PDA

View Full Version : FEEDBACK: Armor Class Part 1



Pages : [1] 2

MadFloyd
04-19-2012, 06:49 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

bradleyforrest
04-19-2012, 06:52 PM
Yes. The problem is that AC is meaningless without a major investment of time to get it to a level where it is relevent. For a change, I would hope that it would be possible for mobs to miss 50% of the time do to AC with a moderate investment of time into gear.

Chai
04-19-2012, 06:54 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented? Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem? AC in epic quests is not useful because even the lowliest trash mobs have to-hit bonus that hits even the highest attainable AC on a roll of a 2.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change? Ability to build an epic tank that can tank epic quests similar to how a non epic tank can tank non epic quests. Similar mitigation percentage wise and similar miss chance for similar DPS sacrifice percentage wise in building the toon.

P.S. I feel AC works in the 1-20 game and is broken in epic quests. Some of the 1-20 game requires higher values to be effective but at least those values are attainable readily enough.

Charononus
04-19-2012, 06:57 PM
AC works imo as is, if you're a tank you have it if not you don't, it's something that needs to be built for and geared just like anything else.

learst
04-19-2012, 07:01 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Yes. The problem is that AC is meaningless without a major investment of time to get it to a level where it is relevent.

Best statement that summarises my opinion.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
AC means something from lvl 8-20 where at that point AC starts becoming meanless without grinding for super gear. AC should be equivalent regardless of the type used (relatively speaking in terms of investment spent on build and gear) - heavy armour, light armour/robes (dex builds) etc.

Combat_Wombat
04-19-2012, 07:01 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

Edit2: Fix guild titles/ranks and turn them back on!

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Monster to-hit goes way to high in high level content. That being said it is honestly to late to fix this now the entire game has been balanced against everyone dumping AC. If all of a sudden most players AC became relevant and were taking significantly reduced damage all content would become more trivial than it already is. The game would die because it would be incredibly boring.

Somewhere I proposed a 1% stacking DR/- for like every 13 ac. This would make everyone's AC count for something but not require the entire game to be re-balanced around the change. ATM AC is all or nothing and isn't obtainable in useful amounts without sacrifice which is good but people with a little bit of AC could use some kind of benefit like this.

Edit: Also a nerf to monk wis-to-ac is in order, monks and monk splashes have become defensive powerhouses when it should be left to heavy armor and shields.

Sgt_Hart
04-19-2012, 07:02 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?




Yes
It's an all-or-nothing, increasing as you get closer to end game.
A worthwhile return on improving armor class without an exclusive priority on armor class. To whit: It needs to be a valid secondary objective that benefits.

jortann
04-19-2012, 07:04 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented? Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The all or nothing approach of the system.

The beleivability of the system. The ability to be missed by the enemy seems like it should be attached to feats (like Dodge) and maybe enhancements. When I think of armor I think of damage mitigation, not the ability to be missed by my opponent. For example, I don't think someone wearing Full Plate armor has a better chance of being missed than someone in Leather armor, but the Full Plate guy does have a better chance of absorbing some of the damage.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
something that makes sense?

Perikeles
04-19-2012, 07:05 PM
My favourite pet peeve about AC in ddo is that no matter how shiny how durable your armor is and has a decent ac rating. Somehow your plate armor makes enemies MISS you instead of protect you from incoming damage. It's kinda counter intuitive.. I mean Chainmails should protect you from arrows penetrating you even if they hit but instead all chainmail ac does does is make the arrows miss you totally.

I think the concept of armor class should be discussed as in what it is supposed to represent. Clear definition might be very important to this thread.

camgib
04-19-2012, 07:05 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?



1. If you mean is the d20 system messed up, no, I don't think there is anything wrong with the way it WORKS. If you mean is it WAY to difficult for the appropriate classes, like stalwart defenders, to get meaningful AC, then yes, there is something wrong with the way AC is currently implemented when it is easier for monks to have 100+ AC than it is for a heavy-armor-wearing tank to achieve the same result.

2. There are too few alternatives for gear that gives heavy armor characters the ability to build an armor class of 100+.

3. The ability to build a high-AC character that wears heavy armor in more than one or two ways.

blkcat1028
04-19-2012, 07:05 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Armour Class favours the pajama wearing masses. You are actually penalized for wearing heavier armour types.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

That there be benefit to wearing the various armour types, thus making more builds viable for tanking etc.

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Answers in red

LeLoric
04-19-2012, 07:08 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Three things.

First the range of ac values is too high for a d20 roll. Making a 50-60 ac as worthless as a 2 ac.

Second AC is balanced around the upper tiers making it hard to reach the useable range and at very steep tradeoffs.

Third Epic raid boss ac have unattainable Ac requirements.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

A wider range of useable ac values. Ability to get even moderately useful AC in all content without having to completely forgoe dealing dmg and then be able to ramp up your ac to better values with more tradeoff.

THAC0
04-19-2012, 07:09 PM
1) Yes.

