available to the dedicated, but give the splash what they want, which is a splash of power, but that is still notable, but will never outshine dedication.

What other game have you played where a lvl 2 rogue/14x can perform as good as, if not better than a pure 16 rogue. I mean the pure class should be better because he has focused on it his whole life! As opposed to a guy who dabbles, but can keep par with the devout. It cheapens it all.

This is the truist statment I have read. Well, except the WoW thing-ee!:p

Zenako
09-26-2008, 12:06 PM
What other game have you played where a lvl 2 rogue/14x can perform as good as, if not better than a pure 16 rogue. I mean the pure class should be better because he has focused on it his whole life! As opposed to a guy who dabbles, but can keep par with the devout. It cheapens it all.


However, those who are dabbling in lets say Rogue for this example, are NOT on a par with what a Rogue can do, EXCEPT for those few specific skills that the other character chose to focus on. Those Mage/Rogues can probably do some trapmonkey stuff, but they will not have most of the other skills and abilities that a Rogue can do. (they can mimic and be a trapmonkey, but that is far from all a rogue can do). They are also cutting down on their casting ability while doing so, with fewer SP, lower level spells, lower DC, etc. It is not a free ride.

So sure, if all you judge a rogue by is their ability to disarm a trap, then there are a ton of spash builds that can match them (at some expense to their core class abilitiys), but it is not true that a splash can keep par with the full class.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 12:16 PM
Personal opinion here: this is because the majority of the player base is made up of poor players. [...] It's easy to play a dwarf since you always have so many extra HP to make up for your lack of skill as a player.
That was true when six man quests were the norm.

However, Shroud changed that a little and made HP matter much more than before. At least, that's my opinion.


Elves...ugly? This coming from the dwarven intimitank? :p
I have always been a dwarf lover.

Elven chicks are hot, but the guys are so ugly it's not even funny. Just think of Aspenor's avatar!

Borror0
09-26-2008, 12:19 PM
There is a massive identity difference in WoW and in one of my favorite simple games, Diablo2. Those games make whatever you pick feel like you have an impact based on your role, utilizing sterio types to their fullest.
There is nothing wrong in making classes different. Actually, making them too much of the same would be bad.

However, being different doesn't mean imbalanced.

Rameses
09-26-2008, 12:21 PM
So how bad/good would it have been if the Racial favored Class was implimented into DDO?
I for one am all for the Favored Class system and have been trying to source it with d20srd but not having any luck.


I am, Rameses!

Blazer
09-26-2008, 12:24 PM
That was true when six man quests were the norm.

However, Shroud changed that a little and made HP matter much more than before. At least, that's my opinion.

Fair enough. I'm of the opinion that the shabby players in this game use the dwarven HP and toughness enhancements as a crutch to support their poor play. Rather than employ different strategies or use a modicum of self-sufficiency, they rely on their sheer HP total to get them through a quest...as long as a healbot is behind them, of course.


Elven chicks are hot, but the guys are so ugly it's not even funny. Just think of Aspenor's avatar!

Hence why I don't make male elves. A little piece of my soul dies everytime I see Asp's avatar.

Turial
09-26-2008, 12:27 PM
So how bad/good would it have been if the Racial favored Class was implimented into DDO?
I for one am all for the Favored Class system and have been trying to source it with d20srd but not having any luck.


I am, Rameses!

I could have interesting ramifications for multiclass builds but what would you use as a penalty for breaking the favored class system?

A -20% xp hit on all things? In a game where its easy to get xp simply via questing. Granted it will make some builds take longer to level but is that a good thing?

A ECL cap? Keeping players under an artifical cap may work but then you would have two classes of players: level capped and grinding content/ ECL capped and grinding content. It does provide a larger spread of possible content that players will be playing over but could also raise some other issues such as players that couldn't access new content on their multiclass builds.

Or would you have bonuses for maintaining the favored class. Now thats a horse of a different color.

Rameses
09-26-2008, 12:31 PM
I could have interesting ramifications for multiclass builds but what would you use as a penalty for breaking the favored class system?

A -20% xp hit on all things? In a game where its easy to get xp simply via questing. Granted it will make some builds take longer to level but is that a good thing?

A ECL cap? Keeping players under an artifical cap may work but then you would have two classes of players: level capped and grinding content/ ECL capped and grinding content. It does provide a larger spread of possible content that players will be playing over but could also raise some other issues such as players that couldn't access new content on their multiclass builds.

Or would you have bonuses for maintaining the favored class. Now thats a horse of a different color.


honestly I don't know what would make for an effective translation in an MMO.
I would imagine that sticking with the XP hit maybe an AP hit. Since AP's are what drives a lot of unbalanced builds.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 12:33 PM
I could have interesting ramifications for multiclass builds but what would you use as a penalty for breaking the favored class system?

I was thinking of something a while ago, never wrote much about it.
I was thinking lowering the level prereq on enhancements.

For example, if an enhancement requires level 14 to a wizard, it would requires level 13 for an elven wizard. Humans would pick one class (or get it for all classes but I'm 99% sure that would be overpowered) to get that benefit from. Never really pondered much about it, but that could be an idea. A boost is better than a penalty here, IMO.

An XP hit doing nothing that you'd want it to do. Only slow down leveling up. What a penalty! :rolleyes:

liamfrancais
09-26-2008, 12:34 PM
"Why is balance something desirable?"

That is an easy one.

So you don't fall over.

If you don't believe me go out drinking alcoholic beverages and then try to walk on the curb.

