PDA

View Full Version : How to make AC matter



Pugsley
07-23-2010, 09:25 AM
...since right now, it only matters for players who meticulously craft pure AC builds and invest every single piece of equipment into AC. Everyone else gets hit 95% of the time (monsters miss if they roll a 1).

It should matter for every player. How?


Nerf all AC gear
Make it easier to get (not everyone raids)
Nerf Monk splash
Nerf monster attack bonus (we know the game cheats anyway)


Ideally tank characters would still be able to avoid a lot of hits, but non-tanks, including wizards and sorcerers, would be able to avoid at least some hits without sacrificing everything else. Narrow the AC gap.

jwdaniels
07-23-2010, 09:33 AM
The problem isn't the gear so much as it is the ridiculous bonus stacking possible in this game that doesn't happen in PnP D&D. In PnP, it's hard to get a single stat above the 20 - 22 range, let alone all of them in the high 20's and primary ones to 40+. No Dungeon Master in a tabletop game is going to allow all of his players to have all of the uber loot in the game.

In the MMO, you need to make sure that melee mobs have a chance of hitting the uber tank with an AC of 85, which means an attack bonus of +74 to ensure a 50% hit chance - the corrolary to that is any AC less than 76 will get hit 95% of the time.

The entire system would need to be revamped and everything would need to be scaled down to correct the AC problem, and that isn't going to happen.

dragons1ayer74
07-23-2010, 10:06 AM
The other problem is that the game loosely uses the D&D system but breaks down badly with the attack chain.

In 3.5 a level 18 full base attack chain looks some like this
+18/+12/+6/+0

In DDO the same chain looks something like this
+18/+24/+30/+36

I am quite certain monsters follow the same pattern and some monsters get multiple attacks in one shot via special attacks thus jumping up to the higher bonus on their first attack. When the game was introduced and the cap was 10 it did not look as bad but it has scaled poorly IMO.

This is just part of the issue with why AC only matters to a very small % of the population. Fixing it at this point would be tough because it has gone on so long and it affects other things like TWF and Power Attack. But they could easily implement a house rule to go along with the chain attack house rule and have characters receive a +1 AC per level. I think 0.5 AC per level is a 4E rule too and I think that might be more appropriate route to patch part of the issue as DDO has other sources of AC that are not fully applicable in a normal 3.5 game. There are many other great suggestion that have been offered buried in the mountains of posts here, some that I liked are Armor gives good DR, More powerful base variants of Armor and Shields.

Soleran
07-23-2010, 10:12 AM
...since right now, it only matters for players who meticulously craft pure AC builds and invest every single piece of equipment into AC. Everyone else gets hit 95% of the time (monsters miss if they roll a 1).

It should matter for every player. How?


Nerf all AC gear
Make it easier to get (not everyone raids)
Nerf Monk splash
Nerf monster attack bonus (we know the game cheats anyway)


Ideally tank characters would still be able to avoid a lot of hits, but non-tanks, including wizards and sorcerers, would be able to avoid at least some hits without sacrificing everything else. Narrow the AC gap.

Or maybe the d20 system with armor should be modified?

Phidius
07-23-2010, 10:35 AM
Or maybe the d20 system with armor should be modified?

It has - it's called Grazing Hits.

Unfortunately, they never reduced the mob's to-hit to a point where non-AC focused builds actually have a chance to utilize it.

Berjik
07-23-2010, 10:42 AM
In 3.5 a level 18 full base attack chain looks some like this
+18/+12/+6/+0

In DDO the same chain looks something like this
+18/+24/+30/+36


QFE

This was one of the biggest mistakes made in the game from the get go. This is one(if not the main reason) of the reasons behind sky high inflated mob AC and HP.

KKDragonLord
07-23-2010, 12:09 PM
There has been many discussions, suggestions and pleas about this issue over the years.

The ones i believe most sensible are:

A) Adapt the optional rule from Unearthed Arcana (where SPs come from) to make players roll a d20 to their defense instead of using a fixed base number. (consider negative ACs to be equal to 1)

B) Put Iterative attacks back in, by either making the monsters have a random modifier to their attack chain, or by adding multiple attack hooks to higher level enemies with iterative penalties (since mobs usually attack too slowly anyway)

C) Lower the AC gap with feats like Improved Buckler Use, which allows TWFs and THFs to equip and have a buckler bonus to AC, (monks cant use those without being uncentered), Allow CE to be used together with PA.

and many others i can't recall from memory atm

I for one, would love if the game went back to a state where you don't always hit on a 2 and monsters do not auto-hit if you are a DPS tank (with exceptions).