2) From a WF perspective, there are not many selections for high AC Docets.... I can't think of any to be honest. (I think AC of 32 was my best at lvl 20...after that I stopped caring about AC so most are in the 20-28 range and I just ignore it.)

3) While it is nice to see non-WF chars get to the AC 60+ range with a lot of effort... consider WFs and their needs too. And I'm not just talking about tank builds. Docets are all WF can wear (for people who don't know).

BruceTheHoon
04-19-2012, 07:11 PM
1) Yes

2) Even epic geared characters get hit by practically everything on epic difficulty. In addition, characters that may fare really well in non epic content, have a great aspect of their build nullified when entering epic quests. This remains so all the time while collecting the best possible gear.

3) I would like to have reasonable damage mitigation with reasonable effort put into gearing characters. AC changes should be gradual but noticeable on every step.
Gearing an AC character should be comparable to gearing a spell user or a melee damage dealer, where one can do more than acceptable contribution to the party, while having good gear. Not great, awesome or top notch, just good.

sebastianosmith
04-19-2012, 07:12 PM
Yes, there is something wrong with the current AC system. At the heart of this issue is the effectiveness of AC at end game. When a PJ clad 20th level fighter is marginally better off than the same character in plate armor, there is definitely a problem. I would hope that any change would provide some correction to the scaling deficiency which begins to resemble a logarithmic curve in usefulness vs. attainability beyond AC 50.

Vazok1
04-19-2012, 07:13 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

I like it personally as i am past the AC break point on my fav chars. however, Yes there is something wrong with it.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
on a 1-100 scale, 70% of it will get hit ALL the time, 30% will get hit NONE of the time. its either on or its off. no inbetween

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
first there to be a white area of ac, lets say 1-60 that gets hit 95% of the time and there to be a grey area, say 61-99 that gradually gets you hit less and less the higher you go into that scale, and there to be a black area 100+ that gets you hit 5% of the time. obviously with different numbers and a different grey area but I have no idea what AC we'll be able to attain after enhancement update or destinies release. hint hint :p
secondly, ac to work in ALL content, if I decide to make a 6str dex build wtih uber high ac I shouldnt be hit 95% of the time by an epic minotaur runt.

also seeing someone elses post saying the pajama wearers get high ac. AC is supposed to be how difficult your character is to hit, if your dodging around something avoiding all blows you'd want to be in light or no armor. to me that makes sence. however i also accept that heavy armor should offer more benefits towards tanking

Missing_Minds
04-19-2012, 07:16 PM
I find it works conditionally. It works up till about level 10 or 12 depending, but after that, forget it.

Even during my days of being a power gamer, I didn't care because I absolutely hated the grind necessary. You just about have to have an elitest attitude and 40 hr a week work ethic for the game to have relevant AC. I refuse to treat this GAME as WORK these days. I want it to be fun.

In PnP displacement and blur were a commodity, but this game treats them as a necessity with all the buffed up beyond belief mobs we deal with. It is the only thing we have to keep the shots a bit more even it seems.

And then you've got the AC of the mobs, on most you know? just fine don't have an issue, execpt... archers. The way those gun turrests are done up, they are worse than any of the melee "armored" out there. For instance your average skeletal archer has a higher AC than a blackbone warrior. ???? More HP also, let alone that bloody annoying jump that makes them unhitable. Seriously? They "tumble" to move and we can't hit them, but they can ALWAYS hit us?

I like the rule of "if they can, we can" which I will fully admit, SHOULD come back to bite us in the rear at times.

I know you said you didn't want solutions, but you did ask what result. To me a high AC and wearing cloth means you weren't there to be physically touched, other wise you were hit. But a high AC and heavy armor/shield/etc means maybe you weren't there to be touched, but more than likely you used gear to deflect/absorb the shot so you didn't take damage. (which realistically means the heavier armor gets damaged more.) And monks are a tricky sort given the mysticism of Ki/Qi.

In other words, I want AC and armor type to mean something beyond metal type.

I also want personal DR to mean more. WF can have it with adamantine body type, Monk lvl 20 get epic, Barbs get DR/-, fvs, etc. Why a monk can get equal to a barb just because of stance.... ggrrrrr, I have NEVER agreed with that. And the cost to raise these values are EXPENSIVE. But these DR values were fine in PnP but the mobs here aren't close to PnP, they are inflated. DR needs to mean more than the pittance that it does. A lvl 20 mob on normal does what? 30-50 points on a melee swing. That 3/- dr on adamantine full plate... yeah, why bother at all. But per swing it adds up! right? A character with 450 hp, against those mobs, assuming average 40 hits a swing, and lets give them adamantine full plate. Takes 12 swings to be killed. 11 without. yeah... big friggen deal. I expanded my life by 5 seconds.

bbqzor
04-19-2012, 07:16 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Indirectly, yes. AC as implemented is essentially a player statistic, as you (Turbine) could change the mob values at will. Maybe I'm reading too much into your choice of words, but really, AC as a statistic in terms of its value on gear, its calculation, feats/enhancements/etc which affect it... all of that is relatively self consistent and working fine for us as players. People who want to invest in AC can, people who choose not to have other options available, and thats good for the game.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
The problem is generally on the mob side, which indirectly impacts AC. Their attack values do not scale well at the upper end, and certainly not in proportion to player AC values. I suppose I would say, the problem with "AC as currently implemented" in the above question, is really a problem with "mob attack values as currently implemented".