Turial
09-26-2008, 12:38 PM
I was thinking of something a while ago, never wrote much about it.
I was thinking lowering the level prereq on enhancements.

For example, if an enhancement requires level 14 to a wizard, it would requires level 13 for an elven wizard. Humans would pick one class (or get it for all classes but I'm 99% sure that would be overpowered) to get that benefit from. Never really pondered much about it, but that could be an idea. A boost is better than a penalty here, IMO.

Yeah I had just thought of that as I was writing the last line for my reply. Well it wouldn't be overpowered if you only got it in your favored class and it required a multiclass for it to work.

Dwarf - fighter
Halfing - rogue
Elf - wizard
Drow - ??
Warforged - Figther
Human - All (humans typically aren't the base class chosen for the really out there power builds)

Rameses
09-26-2008, 12:40 PM
I was thinking of something a while ago, never wrote much about it.
I was thinking lowering the level prereq on enhancements.

For example, if an enhancement requires level 14 to a wizard, it would requires level 13 for an elven wizard. Humans would pick one class (or get it for all classes but I'm 99% sure that would be overpowered) to get that benefit from. Never really pondered much about it, but that could be an idea. A boost is better than a penalty here, IMO.

An XP hit doing nothing that you'd want it to do. Only slow down leveling up. What a penalty! :rolleyes:

how about the opposite Borror when deviating from the Favored class when multiclassing the character minimum AP requirement would go up.
IE: A Dwarven Ranger/Monk (Tempest build) would have to wait until level 6 and spend 8 AP to purchase. (or something along those lines)

baddax
09-26-2008, 12:43 PM
The first step to balance, IMHO, would be to develop, but not immediately install, an AI that actually works. Once you're sure...and I mean SURE... that you have that, take a nerf-bat to the HP of post-Mod4 mobs to bring them in line with pre-Mod4 content. Again, don't yet install this. Now that you have that balanced you GIVE THE ENEMY CASTERS A MANA POOL just like we as players have to deal with. Once this is developed and has been Risia-tested, then you have to figure out what changes need to be made to balance the PC's, and implement ALL the changes at the same time. Once this has been done, everyone will be on a relatively level playing field.

Unfortunately, by everyone I mean the 6 people that will be left, because everyone who has a dwarven tempest, crit-rage focused barbarian and +70 AC monk-splash build will probably leave the game in anger over how their character they spent so much time and effort developing has now become so less powerful. Turbine's in a mess of its own making, and I don't know that a solution is reasonably available that will allow for the game to be balanced and not kill it from a player-base POV.

OH, and great post Borror0. Just further evidence that you put way too much time, thought and effort into this game. :D .


Maybe they have? Hmmmm...........

baddax
09-26-2008, 12:46 PM
More than dwarves?


Stay on topic please.


Thought this was a ganeral topic on balance? Ok then dwarves are the most out wack. (;

Zenako
09-26-2008, 12:54 PM
Reracking enhancements would probably be the best way to attempt to restore some balance for a number of reasons. You can already reset them virutally at will (cost is neglible). Enhancements are a DDO only construct so none of the inevitible comparisons to core D&D hold any water.

You could target the worst abusive/synergistic enhancements that push some builds almost over the line and make them harder to get.

Grant differing racial minimum levels for taking certain enhancements, you could also institute AP costs deltas too.

Permit the Human Stat boosts to stack instead of being exclusive.
Give each other race one or more favored classes where AP costs are normal and other classes get a penalty of some sort (min level or AP cost?)

One way to curtail multiclassing would be something as simple as your Class level is equal to your highest class level - minus levels in other classes (or the other class level whichever is higher)? S0 that level 10 Barbarian / Level 6 ranger, would be able to take up to level 6 Ranger enhancements or level 6 Barbarian enhancements, not up to level 10 like he could now.

A level 14 barbarian / level 2 monk would be able to take up to level 12 Barbarian enhancements or level 2 monk.

Multiclassing would limit the scope of benefit you could extract from enhancements...

Borror0
09-26-2008, 01:05 PM
OH, and great post Borror0. Just further evidence that you put way too much time, thought and effort into this game. :D Why hasn't Turbine hired you yet?
hehe, totally missed that post. Your conclusion made laugh, a lot.

Better would be a good thing, but we know there are technical limitations. I'm sure the guys at Turbine are not really happy to say their mobs do stupid thing either. :P

Thought this was a ganeral topic on balance? Ok then dwarves are the most out wack. (;
I was more about talking 'why balancing' than trying to fix things.

If we start arguing about what to balance, it just dilutes my point as it become subjective all of a sudden.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 01:08 PM
Drow - ??
I asked MT about that a long time ago.

His reply was that, officially, it was wizard for male and cleric for female. However, some dude that appears to have importance in the D&B world said that, actually, it was more sorcerer than wizard for the nature of the race.

how about the opposite Borror when deviating from the Favored class when multiclassing the character minimum AP requirement would go up.
IE: A Dwarven Ranger/Monk (Tempest build) would have to wait until level 6 and spend 8 AP to purchase. (or something along those lines)
You lost me there. What do you mean?

Turial
09-26-2008, 01:10 PM
I asked MT about that a long time ago.

His reply was that, officially, it was wizard for male and cleric for female. However, some dude that appears to have importance in the D&B world said that, actually, it was more sorcerer than wizard for the nature of the race.

You lost me there. What do you mean?

How very forgotten realms of them.

He means that if you are a dwarven fighter x and monk y that your AP cost for the monk enhancements would be double.

Aesop
09-26-2008, 01:14 PM
How very forgotten realms of them.