Veriden
07-23-2010, 12:16 PM
The other problem is that the game loosely uses the D&D system but breaks down badly with the attack chain.

In 3.5 a level 18 full base attack chain looks some like this
+18/+12/+6/+0

In DDO the same chain looks something like this
+18/+24/+30/+36

.

Actually, in 3.5 pnp 18th level full base attack is
+18/+13/+8/+3

dragons1ayer74
07-23-2010, 02:38 PM
Actually, in 3.5 pnp 18th level full base attack is
+18/+13/+8/+3

You are almost certainly correct I did not check the exact #s on ether DDO or 3.5. It boils down to in DDO multiple attacks chains scale up while in D&D attack chains scale down. The most likely reason for this is that in DDO attack chains are tied to animations and people already break attack chains to get better combat results, if it scaled down like D&D why would you ever not break your attack chain unless the animation speed scaled differently like started with a big slow wind up then each new attack quickly speed up thus the desire to stand their. The fact that most melee mobs run around like crazed fools afraid to fight and are hopping up and down and in and out of melee does not help. This is fairly significant house rule to help get it to the computer and really not as big of a deal back when there where only two attack chains at release.

The other part of the equation is if they make a significant change at this point, let say +0.5 AC per character level. Then every level 20 character in the game receives +10 to AC all of a sudden players will start complaining how easy the game is and how weak the monsters are and the cycle begin again and now monster need more to hit bonus to compensate for the players AC bonuses. Really though for majority of players in the game +10 AC at level 20 would not break much, monsters would still hit on the harder quests they would just miss a bit more. The easy attainable 40 AC guys would now have 50...ask the elite players how good a 50 really is in the Vale and beyond. The elite players that are untouchable would still be untouchable although there would be a few more near elite that would slide into a meaningful decent AC range. And for poor people that wanted to take the defensive prestige classes they could likley make it work but would still have to sacrifice some DPS.

Impaqt
07-23-2010, 02:52 PM
Mobs do not get the Progressive attack Bonus.

and its not that hard to get to a Usable AC. You dont need Epic Gear. You dont even really need anything all that rare....

dragons1ayer74
07-23-2010, 03:16 PM
Mobs do not get the Progressive attack Bonus.

and its not that hard to get to a Usable AC. You dont need Epic Gear. You dont even really need anything all that rare....

Not sure about regular attack chains for base mob because there seems to be different patterns. I think if it did have a typical swing pattern, like a troll or human warrior that you see do the little spin around attack then it would follow the chain unless that is counted as that mobs special attack. The mobs for sure follow number of attacks based on animations. I am quite sure that some monsters get multiple attacks in one shot via special attacks, take the ogre dance attack three hits with one attack and I am quite sure at least 1 of the 3 is not using a standard attack bonus to hit.


Also curious what is not that rare?
Perhaps you could post a poor mans 28 point AC build viable to play from level 1 to epic.

Aaxeyu
07-23-2010, 03:17 PM
Mobs do not get the Progressive attack Bonus.

and its not that hard to get to a Usable AC. You dont need Epic Gear. You dont even really need anything all that rare....

Indeed. Epic armors are barely better than +5 mithral fullplates in terms on AC for example.

Impaqt
07-23-2010, 04:18 PM
Not sure about regular attack chains for base mob because there seems to be different patterns. I think if it did have a typical swing pattern, like a troll or human warrior that you see do the little spin around attack then it would follow the chain unless that is counted as that mobs special attack. The mobs for sure follow number of attacks based on animations. I am quite sure that some monsters get multiple attacks in one shot via special attacks, take the ogre dance attack three hits with one attack and I am quite sure at least 1 of the 3 is not using a standard attack bonus to hit.


Also curious what is not that rare?
Perhaps you could post a poor mans 28 point AC build viable to play from level 1 to epic.

Mobs dont get a progressive attack bonus. they stay on whatever they are coded to hit us at.

as for the build.. I dedicated an entire thread to 28pt ac builds a while back.. Let me look it up..

Many folks were able to get into the mid60's

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=159586

Calebro
07-23-2010, 04:29 PM
QFE

This was one of the biggest mistakes made in the game from the get go. This is one(if not the main reason) of the reasons behind sky high inflated mob AC and HP.