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
What I would hope for from a change (ie solution, not just a change for change's sake) is an end result where mob attack values are far more proportional to player AC values. This result would likely only be noticed at the upper tiers of the game, as the lower part tends to (more or less) already stay proportional. But a result where AC was as consistently relevant at 20, as it is at 5 or 10 or 15, would be the desired goal.

Hafeal
04-19-2012, 07:16 PM
Thanks for asking! :)



1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The math does not seem to support a worthwhile AC as you progress, especially for casual players. The result is that if you pursue AC, you must specifically pick a build style (e.g., Stalwart Defender) and/or be lucky and/or determined enough to pursue the few class of items that make a worthwhile AC.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

I would like to see a reasonably obtainable AC which incorporates all types of armor (I am looking at you medium), perhaps by taking into account AC factors from a helmet, greaves and glove types. I would also hope to see a much greater benefit to shield users - make the trade-off between 2wf dps and using a shield a legitimate choice.

Perhaps it means making fortification work differently in conjunction with AC. Perhaps it means adding a 3rd element to the equation. I don't have the answer so I can't give one - but giving players many more choices to vary the type of of equipment they use is good for the game, imo.

Jaid314
04-19-2012, 07:18 PM
1) yes

2) mostly epics. AC is not useful in epic fights, except for completely ridiculous extreme examples, which even then only work on trash which is much more easily dealt with in numerous other ways such as instakill and CC (there is iirc video of someone who had enough AC to get missed reasonably often in one of the epic house D quests. it was something like 105 AC). in traditional content, it's mostly fine (if you truly invest in AC, you will get some protection against some mobs, at least. even with very minimal effort, it's possibly to get some protection in the later levels, though not necessarily for elite amrath, which is fine imo).

3) the possibility for builds that put in the effort to get significant AC to benefit from that AC against at least some mobs, some of the time. this does not mean that i expect to see epic velah reduced to getting glancing blows on a 19, but it would be nice if, say, epic tieflings in eChrono would miss more than 5% of the time vs someone who has invested heavily in AC (and it would be especially nice if the guy who brings a maxed AC tank to the end fight doesn't feel like he's wasted a lot of time farming rare gear that simply doesn't meaningfully help him at all in those fights)

Ganolyn
04-19-2012, 07:20 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.




2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

No actual cap and a point where unless you invest almost all your assets into it, it is useless. This gives you the option of building a character to basically ignore AC and go for DPS and HP's over protection. Right now it is so lopsided in favor of DPS and HP's that almost no one needs to use AC unless they are building for distraction, which is just gaming the system. Also that armor types have no real influence on it after a time. If a robe wearer can get better AC than an armor wearer because of feats and ability scores it really makes armor a liability rather than an asset.




3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

To make armored melee types viable again (assuming you are not going to nerf casters) by giving them something (most) casters cannot get: The ability to get protection from incoming damage that is sustainable and to make sword and board a viable option.

Jay203
04-19-2012, 07:20 PM
1) yes
2) way too much stacking bonuses from equipments, power creep =_=
3) that ac would actually become useful and that naked ac isn't the best way to go about it =_=

Kinerd
04-19-2012, 07:21 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?Not really. It could be tweaked (epics et al), but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system.

THOTHdha
04-19-2012, 07:21 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


Yes, it is my opinion that there is a problem.

I think that the problem is that DDO's bonuses have grown far too large for a d20 based game rule to keep up with. In order to make monster's to-hit have anything more than a 5% chance to hit the highest ACs out there they will only have a 5% chance of missing people who have tried to have a reasonable AC, but lack full gear. Glancing Blows help with this somewhat, but not enough to make AC useful for those who have made an effort but still come up short.

In D&D, even if you didn't have your AC high enough for a foe's first swing to miss, their following swings would use a lower and lower bonus. This meant that even those who were not 'top shelf' AC still had more damage mitigation than those who dumped it entirely. DDO uses an escalating attack bonus instead, totally throwing this out. I think that the difference between 'pimped out' AC and mediocre AC should be very, very huge! But before AC is really going to be worth considering there needs to be some benefit from having a so-so AC rating, rather than anything below 60 or 80, depending on the content, being just as good as 10.

Thar
04-19-2012, 07:23 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

OMG yes. AC is worthless unless you invest all enhancements, gear, feats, and class skills possible into obtaining a 80-90 AC and then it's debateable as you can't do much dps to hold boss agro or contribute like a dps build so you are mainly good for tanking a boss and hoping intim can hold the agro. And then this AC is absolutely useless in Epics as it negates no hits at all. Epics require just lots of HP to survive the hits while your cleric heals you. There is no way to have the mobs miss you via non spell means. If you invest that much time, skills, and gear into an endeavor it should be beneficial. The difference between an normal lvl 20 mob hitting a character with a 10 AC and a 50 AC is none, both will get hit the same. There is no point is using platemail if the buffs on it are not any good. Even with a High AC, the splash damage negates the effectiveness of AC. In most games you want to either not get hit and whittle your opponent down over time, or take max damage build to kill it before it kills you.