He means that if you are a dwarven fighter x and monk y that your AP cost for the monk enhancements would be double.

Instead of Double maybe just +1

and HUmans and Half Elves wouldn't have any penalty


Aesop

Borror0
09-26-2008, 01:20 PM
He means that if you are a dwarven fighter x and monk y that your AP cost for the monk enhancements would be double.
I'll throw a few examples, tell me what would happen.

Race: Dwarf
Class: 15 fighter/1 monk

Race: WF
Class: 15 Monk/1 fighter

Race: Human
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard

Race: Halfling
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard

Race: Elf
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard

That should cover a lot. Not really sure if I'm getting it.

Turial
09-26-2008, 01:34 PM
I'll throw a few examples, tell me what would happen.

Race: Dwarf
Class: 15 fighter/1 monk Monk enhancements cost double AP.

Race: WF
Class: 15 Monk/1 fighter Nothing.

Race: Human
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard Nothing assuming humans have all as favored classes.

Race: Halfling
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard Wizard enhancements cost double. If it was a rouge level then it would be nothing.

Race: Elf
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard Nothing.

That should cover a lot. Not really sure if I'm getting it.

In red.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 01:38 PM
In red.

Ok, and the point to that is?

Turial
09-26-2008, 01:44 PM
how about the opposite Borror when deviating from the Favored class when multiclassing the character minimum AP requirement would go up.
IE: A Dwarven Ranger/Monk (Tempest build) would have to wait until level 6 and spend 8 AP to purchase. (or something along those lines)

He suggested it not me. I was just explaining the mechanics.

Aesop
09-26-2008, 02:12 PM
I imagine it would limit the available AP there by limiting the Available Cheese

as it were

I think Double is far too much

a +1 to AP costs ould probably be sufficient for a penalty... though I'm not really a fan of punishing Multiclass builds over all... mostly cause I MC everything and I'm selfish.

Also this would limit a few build concepts and give Ron a headache trying to code his Character Planner around this :D

Turial
09-26-2008, 02:18 PM
I imagine it would limit the available AP there by limiting the Available Cheese

as it were

I think Double is far too much

a +1 to AP costs ould probably be sufficient for a penalty... though I'm not really a fan of punishing Multiclass builds over all... mostly cause I MC everything and I'm selfish.

Also this would limit a few build concepts and give Ron a headache trying to code his Character Planner around this :D

Correct, I would be in more favor of a system that rewards players for operating within the favored multi-classes rather then punishing them for going out of it.

Borror0
09-26-2008, 02:20 PM
Also this would limit a few build concepts and give Ron a headache trying to code his Character Planner around this :D

I'm not really keen on the idea either.

First of, I don't see the point in punishing multiclassed builds. There wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't of the void present at higher levels in terms of class abilities and enhancements. Past level 12, there are very little good enhancements and it gets worse past level 14! Also, very little advancement for many classes. Ever heard of a paladin being proud to reach level 16 paladin? Not I. Ever brought a fighter to level 16? You'll ask yourself "Errr... what feat do I take?!" but not 'cause it's good, but 'cause they all matter so little.

Same can be said about many classes.

The real problem, is that in most cases, there is very little to care about at higher levels. That is the real problem.

Oh, and like you said, it seems a nightmare to code for both Ron and Turbine.

Aesop
09-26-2008, 02:30 PM
Correct, I would be in more favor of a system that rewards players for operating within the favored multi-classes rather then punishing them for going out of it.

Perhaps a +1 Effective level for the races Favored Class?


Aesop

Rameses
09-26-2008, 02:41 PM
I am not advocating punishing multi-classing by suggesting that AP cost should all be doubled. I was throwing something out there when I did suggest that though.

What I am trying to point out is if the AP cost was significant to reel in the builds that are not using racial favored classes that has had an unbalancing effect the game; then I have no issue standing behind such a move.

I love playing Dungeon and Dragons: Online but because of the gross unbalancing of Dwarven enhancements and Tempest Ranger enhancments the game has become Dungeons and Tempest Dwarves: Online.

I am, Rameses!

Borror0
09-26-2008, 02:47 PM
I love playing Dungeon and Dragons: Online but because of the gross unbalancing of Dwarven enhancements and Tempest Ranger enhancments the game has become Dungeons and Tempest Dwarves: Online.
Then, would you agree that the real problem are Dwarves and Rangers enhancements instead?

Turial
09-26-2008, 02:49 PM
Then, would you agree that the real problem are Dwarves and Rangers enhancements instead?

He said tempest rangers. Dont get the rest of us crazies involved. lol.

Rameses
09-26-2008, 02:52 PM
Then, would you agree that the real problem are Dwarves and Rangers enhancements instead?

Aye, I would agree.
However. Do you take away from those two enhancement sets or give equivalant to other racial/class enhancment sets?

GlassCannon
09-26-2008, 02:57 PM
Aye, I would agree.
However. Do you take away from those two enhancement sets or give equivalant to other racial/class enhancment sets?

Take away some Toughness enhancements(Balance the HP a bit), and make the Armor Mastery enhances quite a bit more expensive..

Aesop
09-26-2008, 03:06 PM
Take away some Toughness enhancements(Balance the HP a bit), and make the Armor Mastery enhances quite a bit more expensive..

How about just nuke the Dwarven Armor Mastery when Dwarven Defender comes live and let Dwarves have access to that instead.