There was a reason they did this.
I'm sure you know this, but in PnP you had to choose, full attack or standard attack. Standard attack was but a single attack and allowed for other non-attack actions in the round.
Full attack was multiple attacks, but allowed for nothing more in that round other than a 5 foot step.

What you fail to see is that if the iterative attacks were used in DDO as they are in PnP, there would be ZERO reason to stand still and fight. Why take a -5 or -10 penalty when you can twitch and get your full attack bonus? You'd be an idiot to do so.
So changing the way iterative attacks work was the obvious solution. Standing there and attacking needs to have a benefit over running around and attacking, and in an MMO setting with dynamic combat, the PnP rules for iterative attacks are counter productive to this.

Impaqt
07-23-2010, 04:36 PM
There was a reason they did this.
I'm sure you know this, but in PnP you had to choose, full attack or standard attack. Standard attack was but a single attack and allowed for other non-attack actions in the round.
Full attack was multiple attacks, but allowed for nothing more in that round other than a 5 foot step.

What you fail to see is that if the iterative attacks were used in DDO as they are in PnP, there would be ZERO reason to stand still and fight. Why take a -5 or -10 penalty when you can twitch and get your full attack bonus? You'd be an idiot to do so.
So changing the way iterative attacks work was the obvious solution. Standing there and attacking needs to have a benefit over running around and attacking, and in an MMO setting with dynamic combat, the PnP rules for iterative attacks are counter productive to this.

I see your point to a degree....

But that also could of been addressed by simply skipping the Iterive attack bonus AND progressive all together...

BAB is BAB...

If you Move, you suffer your -4 attack while moving penalty.

or if they really wanted to give a person a reason tostay put, why not just do a +0/+2/+4 instead of +5/+10

Calebro
07-23-2010, 04:39 PM
I see your point to a degree....

But that also could of been addressed by simply skipping the Iterive attack bonus AND progressive all together...

BAB is BAB...

If you Move, you suffer your -4 attack while moving penalty.

or if they really wanted to give a person a reason tostay put, why not just do a +0/+2/+4 instead of +5/+10

I can't argue with any of that at all. I was just explaining why penalizing iterative attacks were a bad idea in this situation.

KKDragonLord
07-23-2010, 05:32 PM
I can't argue with any of that at all. I was just explaining why penalizing iterative attacks were a bad idea in this situation.

You explained the reasoning behind their initial change before they had equalized attack speeds and when the attack chain was something that increased with level and had some really slow finishing swings.

All of this is no longer true.

Why should movement make the swings hit progression any different?
Attacks should always have the -4 penalty for movement, (Except with the Spring Attack feat) in addition to the iterative penalties, and if that movement penalty was added to the first standing attack made in .2 seconds after movement (for THF) it would discourage twitching a lot more (since they can't fix the speed increase of that method).

Attacks that don't connect with an enemy shouldn't not affect the rolls, and the "attack chain" itself shouldn't make a difference either. Iterative penalties are much more of a reasonable possibility now than they were before mod 9.

Angelus_dead
07-23-2010, 07:03 PM
Here's some ways to make AC matter:

1. Nerf Fortification into an AC bonus against confirmation of crits and sneaks.
2. Monsters use Power Attack and Precision
3. Monsters get quasi-iterative attack bonuses, like 5*(1d5-3) for a BAB 20 creature. (Replacing the epic minion attack penalty)

Calebro
07-23-2010, 07:18 PM
You explained the reasoning behind their initial change before they had equalized attack speeds and when the attack chain was something that increased with level and had some really slow finishing swings.

All of this is no longer true.Sorry Zwei, but I disagree on this one.
I don't care if my attacks happen at the same speed now, why would I intentionally take a penalty to hit when there's no benefit to it. If they add a penalty to iterative attacks like they do in PnP, that's what you'd be doing by standing still.


Why should movement make the swings hit progression any different?
Attacks should always have the -4 penalty for movement, (Except with the Spring Attack feat) in addition to the iterative penalties, and if that movement penalty was added to the first standing attack made in .2 seconds after movement (for THF) it would discourage twitching a lot more (since they can't fix the speed increase of that method).

Attacks that don't connect with an enemy shouldn't not affect the rolls, and the "attack chain" itself shouldn't make a difference either. Iterative penalties are much more of a reasonable possibility now than they were before mod 9.