AC was slightly better before the splash damage was added to the game and when Intim worked the way it used to as you didn't have to worry about dps taking over agro while it was active.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Part of the problem is giving mobs such high to hit bonuses. If a trash mob had the same to hit as a average 20 lvl fighter it would be 20 + str 10 + gear + feats for maybe 40 to hit. on a 19 (since a 20 is automatic hit in most dnd games) then might be around a 59 ac.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

I would hope for a change that made AC relevant to a build and make it worthwhile for a class such as my cleric to wear some armor (since i'm proficient in it) for some benefit vs some cloth robe with the same stats. High AC should negate some attacks or damage even in epic.

Inkblack
04-19-2012, 07:28 PM
There is a problem with AC.

The problem is that there is no functional difference between an 8 AC and a 50 AC at end game, which is where most of the players that didn't build for AC are located. To get a meaningful AC requires a significant understanding of the rules and nuances of the game and a significant amount of time to earn the required equipment.

I would hope that there would be a distinguishable difference between every 5 points (or so) of AC.

As currently implemented, AC should be every new player's dump stat.

Therrias
04-19-2012, 07:32 PM
In my opinion, the problem is that the AC system was implemented as is from P&P, while the attack bonus system was changed to scale upward instead of down.

Example:

In DDO, a 20th level fighter has attacks at +20/+20/+25/+30 (or something like that.)

In P&P, a 20th level fighter has attacks at +20/+15/+10/+5

That is a big difference.

Coldin
04-19-2012, 07:33 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Interesting take on the thread.


1. Yes.

2. Basically, it doesn't scale well. Effective AC is more binary than linear. Either you have good AC, or you might as well have no AC. True, there's a little gray area, but overall this is the case, especially at the higher levels.

3. End result? So that have having any amount of AC is useful. The more the better. So even if a class isn't built for the maximun possible AC, striving to get AC higher is a worthwhile endeavor. Yes, even for the low AC wizards and sorcerers.

nibel
04-19-2012, 07:34 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.

2) What do you think is the problem?

Dice range. When you have mobs rolling a d20, where 20 is autohit, and 1 is automiss, you have 18 numbers where AC "works". Adding more attack die like the epic minion debuff just put your rolls more on the average spot. Since each mob have only 18 AC points where it matters (lower than that, he always hit, higher than that, he always miss, unless he roll 20 or 1), and epic mobs usually have the same to-hit (or close enough), you need to work a lot to make your AC useful there.

3) What end result would you hope for from a change?

In pen and paper D&D 3.5, the mobs to-hit was always much over what you could reasonably get as an AC value. The reason you keep AC as high as you can is to avoid a very powerful Power Attack on the face (since PnP you can remove as much as you want from to-hit), and to be missed in the second and further attacks in a full attack.

I expect the AC to change in a way where a protection +5 item is a temptful item to equip, even if you are a raging barbarian. Where your wizard make sure to keep Mage Armor and Shield up all the time for the +8 AC. Where losing 2 AC points from a rage spell means something.

Basically, I want a reason for everyone to think a LOT before dumping any AC item.

LOOON375
04-19-2012, 07:40 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?



1) Yes
2) It's totally useless.
3) If a change is attempted, I hope it don't screw things up by making other problems.

Don1966
04-19-2012, 07:42 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1 yes
2 as many have pointed out already in this thread and in other threads, monster plus to hit is way too high. take a monsters plus to hit, add two to that and any AC below that only gets missed on a roll of one and will get hit on a roll of two or higher.
3 some are pointing out that it's only a problem in epic content which i disagree with. levels 15 to 20 have problems as well. in those ranges a 40 AC is pretty much worthless. for AC to be worthwhile to invest in for ALL classes then any AC should be worth something. while an extremely high AC should mitigate most incoming damage, a mid range AC should mitigate some incoming damage. i.e. if an AC of 80 means a miss on 95% of all swings, an AC of 60 should get missed 75% of the time, and an AC of 40 should get missed 50% of the time.

Syllph
04-19-2012, 07:46 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

AC only works when you go crazy and build for it. We currently benefit more from Displacement + Cloud miss than with even an extraordinary AC.

The average player will never have a useful AC after level 10 unless he plans for it, and even then he needs special gear. Someone wearing robes, in my opinion, should not have the defensive capabilities that someone in a full metal jacket does. Even with an 80 AC (far above what I call average) glancing blows make it all but worthless.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

It's hard for me to answer this without making a suggestion.

My hope would be AC would function at all levels more as a %DR rather than hit or miss.

Current system miss or hit is the only outcome. This would change.

Metal type AC would be favored over cloth type for this mitigation. Adamantine would receive special treatment.