As for the Toughness Enhancements

I still think they are overpowered and cause a number of the silly "rules" like Rogues wit less than 350 HP are gimp

make the enhancements 2 tier (instead of 4) 10 and 15 costing 2 and 4 (total 25 HP for 6 AP)

tastes great less filling

Aesop

Borror0
09-26-2008, 03:09 PM
However. Do you take away from those two enhancement sets or give equivalant to other racial/class enhancment sets?

Take away. Easily. Tempest can loose its AC boost. As for Toughness, be it Dwarven, Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian... it should have never seen the day. Of course, with that said, you will have to lower mobs' damage capacities since module 5 because it's quite obvious that damage was balanced with characters with 68 more HP...

Borror0
09-26-2008, 03:10 PM
Armor Mastery enhances quite a bit more expensive..
How about opening it to every races and making it cheaper for Dwarves.

RazorrX
09-26-2008, 03:25 PM
Aye, I would agree.
However. Do you take away from those two enhancement sets or give equivalant to other racial/class enhancment sets?

Take away.

I had a conversation the other day about how the current enhancements are pretty skewed in a bad way and that nerfing is needed.

I was told that Dwarven and Tempest are fine the way they are.

So I said lets look at making other races equal then... lets give elves (the sterotypical archer) enhancement lines that will increase the duration of manyshot, one that will increase the arrows fired per shot and one that would increase the critical range of bows. That would go a bit to make elves more in line with the standard elves.

Then for Rangers, we need to give ranged something to match the drizzt mode with the other side . . . so Deepwoods sniper 2 would add bigger crit range, and a greater + to hit, a manyshot enhancement feet that would increase the duration or shorten the cooldown, along with one to add more arrows. . .

By the time I was at that point I was almost being yelled at over how totally over powered ranged elves would be vs any other race/class and that was totally insane to think of.

To which I responded . . . Tempest Dwarves are there now.

To increase the rest of the game to such high power is not a good solution, better to take the lesson and tone down what is so overpowered and move ahead.

Drinkin
09-27-2008, 04:26 AM
This makes no sense.

Even in a perfectly balanced game, you can build a gimp. However, there many options of a valid build. But, there is nothing stopping you from making a 8 Str barbarian or from taking useless feats, and so on. Balancing means making stuff that should, logically, be on par with the rest... well, on par. For example, in a class-based system like D&D, all classes should be of equivalent power.

The point wasn't that I like to poorly roll up a good character it was that I like to take a character that people say isn't up to par and make him appear so. Be the underdog but still come out on top stuff like that... I see your point on all classes should be of equivalent power but I think it's impossible to accurately compare the classes... take cleric and barbarian for example how in the world do you begin to compare the two. Heck take any two classes and compare them... how much dps does the resist energy spell make up for how much extra crit range does barkskin make up for... these are questions that just don't make sense but too many people would try to make the comparison anyway. I think imporved crit for barbarians is fine the way it is but everyone says it's overpowered. As you can see in I have no barbarian although both of my rangers dual-wield wops Xiled raipier and shortsword gulpin dual raipiers I bet I can kill 90% of what most barbarians with wops do and the ones that don't I usually destroy in kill count against the fleshies anyway. That 10% is well worth barkskin resist energy being able to wand whip and hopefully one day a 50-55ish ac but that will take some grinding.

Borror0
09-27-2008, 09:13 AM
The point wasn't that I like to poorly roll up a good character it was that I like to take a character that people say isn't up to par and make him appear so. Be the underdog but still come out on top stuff like that...

Just make something with a weird concept that shouldn't work. there are plenty of those, even on a balanced gamed.

That 10% is well worth barkskin resist energy being able to wand whip and hopefully one day a 50-55ish ac but that will take some grinding.
...seems you really don't see why Critical Rage II is overpowered. :)

krud
09-27-2008, 09:27 AM
I'll throw a few examples, tell me what would happen.

Race: Dwarf
Class: 15 fighter/1 monk

Race: WF
Class: 15 Monk/1 fighter

Race: Human
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard

Race: Halfling
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard

Race: Elf
Class: 15 paladin/1 wizard

That should cover a lot. Not really sure if I'm getting it.

Those really aren't good examples, because nobody splashes one or two levels in another class for the enhancements, it's usually for the feats and class abilities. I'm more curious how it would affect deep multiclasses, such as my 8rog/8ftr, 8rog/6ftr/2pal, or my planned 12pal/6ftr/2mnk, or all those 6rgr tempest MCs. How do you determine which class is the main class? btw I don't think there is a great problem with the way enhancements and multiclassing work. Some specific enhancements may be overpowered, but that has nothing to do with multiclassing.

Fetchi
09-27-2008, 08:53 PM
You know, an intellectual plane elevated beyond the mundane smashing and grunting of blood and sweat and merely physical DPS.



This is exactly what DDO is not - unfortunately.

Borror0
09-27-2008, 08:58 PM
Those really aren't good examples, because nobody splashes one or two levels in another class for the enhancements.
It was for simplicity.

I'm more curious how it would affect deep multiclasses, such as my 8rog/8ftr, 8rog/6ftr/2pal, or my planned 12pal/6ftr/2mnk, or all those 6rgr tempest MCs.
None of them would be affected, they are all humans.

Some specific enhancements may be overpowered, but that has nothing to do with multiclassing.
I don't think there is that much of a problem with multiclassing either. I think it's mostly that there is a problem with pure classes.

Drinkin
09-28-2008, 09:54 AM
...seems you really don't see why Critical Rage II is overpowered. :)

I guess I don't see why you and so many other people think that it is over powered... I think that it's an opinion you are entitled yours I am to mine.