I think we can agree that the penalty to iterative attacks should not apply to the first attack made. Ever. Otherwise it isn't a penalty to iterative attacks, it's just a penalty to every 3rd and 4th attack made, no matter the circumstance.
By implementing the system as you suggest (if I understand what you're saying correctly), you could finish a fight on your second attack. Then you walk through three rooms doing nothing. Then you fight again, and your first and second attacks are at a -5 and -10 attack, respectively. This is counter to the entire reasoning behind the penalty you request.

The only viable solution that I see is to remove all bonuses and simply leave it at that. Or possibly add a small +1/+2/+3/+4/whatever for later attacks (so there's actually a reason to stand still).

Now that attack speeds have evened out for the most part this would be a fair solution. But the penalty would promote twitch play for everyone as it did for TWF'ers prior to the last update. Twitch play should be reserved as an option, but definitely not be a psuedo-requirement.

TheKaige
07-23-2010, 09:24 PM
To implement regressive attack chains (+18/+13/+8/+3) you'd just make it so that 1. Your attack speed scales appropriately (A level 6 fighter with +6/+1 attacks 2x as fast as a level 5 fighter with +5 for instance, instead of the little bonus it currently is) and then make the attack chain continue even when moving (So if the guy with the top attack chain attacks someone with his +18 and his +13 attack, then chases someone, his next attacks are still +8,+3, then the attack chain resets to +18, all attacks with a -4 penalty for moving. Of course, this means you also get an attack speed bonus from advanced attack chains while moving). The attack chain wouldn't completely fix ACs at end game epic levels where the differences between players ACs are in the 40s to 70s, but it would certainly help classes that have good AC but not maxed AC such as cleric, and for level 10-20 players who aren't in end epic gear, this would completely fix any AC imbalance issues.

KKDragonLord
07-23-2010, 10:42 PM
Sorry Zwei, but I disagree on this one.
I don't care if my attacks happen at the same speed now, why would I intentionally take a penalty to hit when there's no benefit to it. If they add a penalty to iterative attacks like they do in PnP, that's what you'd be doing by standing still.

Np Cal, thats how goes.

Iterative attacks do serve a different purpose not only in D&D but especially in DDO, than just gauging attack speed. Its about making AC matter on the very limited D20 range.

With iterative attacks, a monster with AC 20 will not be as likely to be hit with 3 or 4 attacks of a +20/+15/+10/+5 attack chain progression, only the first two would have a high chance to hit, and this mitigates a lot of damage, which in turn makes it easier for the monster, or the PC to survive even without a super high AC.

In DDO most of the absurdly bloated amounts of mob HP are like that because melees not only have high damage and high attack speeds but because they almost never miss. This makes it a lot harder for damage spells to be effective against them, not to mention HP limit based effects such as all power words and such.


I think we can agree that the penalty to iterative attacks should not apply to the first attack made. Ever. Otherwise it isn't a penalty to iterative attacks, it's just a penalty to every 3rd and 4th attack made, no matter the circumstance.

By implementing the system as you suggest (if I understand what you're saying correctly), you could finish a fight on your second attack. Then you walk through three rooms doing nothing. Then you fight again, and your first and second attacks are at a -5 and -10 attack, respectively. This is counter to the entire reasoning behind the penalty you request.I dont think we can agree on that because it is also important to miss enemies.

This idea of a "first attack made" being special makes no real sense. In order to get the high attack bonus you just need to keep fighting, and its recycling all the time, it doesn't matter if you hit on your first or on your fourth attack especially since the d20 makes it so that if you roll high, you will probably hit even on your last attack in the chain as long as you have a good AB.

But, i do understand a little of what you are saying, so i propose that the hit penalties are reset every 6 seconds without an attack roll.

The only viable solution that I see is to remove all bonuses and simply leave it at that. Or possibly add a small +1/+2/+3/+4/whatever for later attacks (so there's actually a reason to stand still).This is the opposite of the purpose that Iterative attacks serve, and this along with the iterative bonuses is what makes AC to be impossible to balance for enemies as well as PCs.

If monsters also got multiple attack hooks with Iterative penalties, you wouldn't have to be a Super Tank for AC to Matter. And that is the goal here.

Now that attack speeds have evened out for the most part this would be a fair solution. But the penalty would promote twitch play for everyone as it did for TWF'ers prior to the last update. Twitch play should be reserved as an option, but definitely not be a psuedo-requirement.You mean THF i imagine, because TWFs have some amazing benefits for their fighting style which in turn made the other styles need several boosts to catch up and they are still not quite there.

Iterative attacks were also a Major balancing factor for high attack speed styles such as TWF and Monk strikes, because they would make more attacks with penalties and have less chance to hit, being very dependent upon the D20 roll on their extra strikes.