With higher AC a higher % of damage would be mitigated, rather than hit or miss.

le_goat
04-19-2012, 07:48 PM
1.yes
2.armor class has no damage mitigation
3. wearing armor gives you inherent DR , wearing robes and such just gives the chance to miss.

Ziindarax
04-19-2012, 07:51 PM
Monster to-hit goes way to high in high level content. That being said it is honestly to late to fix this now the entire game has been balanced against everyone dumping AC. If all of a sudden most players AC became relevant and were taking significantly reduced damage all content would become more trivial than it already is. The game would die because it would be incredibly boring.

Somewhere I proposed a 1% stacking DR/- for like every 13 ac. This would make everyone's AC count for something but not require the entire game to be re-balanced around the change. ATM AC is all or nothing and isn't obtainable in useful amounts without sacrifice which is good but people with a little bit of AC could use some kind of benefit like this.

Edit: Also a nerf to monk wis-to-ac is in order, monks and monk splashes have become defensive powerhouses when it should be left to heavy armor and shields.

Two things:

1) Monk Wis-to-AC has ALWAYS been a part of D&D tradition. In all the earlier D&D games (both P&P, as well as the video games) where monks appeared, wisdom has amplified a monk's AC. The reason for this being that Monks cannot use good weapons and armors like most other melee classes, and without this boost, they'd die rather quickly.

2) A change to AC affects everything, not just the player characters. This means the monsters would become just as difficult to hit (if not more so than/) as you are/would be. This means Lord of Blades would be nearly impossible to hit considering I could barely hit him with all of my rage buffs as it was back when this stuff was tested on lamannia and I was using a +7 antique Greataxe. I do agree that if fights take a long time to resolve, then it would get pretty boring fast.


@ Madfloyd:

Personally, I feel AC is a bit broken for the same reasons as listed above; it's all or nothing, and when you invest it all, you sacrifice greatly (perhaps too greatly) on DPS. Additionally, obtaining a functional AC often involves being able to join/assemble a group for content that is generally out of reach/too-difficult for newer/casual players.

I am hoping that AC is balanced enough that one does not need to have a profane investment in equipment/feats just to avoid being hit 30-50% of the time, but without making raid/quest boss AC so high that they can't be hit by anyone who isn't a min-maxer or a caster.

Also hoping that heavier armors offer an attractive bonus for wearing them, as currently, they are more a hindrence than an advantage.

moops
04-19-2012, 07:52 PM
Yes.

Because it is completely useless in Epic.

I would like to see it balanced so that those with a high enough AC to tank Elite Horoth and Hound, can also tank in epics.

Glenalth
04-19-2012, 07:55 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
Same as every part of the D20 system that relies on a D20 roll vs a DC. Once you're outside that narrow range it's either useless or overpowered.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
That AC would do something more than just avoid attacks so that people that invested in it but were still outside of the 20pt range for the content would still get a benefit.

waterboytkd
04-19-2012, 07:56 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

There are a few problems:
A) AC is useless in epics. The worst trash has a to-hit high enough to hit any attainable AC on a 2
B) Our ACs are in too big of a range. Just because highly geared, AC specced toons can hit super high ACs, bosses and some mobs are given to-hits to combat these ACs, which in turn turns other ACs useless. A 50-60 AC should not be useless, but at end-game it is.
C) It's too difficult to get the super high ACs needed to be relevant at end-game. It takes a lot of high-end gear, and often requires intense sacrifices in other areas (most notably dps), so that high AC characters are almost always "veteran" characters who've seen and done most of the game, and those characters end up being quite one-dimensional.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

I would want a few things:
A) I would like AC to be viable in epics and the rest of the end-game. And by viable, I mean that it functions as damage mitigation. However, I don't mean one has to be able to obtain an AC where they are only hit on a 20--I couldn't care less if that was not possible. I just want AC to do something significant to mitigate incoming damage, especially for melees in epics.
B) I would like the range of viable ACs to be, for lack of a better term, "easily" obtainable. By that, I mean it shouldn't require a multi-TR, or a toon geared out in all epics, or a massive sacrifice in dps. I would like a 50-60 AC to be relevant at end game (again, understand, when I say relevant, I don't mean only hit on a 20), all without a 90 AC obviating end game content.
C) Sort of a tag-on to B, I would like it if ALL melees could obtain a meaningful AC for epics, given some speccing for it, but not to the extent that the toon can no longer fulfill it's primary function (and here, I see the primary function for most melees to be dps), even if the "speccing" was only through picking up some good (but not necessarily best/epic) gear. This would include Barbarians, even.

I feel that a broad and accessible range of viable ACs for the end game is very important for that elusive caster/melee balancing act.

scoobmx
04-19-2012, 07:57 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
Too unbalanced toward fleshies and monks (pajama tanks better than heavy armor tanks, rakshasa hide / duelist's leathers / icy raiments better than red dragonscale docent or any other docent, as a real epic AC docent doesn't really exist, epic red dragonscale much harder to make than any of the above robes/leathers while being inferior)

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
Balance between races and the melee classes, so you can hit roughly the same AC with comparably difficult to make gear whether you're a warforged or a fleshy, whether you're a fighter or a paladin or otherwise (in fact, it should be skewed toward classes designed to tank - fighter and paladin).