Noctus
02-06-2009, 06:39 PM
Bump-fairy here you go.

Borror0
02-06-2009, 06:40 PM
Bump-fairy here you go.
LOL! On that topic, I'll probably write another thread in a similar way soon. Probably on inflation.

Angelus_dead
02-06-2009, 06:47 PM
This thread needs more Angel Summoner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

Borror0
02-08-2009, 12:11 PM
This thread needs more Angel Summoner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).
Quoted for truth!

moorewr
02-08-2009, 12:49 PM
Good necro. I missed this when you originally posted it...

I've been asking in various places a question I will repeat here: should a design goal of DDO be to replicate the imbalances of the source game - d20 D&D v3.5?

In other words, is this a game we should view more as a separate set of design decisions, or more like the movie of a popular book?


PS: loved the Angel Summoner video. Made me want to play Champions. :)

underlordone
02-08-2009, 01:56 PM
Just read the post just the first part and all I have to say is we are playing a game that was never made to be balanced but each class has it own thing that is over powered. This is not really cookie cutter game. As much as we have our builds that look like it no one class can do every thing.

Enjoy the game don't let your lack of ac,dps or even saves stop you from haveing fun. It's 10% build 90% person behind keybord playing that makes that alt work.

Borror0
02-08-2009, 01:59 PM
Should a design goal of DDO be to replicate the imbalances of the source game - d20 D&D v3.5
If the only two choices are yes and no, the answer would be no.

If you ask if we should be after all the imbalances of the source game, the answer would be different. Some imbalances are just too bad for the game to be left out. For example, it would be unacceptable to let a spellcasting classes dominate the game, even if that's the case in 3.5 D&D. Likewise, it is unacceptable for a class to be a total pushover, even if that's the case in D&D.

Fidelity to the source game is valuable, and it should be a design goal, but some flaws are just too great to be tolerated.

Likewise, some changes, even if good for the game, would be a too great deviation from the rules to be acceptable.

Borror0
02-08-2009, 02:05 PM
Enjoy the game don't let your lack of ac,dps or even saves stop you from haveing fun.
Having fun playing that 6 Str/10 Dex/8 Con/18 Int/18 Wis/8 Cha fighter halfling?

"Having fun" is subjective. We all have a moment where our character's effectiveness negatively affects the enjoyment we get from the game.

moorewr
02-08-2009, 02:07 PM
If the only two choices are yes and no, the answer would be no.

If you ask if we should be after all the imbalances of the source game, the answer would be different. Some imbalances are just too bad for the game to be left out. For example, it would be unacceptable to let a spellcasting classes dominate the game, even if that's the case in 3.5 D&D. Likewise, it is unacceptable for a class to be a total pushover, even if that's the case in D&D.

Fidelity to the source game is valuable, and it should be a design goal, but some flaws are just too great to be tolerated.

All or nothing is not what I was implying -- this is why I made the analogy to the movie of a novel. Certain things must change in a 'near real time" MMO. Touch AC, spell slots, and initiative are examples of things that needed to be altered to fit your screen.

Casters are weak at low levels in DDO just like in PnP - well, till the Wall of Fire Easy Button shows up in your spell list.. and I think that's fine - after all, that faithfully reproduces the flavor of pen and paper play.

I think what I'm saying is.. where should your emphasis be? On 'how does this work in PnP?' or on 'does this work in PnP?'

Borror0
02-08-2009, 02:09 PM
I think what I'm saying is.. where should your emphasis be? On 'how does this work in PnP?' or on 'does this work in PnP?'
If by 'does this work in PnP?' you meant 'is it annoying enough to warrant alterations?', then I would go for the latter and so should anyone with half a brain.

If I misunderstood, then please reword your question.

moorewr
02-08-2009, 02:16 PM
If by 'does this work in PnP?' you meant 'is it annoying enough to warrant alterations?', then I would go for the latter and so should anyone with half a brain.

If I misunderstood, then I reword your question please.

Yep, you're going to have to reword my question. :p

Again, I said emphasis. Given a choice the PnP rules should be a large factor in your decision.. the question is how large.. but this does not require you to behave dogmatically or robotically.

Borror0
02-08-2009, 02:53 PM
Yep, you're going to have to reword my question.
D'oh.

Better now?

Again, I said emphasis. Given a choice the PnP rules should be a large factor in your decision.. the question is how large.
It's a really hard to answer question, if we are allowed to not act dogmatically.

Things like using a d20, to me, are sacred. However, I feel no shame saying I enjoy the enhancement system or arguing in favor of changing core mechanics like Evasion or monks' bonus to AC to be less front-loaded, making S&B matter, making casters not suck at low levels and not dominate at higher levels.

Where does that put me?

I think everything should be case by case. Eight the pros and cons of each decision. Someone could voice there opinion on where my focus is, but that would be subjective and not objective, don't you think?

Angelus_dead
02-08-2009, 03:29 PM
Casters are weak at low levels in DDO just like in PnP
Level 1 Wizard + CR 4 Ogre + Sleep + Coup De Grace (Scythe) = Win

moorewr
02-08-2009, 05:56 PM
Level 1 Wizard + CR 4 Ogre + Sleep + Coup De Grace (Scythe) = Win

Excellent example of what that caster can do.. once per day..

Haven't we all sat there watching a table-top battle wondering "is this when I should use my one single 3rd level spell?"

Scipio
02-08-2009, 06:25 PM
For example, it would be unacceptable to let a spellcasting classes dominate the game, even if that's the case in 3.5 D&D.