The lack of Iterative attacks is what unbalanced TWF the most compared to THF and S&B, this is something that should be rethought as well.

I don't understand why it would promote Twitch play at all if your penalties would be worse for Twitching than if you stand still in the vast majority of scenarios. If you know your attacks get progressive penalties during combat you will not want to add a -4 on top of that which could mean -20% chance to hit, making the Twitching speed increase completely void.

The only exception would be for people who invested in the Spring Attack feat chain, which in turn will be a costly commitment in itself.

I don't believe Twitch Play should be an option. Because 1) it wasnt intended. 2) its not fair to clicky classes that cant perform well while twitching, and 3) its not used by most players.

I admire the aspect of requiring skill to have a better performance, but i'd much rather have other Intended, skill based mechanics in place, instead of twitching.

Calebro
07-23-2010, 11:51 PM
But, i do understand a little of what you are saying, so i propose that the hit penalties are reset every 6 seconds without an attack roll.That sounds like it could be fair middle ground I suppose. But I'm still not sure if I'd stand still for it. More on that later.

You mean THF i imagine, because TWFs have some amazing benefits for their fighting style which in turn made the other styles need several boosts to catch up and they are still not quite there.

Iterative attacks were also a Major balancing factor for high attack speed styles such as TWF and Monk strikes, because they would make more attacks with penalties and have less chance to hit, being very dependent upon the D20 roll on their extra strikes.

The lack of Iterative attacks is what unbalanced TWF the most compared to THF and S&B, this is something that should be rethought as well.

I don't understand why it would promote Twitch play at all if your penalties would be worse for Twitching than if you stand still in the vast majority of scenarios. If you know your attacks get progressive penalties during combat you will not want to add a -4 on top of that which could mean -20% chance to hit, making the Twitching speed increase completely void.

The only exception would be for people who invested in the Spring Attack feat chain, which in turn will be a costly commitment in itself.

I don't believe Twitch Play should be an option. Because 1) it wasnt intended. 2) its not fair to clicky classes that cant perform well while twitching, and 3) its not used by most players.

I admire the aspect of requiring skill to have a better performance, but i'd much rather have other Intended, skill based mechanics in place, instead of twitching.
I meant THF, yes. :o

But my entire problem with iterative attacks getting a penalty is this:
Assuming they would reverse the +5/+10 to -5/-10:

GTWF, base attack +20, no modifiers accounted for: +18/+18/+13/+8
(80% chance each for) +18/+18/+13/+8

Why would I stand still for that?.... when I could do this:
+18/+18, (80% chance each for) +18/+18
Take ONE step, then
+18/+18, (80% chance each for) +18/+18
Take ONE step, then
+18/+18, (80% chance each for) +18/+18
Take ONE step, then.... lather rinse repeat.

Standing still for those attacks is ridiculous. You'd be a fool to stand there. Why would you stand there and possibly miss when you could move a fraction and then be almost guaranteed to hit? Which means that adding a penalty to those attacks would promote a twitch style play.

To put it in perspective: You've run with Calebrus. 1rogue/2monk/wiz. I had room for TWF, but none of the other TWF feats. Prior to U5 and the TWF changes, this is exactly what I did with him when he was in melee. Why? Because I got the most attacks out of it that way.
Now with your proposed change, it would be the same situation. Instead of more attacks from doing this, you'd get more accurate attacks instead. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. It promotes twitch style play.

Obviously I can't argue that this wouldn't help player AC become more meaningful, but it would do so in a manner which would give an unfair advantage to players vs mobs in the AC department. As much as we'd all love that, it would just be another easy button to be exploited, so I can't get behind it.

EDIT: I'm still contemplating the reset every 6 seconds.... I'll have to try to find a way to break it, just in case, but it's sounding more and more reasonable the more I think about it.

KKDragonLord
07-24-2010, 01:41 AM
That sounds like it could be fair middle ground I suppose. But I'm still not sure if I'd stand still for it. Etc...

You are missing the point.

The iterative penalties i have suggested would not be dependent upon a character standing still or moving. The idea is that you cannot reset the penalties just by moving at all, the penalties continuously apply on every attack you make and recycle regardless of whether you move or stand.

You cannot exploit it by twitching, the only way for the penalties to reset is if you stop making attack rolls for 6 seconds. The only thing twiching would do, is add a -4 to your attacks (along with the unintended speed increase).