Rhysem
04-19-2012, 08:00 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1) Yes

2) Monster attack bonus has gotten out of hand compared to canonical 3.5, but player's ability to acquire AC (exempting perfect raid/epic gear + ship buffs + favor potions + ideal buffbot classes in party) has not kept up with that increase except for the perfect situation. Worse is that you keep moving mob AB up, leading to the hardcores raising their AC with new gear, leaving everyone who isn't a pure AC focus with no more reason to raise their AC than the raging psyco barbarian who's managed to end himself at an AC of -5... in 3.5th ed.

3) I'd like to see a wider range of AC be useful. If a quest's average attack bonus is +70 (which seems about accurate given the "target" AC value seems to be in the 90s and up) then no AC below 70 is useful. So in the range of possible ACs of ~10 to ~110, about 30% of the range is useful and the rest may as well go nekkid. I'd like to see that range of useful ACs expand. In particular, AC needs to remain viable as you bump the slider up from normal to elite, rather than going from "you're immune to melee" to "you may as well go naked because they'll only miss you on a 1."

Edit: Counter-question, which I don't expect an answer to: do mobs swing at iterative attacks like players do? If not, why not? The decreasing AB would make lower ACs automatically mean something. Given that I assume they do not. Perhaps this is really why AC is broken.


Concrete example: AC fails about around gianthold levels, so that's level 13. Let's see canonical MM 3.5 to-hits at that level: beholder (+9 ranged touch eye rays), celestial charger (+22 bite), ghaele (+21 greatsword, +11 ranged touch light ray), Glabrezu (+20 pincers), Storm Giant (+26 greatsword). So something in the mid-40s is nearly unhittable. Holds up pretty well with gianthold on normal. Doesn't hold up in hard or elite though. That's a problem.

Let's bump it up to 16 like the just released demonweb stuff: Hound hero archon (+25 greatsword), Horned Devil (+25 spiked chain), Greater Stone Golem (+42 slam, but only 1 attack/round), Nightwalker (+24 slam), Planetar (+23 melee). The golem is way out there, I'll admit. But the rest of the to-hits have barely gone up despite +3 CR. This is not (or at least, does not feel) like the case in the game. If you're immune to gianthold on normal or hard, you are not even vaguely immune to the lords of dust.

Push it further on to IQ at 19, where my monk's mid-60s AC isn't enough to dodge much if anything. Canonically, attacks would be: Mature Adult Gold Dragon (+36 bite plus more at lesser ab). There's no other non-dragon 19s, so let's bump it up to CR21: a Titan! +37 warhammer, plus iterative attacks. The highest CR in the book, a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon gets the attack up to +51 (at CR27), which while it will hit my monk who sits around 66 AC when in that mode, it only hits 25% of the time. It does not hit "when it doesn't roll a 1" like IQ, melee types in the assault on stormreach line, etc.

Zirun
04-19-2012, 08:02 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

There's such a narrow range of useful AC that it's either not worth investing in at all or can give you near-immunity to physical attacks. This is caused by too many stacking bonuses (creating such a high AC cap), the d20 system (limiting AC effectiveness to a 20-point area), and other things.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

All classes can, with work, attain an AC that gives significant protection from level 1 to level 20 and beyond. I'd hope it would also be nearly impossible to get near-immunity against significant bosses (raid bosses, end bosses who have no spells and thus would be trivialized by a 5% hit rate, etc.), but that it would still be possible, even reasonable, to have people who plan on getting hit to reduce the damage they take from such bosses through AC.

Monkey-Boy
04-19-2012, 08:04 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?


Yes.



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

AC doesn't work in Epics. It's the last "blanket immunity" that's left in epic.

It works fine anywhere else for people who CHOSE to build for it. Being a "hjeal meh SP-sponge" is a conscious choice.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


AC to work in levels 21-25 the same way it does in levels 1-19.

I would also like to see a heavy armored Kensai TWFing be able to get the same AC as his 18/2 monk-splashed counterpart. It's not as far off as many ignorant people think but I would like to see that gap closed.

I would like to see AC be THE primary form of defense, with shield mastery and other forms of % mitigation removed from the game.

I would NOT like to see anything that's "MMO" added to the game regarding % mitigation, static DR, or any of that garbage. I would like this to feel like I'm playing D&D.

Artagon
04-19-2012, 08:04 PM
Yes.

I feel that one of the main breaking points for me is the disparity in AC between a robe wearing individual and an armored tank. Perhaps I should say that there is no meaningful difference between the two as long as you can hit ludicrously high AC.

I'd like them to feel different, and I also think that there should be some reason to wear medium or light armor instead of robes on characters that by all rights should be wearing them as their best options. Why would ANYONE wear medium armor for AC? (other than some strange niche build intending to use one specific armor) I think it's telling that people either wear cloth or heavy armor, and rarely anything else beyond maybe 8th level.