I would say that spell casting did not dominate 3.5 d&d, but just a large percentage of the play styles out there. Play styles that have casters doing nothing but casting and getting to rest when ever they want will of course dominate. When the play style gives reasons to not spell cast all the time then they will not dominate.

Scipio
02-08-2009, 06:39 PM
Level 1 Wizard + CR 4 Ogre + Sleep + Coup De Grace (Scythe) = Win

Level 1 Fighter + waits for CR4 ogre to fall asleep + Coup De Grace (Spear) = Win

More ways then magic to skin that ogre.

Korvek
02-08-2009, 06:42 PM
Level 1 Fighter + waits for CR4 ogre to fall asleep + Coup De Grace (Spear) = Win

More ways then magic to skin that ogre.

Nah, the ogre working the night shift would show up to let the one working the day shift leave.

Borror0
02-08-2009, 06:48 PM
When the play style gives reasons to not spell cast all the time then they will not dominate.
Huh?

longor55
02-08-2009, 07:06 PM
I know how to fix inbalance...shut off killing count ....no more inbalance problem

Borror0
02-08-2009, 07:24 PM
I know how to fix inbalance...shut off killing count ....no more inbalance problem
Obviously.

Korvek
02-08-2009, 07:31 PM
I know how to fix inbalance...shut off killing count ....no more inbalance problem

Oh, I'm sure that will definitely solve any problems with balance...

branmakmuffin
02-08-2009, 07:42 PM
Oh, I'm sure that will definitely solve any problems with balance...
It would get rid of the ammunition.

Borror0
02-08-2009, 07:50 PM
It would get rid of the ammunition.
If by ammunition you mean ammunition to certain type of ad hominem posts, then yes it will.

branmakmuffin
02-08-2009, 07:54 PM
If by ammunition you mean ammunition to certain type of ad hominem posts, then yes it will.
No I mean ammunition to allow people to compare performance in game. If no one knows who did what, how will anyone know who needs to improve?

Borror0
02-08-2009, 08:01 PM
No I mean ammunition to allow people to compare performance in game.
Do you really think anyone with half a brain™ even relies on kill count to judge imbalances?

Gunga
02-08-2009, 08:01 PM
But what about better players? How will they balance that?

Dexxaan
02-08-2009, 08:07 PM
No I mean ammunition to allow people to compare performance in game. If no one knows who did what, how will anyone know who needs to improve?

Awesome. Back to the age of darkness we go.

"Ignorance is bliss" and guess who's promoting it?

Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition come to mind.........

While we are at it, make sure the FDA doesn't require Nutritional Info on all products... "That way we can't figure out what's poisoning you most effectively!"; etc etc.... you get the picture people? :rolleyes:

P.S. And of course please eliminate stopwatches from the Olympics........ it would suck to have performance records. (And no Kill counts are not my idea of performance records...but to eliminate what little info we currently have is plain moronic)

Angelus_dead
02-08-2009, 08:28 PM
I know how to fix inbalance...shut off killing count ....no more inbalance problem
That does bring up a good point.

One major difference between WOW and DDO is that the former allows user-selected scripting on the client, which exposes much more data to the players, including real-time display of various character balance quantities. There's little speculation about what builds do more damage or get hit more, because they just know (http://wowwebstats.com/).

I generally disapprove of such features, but only if the game is well designed and balanced. If not, then they're very useful for expediting changes to improve balance. That applies not only to the devs having those tools available internally, but even moreso if the customers as a whole can use them. Customer access to that kind of information not only can allow especially skilled players to pick up on things the devs missed, but also helps the non-elite players recognize and appreciate balance concerns about which they otherwise might be in (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=2044461&postcount=188) denial (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=2044124&postcount=25).

It can take a long time for the bulk of people to be aware of balance problems, delaying the demand for the designers to solve them.

branmakmuffin
02-08-2009, 09:42 PM
Do you really think anyone with half a brain™ even relies on kill count to judge imbalances?
Does it matter what I think?

You must really overestimate the reasoning ability of the average DDO player. I mean, seriously, there are probably folks who would compare DDO kill counts to FDA-required labeling. How silly would that be? Yet, I have no doubt there are those who would do it and count themselves among the clever for doing so.

Jay203
02-08-2009, 10:40 PM
i'll be honest, at first i thought you were talking about the skill :D:D:D

Dexxaan
02-08-2009, 11:30 PM
/Sarcasm off

Sorry for the delay.

Most people didn't require this. But others are just...."Special". :eek:

FluffyCalico
02-08-2009, 11:45 PM
In DDO most important thing is listen and don't be a overly stupid.

After that only gear really matters. So of course you will notice the gear issue. Great gear > 3 poor geared players.

Thadion
02-09-2009, 12:24 AM
i have been playing my sorc now for about 2 months and i have noticed one major thing that makes casters to powerfull.

we cast way to many spells. i have seen casters with 2500sp.. this is rediculous.. at 30 sp for a unenhanced firball.
that is over 800 fireballs getting thrown by one caster without haveing to rest!!!!

limit the ammount of spells casters can throw. then they won't drop spells like rain on the mobs, they will have to think more tacticly about when and where to place spells etc...

then mod hp can come down and you can rebalance the game.
but as long as casters can throw out a spell every 6 seconds for over 2 mineuts the mob hp will have to remain high, and the dps tanks are going to have huge balance issues.