Calebro
07-24-2010, 02:59 AM
No, I got it, which is why the more I think about it the more I like it.
But I think it still needs quite a bit of insight.
And I'm not sure if it would be a problem with coding. As it stands, anything that isn't a physical attack of some sort interrupts the chain, which makes perfect sense following the PnP aspect that people are trying to preserve. Obviously some liberties must be taken with this, but where do they begin and where do they end?
Will casting interrupt it? Does that count as an *attack*?
Will interacting with the environment interrupt it?
Will swapping gear interrupt it?
What about activating a feat like Power Attack or Heighten Spell?
I think *nothing* interrupting it except 6 seconds of no actions except movement is far too extreme, so where is the line? And how much of a pain would it be to code for only certain actions to interrupt it? And how would these choices impact a player's ability to exploit the interruption process for his or her benefit?

I think we may be onto something, but it isn't as simple as it sounds.

Calebro
07-24-2010, 03:17 AM
Hypothetically:
You charge into combat and attack, killing the mob after a few swings. You immediately pull a lever, opening a door, behind which are more mobs. You throw down a Firewall, then you cast Reconstruct to fill what you lost from the last fight. The FW is working too slowly for your tastes, so you toss a Cone of Cold out. The mobs are low now so you begin swinging again to finish them off.

Sure, there were 6 seconds between your actual attacks, but you took some very offensive actions in the meantime. You were obviously still engaged in combat. Do those non-*attack* actions count toward resetting the timer? If so, it never reset, and you're still taking a penalty.... even though you didn't *attack*.

Which actions count and which don't, and how do you code it properly?

zealous
07-24-2010, 04:03 AM
QFE

This was one of the biggest mistakes made in the game from the get go. This is one(if not the main reason) of the reasons behind sky high inflated mob AC and HP.
If you look at the numerical difference between regressive and progressive attack bonus you might balk and go "Hey, PCs have a attack bonus like 15 higher on average so it's no wonder you always hit!!!".

That's however somewhat shortsighted since mob AC could be kept as useful simply by bumping it 15.

The difference between regressive and progressive attack bonus is as Calebro states promoting standing still and previously also the difference between e.g. BAB 4 and BAB 5.
...
The exact numerical values are not really important, the attack progression could be +1000/+1005/+1010/+1015 and it would still be quite close to PnP mechanisticly.

What is of importance is the dynamic range, e.g. 19 for PC AC/mob tohit and 34 for mob AC/PC tohit. The size of the range "determines" how large differences between characters/mobs can be without the system collapsing down to the two state scenario of "you either have AC and is never hit or you can't reach good AC and thus disregard it entirely".

Since the differences between different builds/twink is vastly larger than 19, AC is somewhat broken.

Since the differences in tohit between PCs counting twink, buffs and debuffs is greater than 34, and also due to a small difference in tohit having a large impact, mob AC is somewhat broken.

This can be remedied either by:
A. Nerfing the game from orbit
B. Increasing the dynamic range as has been done for epics

KKDragonLord
07-24-2010, 10:11 AM
Hypothetically:
You charge into combat and attack, killing the mob after a few swings. You immediately pull a lever, opening a door, behind which are more mobs. You throw down a Firewall, then you cast Reconstruct to fill what you lost from the last fight. The FW is working too slowly for your tastes, so you toss a Cone of Cold out. The mobs are low now so you begin swinging again to finish them off.

Sure, there were 6 seconds between your actual attacks, but you took some very offensive actions in the meantime. You were obviously still engaged in combat. Do those non-*attack* actions count toward resetting the timer? If so, it never reset, and you're still taking a penalty.... even though you didn't *attack*.

Which actions count and which don't, and how do you code it properly?

OK now we are talking.

1) Let Turbine worry about Coding or else we could just stop making any suggestions at all
2) Its not about 6 seconds of no action except moving, is 6 seconds of no Attack rolls against AC.

Any other combat actions dont matter for the purpose of the attack chain, only Attack rolls.

Whats too extreme about it if the whole purpose and idea is to prevent people from Exploiting it!?!

vcntmnd
04-30-2011, 02:06 PM
A little thread necro here, but I've been thinking about this issue for a while, and its funny, the most elegant and interesting solution was mentioned early on in the thread. Making base AC a "defense roll" of 1-20, instead of set at 10 would make lower armor values better and capped armor values not quite as foolproof. In fact the more variation that is put on that single number creates more viable armor classes and less 95% immune ACs.