This is not to say that evasive type AC shouldn't exist, that pajama wearers be somehow made less, because I LOVE the idea of being nearly impossible to hit by ducking and weaving or doing some crazy matrix stuff. I simply think there should be a difference in approach for all the armor types. I know what I would want to do here, but you asked us to refrain from giving solutions :D

Urist
04-19-2012, 08:05 PM
3. End result? So that have having any amount of AC is useful. The more the better. So even if a class isn't built for the maximun possible AC, striving to get AC higher is a worthwhile endeavor. Yes, even for the low AC wizards and sorcerers.
This ^

But further: I would like to see all types of armour; heavy, medium, light, and clothing; be equally valid choices, depending on character build. I'd also like to see some situational difference, with heavy being more effective sometimes, light/none other times, and medium "good enough" most of the time.

Auran82
04-19-2012, 08:05 PM
1) Yes

2) The inherent problem mostly stems from taking the system from PnP (hit/miss nothing between, D20 etc) and putting it in an MMO with no real tweaks. This works in paper as its easy to calculate as you only have a D20 and your brain to work it out, we have a server doing calculations for us.

Also, in most cases the all or nothing approach means that for every point of AC you can't get, means a 5% chance to be hit, there is a good reason that every other MMO uses fractions of a % when you improve your gear, enhancement type systems etc. This is really the fault of the D20 system though, not alot we can really do. At some point, if you miss to many points of AC, you might as well not bother.

3) To be honest, I think the current system probably needs to be scrapped and redone from the start, split it up. Some suggestions:

- DR based on armour/shield type: It seems silly that everyone runs around in PJs because plate armour wont make any difference other than make it take longer to swap between robes for whatever ability you need at the time. Plate armour should give you some kind of inherant protection from incoming blows, same with other types of non robe/outfits. Same applies to shields.

- Total damage taken based on how much their to-hit beats your AC: If something like this is used, you could probably scrap grazing hits. Just chucking numbers out there, but make it so that each point they beat your AC by means 2% of the damage is dealt. If you have 50AC and they roll 49, no damage done. If their total is 55, 10% of damage is done, if they roll 80, 60% of damage is done, etc. It would make it so that even classes that can't get to an 'unhittable' ac have some reason to try to get as much AC as possible, it would also mean that monster to hits need to be worked out and its possible that player AC might need to be tweaked.

The main thing I am hoping for, is for AC to become more useful for more people, and to give people more of a reason to wear heavier armours and wear a shield. If possible, split up the difference between avoidance (Dex/Wis based AC that focuses on not being hit at all) and Mitigation (heavy armour/shield users that are based on deflecting attacks to reduce or entirely prevent damage)

Monkey-Boy
04-19-2012, 08:06 PM
Since he's not posting anymore, I'd also like to take the time to answer for a "famous" barbarian.

1. MOAR DPS!!!!!

2. MOAR HP!!!!!!

3. HJEAL MEH!!!!!

BOgre
04-19-2012, 08:07 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1) Yes

2) The problem seems to be that AC needs to be invested in heavily to be meaningful. It is a go/nogo situation that leaves many, if not most, builds with meaningless AC, and AP/Feats wasted like Mobility.

3) I'd like to see AC become meaningful at all investment levels. I'd like to see (some) DR linked to AC and be stackable. I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of link between a piece of Armor's Durability and it's AC/DR effectiveness. I'd like to see The Exploiter build NOT be nerfed/broken as a result of any changes you're making.

Phidius
04-19-2012, 08:09 PM
...
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
...

Yes


...
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
...

The limitation of the d20 attack roll.


...
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
...

Every investment in AC would result in getting hit less... maybe not worth the investment, but have at least some payoff.


...
Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.
...

Not a problem. :D

Cetus
04-19-2012, 08:10 PM
Yes there is a problem.

The overarching problem:

In levels 1-20 content, a meaningful AC is ATTAINABLE. In epic content, a meaningful ac is NOT ATTAINABLE.

The branching problem:

I don't merely find an ATTAINABLE ac for epic the only problem. The actual method of attaining it castrates all other gear dependant qualities. DPS is degraded and the character becomes good at NOTHING except not getting hit.

Another problem: AC is an all or nothing event. Having a 20 is no different from a 30, which is no different from a 40, which is no different from a 50 or a 60 in end game content. Moderate increments don't yield moderate advantage.

Yet another problem: Full plate is garbage. A character wearing a dress gets more AC than the fighter in heavy full plate. It stinks.

A change I would like to see is incorporation of AC with a meaningful advantage without completely sacrificing everything underneath the sun in order to attain it. This change should allow damage mitigation and survivability for MELEES, meaning, DPS or TANK type characters, not wet noodle swinging untouchable characters who do nothing except survive. This should also not be an avenue for more caster domination/power, this should be wayyyy more difficult for a bluebar to achieve than for a melee, unless that bluebar is willing to seriously sacrifice their offensive and other defensive capabilities.

Kmnh
04-19-2012, 08:12 PM
1) Yes.

2) Raid bosses are stupid. They will keep hitting the high-AC character even if he does almost 0 damage, because of silly mechanics like threat gen and intimidate.