Angelus_dead
02-09-2009, 12:36 AM
we cast way to many spells. i have seen casters with 2500sp.. this is rediculous.. at 30 sp for a unenhanced firball.
that is over 800 fireballs getting thrown by one caster without haveing to rest!!!!
So what? Even with metamagic, Fireball is a weak spell. Without it, who cares?

There will probably be 100 enemies before you can get to a shrine... it'll take more than 8 Fireballs to beat each one.

Thadion
02-09-2009, 12:41 AM
Fireball isonly an example.
Lets use spell level instead of a specific spell. lets say 8th level spell. 80sp.
that is over 300 8th level spells cast.
i'm pointing out that this is the reason that mobs have so many hp, and why the game became unbalanced in the first place.

FluffyCalico
02-09-2009, 12:52 AM
. Compared to the D&D source material, DDO is way more balanced.

*** are you talking about. Played real DnD since I was kid. It is very balanced. DOO is all out of wack. Take out max hp every level, take out enhancements, take out stupidly overpowered loot, put back in multiclassing penalties and then you can put mobs back to normal and poof all balanced the way it's supposed to be.

Angelus_dead
02-09-2009, 12:53 AM
i'm pointing out that this is the reason that mobs have so many hp
No, the reason is because it's impractical for an online game to pause for each player's turn.


and why the game became unbalanced in the first place.
No, it didn't "become" unbalanced. Compared to the D&D source material, DDO is way more balanced.

Thadion
02-09-2009, 12:57 AM
i agree it is not only impractable, but nearly impossable for the game to have to pause for each persons turn.

but come on. in origional source material a caster caps at what 5 to 9 8th level spells depending on their revelant stat.
even if you add all of their spells together, the caster in ddo can throw 10 times more spalls all of 8th level.
how is that more balanced?

BurningDownTheHouse
02-09-2009, 01:26 AM
i have been playing my sorc now for about 2 months and i have noticed one major thing that makes casters to powerfull.

we cast way to many spells. i have seen casters with 2500sp.. this is rediculous.. at 30 sp for a unenhanced firball.
that is over 800 fireballs getting thrown by one caster without haveing to rest!!!!

limit the ammount of spells casters can throw. then they won't drop spells like rain on the mobs, they will have to think more tacticly about when and where to place spells etc...

then mod hp can come down and you can rebalance the game.
but as long as casters can throw out a spell every 6 seconds for over 2 mineuts the mob hp will have to remain high, and the dps tanks are going to have huge balance issues.

Am i the only one who noticed that 2500/30 is not ~800 but only ~80 (83.33333 to be exact)?
83 unenhanced fireballs is not overpowered...

BurningDownTheHouse
02-09-2009, 01:28 AM
i agree it is not only impractable, but nearly impossable for the game to have to pause for each persons turn.

but come on. in origional source material a caster caps at what 5 to 9 8th level spells depending on their revelant stat.
even if you add all of their spells together, the caster in ddo can throw 10 times more spalls all of 8th level.
how is that more balanced?

Again, it's not 10 times more, maybe a bit more because of bonus spellpoints from items and feats. Lets say 150%. Thats all.

FluffyCalico
02-09-2009, 01:34 AM
Am i the only one who noticed that 2500/30 is not ~800 but only ~80 (83.33333 to be exact)?
83 unenhanced fireballs is not overpowered...

Espically since in DnD a adventure would be like 25 critters not 200

Thadion
02-09-2009, 01:35 AM
ok, so my math was wrong, i'm at work and tired. and thank you for pointing that out.
i still say 80 spells of any levels way overpowered. if they dropped it down a lot closer to what is is in pnp then people will have to actually think about things before they cast and use those sp.
mabye not throw hast every min, and still expect to drop firewalls and pk every single encounter.


all i have to comepair this to is pnp.and i have been playing for 25+ years. and as a caster it would be insane to think you could solo agenst any monsters in a mass that are even close to you in power....

but all i have is that to go on.. like i said i have only been playing ddo for about 2 months, so i'm still a noob.

Angelus_dead
02-09-2009, 01:36 AM
*** are you talking about. Played real DnD since I was kid. It is very balanced.
Uh, I don't know how much time is implied by "I was a kid", but D&D is not anything close to balanced. It is likely that your DM changed the rules to run a balanced game, but that certainly doesn't mean that the rules were balanced- that would be an Oberoni fallacy (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=941301)



poof all balanced the way it's supposed to be.
Laughable.

Try this: make a party of four normal level 16 D&D PCs, and then have an evil Rogue16 sneak up and attack them. Then try it again with an evil Wizard16 and see how it goes that time.

BurningDownTheHouse
02-09-2009, 01:44 AM
ok, so my math was wrong, i'm at work and tired. and thank you for pointing that out.
i still say 80 spells of any levels way overpowered. if they dropped it down a lot closer to what is is in pnp then people will have to actually think about things before they cast and use those sp.
mabye not throw hast every min, and still expect to drop firewalls and pk every single encounter.


all i have to comepair this to is pnp.and i have been playing for 25+ years. and as a caster it would be insane to think you could solo agenst any monsters in a mass that are even close to you in power....

but all i have is that to go on.. like i said i have only been playing ddo for about 2 months, so i'm still a noob.

I too played PnP D&D from childhood, most of the time my characters didn't event get close to 16th level (or the power equivalent of such). One wizard who did though, could easily solo a few encounters a day while the rest of party stood there and watched. Now, if the DM would have made the encounters harder, they would have been way overpowered for the rest of the group. Even in PnP casters become much more powerful than any other class when they reach the high levels.

FluffyCalico
02-09-2009, 01:45 AM
i still say 80 spells of any levels way overpowered. .

You do know a level 20 sorc gets 6 spells of every level right ? Thats in standard DnD levels 1-9 for 60 spells per rest. + can gets bounes spells per rest and should have a familair.

So no 80 is not overpowered when gear is factored in. Melee damage 10x what it should be and 10x the number of things to kill.

Thadion
02-09-2009, 01:53 AM
so then what causes the huge hp escalation in the baddies then if not to much casing? and what has made it so that the tanks do 10x the ammount of dam?

i haven't plaied a tank yet, so i don't really know how they run or what damage they do

FluffyCalico
02-09-2009, 02:02 AM
so then what causes the huge hp escalation in the baddies then if not to much casing? and what has made it so that the tanks do 10x the ammount of dam?

i haven't plaied a tank yet, so i don't really know how they run or what damage they do

That would be when they realeased with +5 weapons, +5 mithril full plate, +4 stat items, +2 tomes dropping like candy, things like retribution in the hands of I think level 7s (+1 holy, pure good, true law). This was all when the cap was 10. I mean if it were +5 and a scimitar instead of a long sword it would rival shroud crafting. Simpily put the average level 16 with no (none) raid gear, not a single piece, still has gear a normal level 20 DnD character would kill for. I mean a well geared level 10 in this game is better equipped than any level 20 DnD fighter I have ever seen.
Also making the characters get full hit die every level was bad. I know they wanted to take out the randomness but they should have done die/2 rounded up for odd levels and rounded down for even levels. And that +20HP or whatever you start with needs to go away. No way a sorc/wiz should have 24 HP at level 1 before con bounses. They should have 1-4 HP before con bounses.

Thadion
02-09-2009, 02:20 AM
I don't know what type of gear you get later, i'm only a lvl 9 sorc, but yes i already have stuff that my level 20 casters would love to have.

and i totally agree about the 20 hp added durring char gen.. but i have played full hp on charecters in pnp and it made little differance, as long as you gave baddies full hp as well.. but i never had to give them close to what the mobs in ddo have...

Scipio
02-09-2009, 04:37 PM
Nah, the ogre working the night shift would show up to let the one working the day shift leave.

How very Acme! :D

Angelus_dead
02-09-2009, 06:27 PM
so then what causes the huge hp escalation in the baddies then if not to much casing?
As already explained, the answer is animation speed.

Because DDO is non-turn-based, they needed a serious imbalance in the attack rate between players and monsters. With the attack rate so uneven, monsters needed a huge hitpoint boost if they were to live long enough to do anything threatening.

negative
02-10-2009, 01:36 PM
As already explained, the answer is animation speed.

Because DDO is non-turn-based, they needed a serious imbalance in the attack rate between players and monsters. With the attack rate so uneven, monsters needed a huge hitpoint boost if they were to live long enough to do anything threatening.
Even if the gap wasn't there, and monsters attack just as fast as PC's (doing less damage or having lower to-hits so we don't die before we can react), you'd still want the mosters to live longer, so that the pacing and speed of the game feels right. And since you can't slow down the PC's attack rate (because it also ruins the pacing of the game), you're really only left with the HP boost option.

Course, then your casters need to do more damage per spell so they can feel like they are contributing. But be carefull, if you bump them up too much then melee DPS feels insignifcant...oh wait.

Just to be clear A_D, I'm agreeing with you, mostly. It's less the gap, more the PC's fast attack rate, period.

Borror0
02-10-2009, 01:56 PM
Because DDO is non-turn-based, they needed a serious imbalance in the attack rate between players and monsters.
Not sure I understand that logic.

Angelus_dead
02-10-2009, 03:40 PM
Not sure I understand that logic.
It's rather difficult to convincingly explain, and I'm low on energy. It's really obvious if you make the change and watch what happens, though.

See, in D&D or low-population D&D-based games like NWN, variable time advancement is used. You pause during combat when stuff gets important and tricky, but accelerate when things are less interesting. That opens a lot of flexibility in game design, because UI operational time is removed as a balancing factor. For a clearcut example, look at the whole category of "interrupt" effects such as Rogue Defensive Roll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#specialAbilities) in D&D. That version cannot be directly translated to DDO because it assumes the rogue player can pause time to make a choice in the middle of an enemy attack.

The extensive consequence is that enemy actions cannot be at the same full speed as player attacks, otherwise the game becomes too intense and exhausting to play for very long. To test this, compare PVP vs PVE combat... just imagine the PVE enemies of a dungeon moved at the same rate as a PVP human opponent. If you look at the history of video games with corresponding GUIs you'll see this is an established pattern (go back to Doom and TR to start)

So anyway, the reasoning outline:
1. MMORPG project
2. Many players in the same instance
3. Can't vary the rate of time advancement
4. Monsters taking actions as fast as players would be too intense
5. Monsters must attack slower
6. Slow monsters hardly get any chance to challenge the players.
7. Increase their hp so they live long enough to hurt you.
8. Now damaging spells are relatively weakened compared to either death spells or non-mana-limited damaging attacks.

Angelus_dead
02-10-2009, 03:51 PM
you'd still want the mosters to live longer, so that the pacing and speed of the game feels right
Yes, but that's something that's really hard to explain in sufficient detail to make a strong argument, although it's easy to observe if you just give it a try (assuming you're in position to modify game software).

That's a pitfall frequently faced by community-faced devs, including the DDO guys: players will demand things that are obviously bad, if only they had tried them a little.

AyumiAmakusa
11-01-2010, 04:41 AM
Well this makes sense.