3) PUGs will stop waiting until a "tank" shows up to run the raids on boring mode.

sirgog
04-19-2012, 08:16 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

My signature proposes a solution, so you'll need to avoid it :)

1) - Yes.

2) - Several problems:
a) Each point of AC matters too much if you are 'on the die'. Example: When tanking elite (not debuffed in any way) Horoth at 94 AC, losing the effect of Recitation causes you to take nearly twice as much melee damage until that '+2' buff is active again. Contrast to a Fighter that loses Haste mid-fight and loses a mere 15% of their performance as a result.
b) Beyond about level 15, AC required to see meaningful damage mitigation is out of the reach of the more casual players, even on Normal difficulty quests, due to 'high-end' AC gear being so much better than readily available alternatives. (Compare, for instance, a crafted +5 Mithril Tower Shield of Superior Stability to something like the +5 adamantine heavy shield that might be the best thing a first-lifer might obtain). While other aspects of monster stats (such as damage per swing) on Normal and Hard are designed with casual/moderately casual players in mind, their To-Hit is balanced around the AC that a powergamer might have.
c) Investment in AC offers absolutely nothing until you reach certain thresholds where you start seeing at least some missed attacks (~35 in Elite Gianthold, ~82 in 6-player Epics). Contrast this to investment in HP (always useful) or saves (almost always useful).
d) Investment in AC comes at the expense of other defences that are more generally reliable (example: My fighter invests 2 feats in HP and 4 in AC which makes me amazing at tanking most CR 38 and under bosses but does little for the CR 39+ bosses which generally, except for Horoth elite, have massive To-Hit. The fighter that put all 6 of those feats into Toughness has better defenses against Epic LOB, Epic MA titans, etc).
e) There is a player perception that AC does not work at all in Epic content. This perception is wrong, but it has an impact as it means players do not pack To-Hit debuffs like we did when the level cap was 16 and there was no such perception.
f) Another player perception problem - that only robe-wearing toons can manage AC - which hasn't been true since you changed Mobility but the perception lingers on.

3) End result: All ten of these objectives met, or something close to it:
These were copy-pasted from my AC suggestions thread.
Goal #1: On Normal and Casual difficulties, a casual player that has made a moderate attempt at raising their Armor Class (level-appropriate items or buffs to Natural Armor, Protection and either wearing full plate and a shield or in a monk +AC stance) should take a lot less damage from most monsters. This should apply all the way from level 1 to 20 (and in future to 25), including in raids.
Goal #2: On Elite difficulty, a highly optimised first life character that has gone out of their way to acquire high-quality defensive equipment and that uses some form of defensive combat stance should take noticeably less damage from most monsters. Some monsters might still hit them easily, but these monsters should be used sparingly. This includes level-appropriate raids, so a 16th level character in elite Reaver's Fate should see significant mitigation from AC, which they do on Live today. Hard would be between these two.
Goal #3: On Epic difficulty, a highly optimised multi-TR character that is decked out in top-notch defensively-oriented raid/epic loot and that fights in a defensive combat stance should be missed often enough to matter by the majority of monsters and should observe significant AC-based damage mitigation from the tougher raid bosses. Again it is fine if some monsters (Bladesworn Assassins and the like) can still hit them easily, but these mobs should be in the minority. Edit for clarification: Epic may change a fair bit with the expansion, so let's rephrase this as 'Content that's designed for endgame players when played on its highest difficulty setting'
Goal #4: On all difficulties, character performance should scale with gear quality about as well as it does on melee DPS characters. Think of the performance increase a barbarian sees in Epic content when they improve from a Marilith Chain to an Epic Marilith Chain (both work but one is clearly better) - ideally an AC oriented character should see improvements in actual damage mitigation as they improve from, say, Fullplate of the Defender to Epic Red Dragonplate. At present, you need something of the calibre of the latter to see misses at all.
Goal #5: A wider range of AC should be relevant in all content. Currently in Shroud Normal, an AC of 8 is the same as an AC of 40 (everything hits you on a 2) and likewise an AC of 77 is the same as an AC of 97 (everything misses you on an 18, grazes on a 19 and hits on a 20).
Goal #6: The difference between 'stars-aligned' AC and 'standard raidbuffs AC' should be closed somewhat. The difference between unbuffed and buffed performance of AC-oriented characters is ridiculous - a player that has the exact AC to be only hit on a 20 (grazed on a 19) by elite Suulomades with a Bard song and Recitation might start taking 4-5 times the damage (and 14 times as many curses) once those buffs wear off and they are hit on a 14-20. No other character archetype is so severely reliant upon buffs as the AC-oriented tank. I consider debuffing bosses with the 'holy grail' combination of Cursespewing, Improved Cursespewing, Bestow Curse spell, Crushing Despair and Symbol: Pain to be a big part of this 'stars-aligned' AC, as dropping boss To-Hit by 18 is the same as adding 18 to a tank's AC.
Goal #7: Min-maxxing for AC should not be mandatory for tanks (like it basically was to tank at the level 16 cap), nor irrelevant (like it was pre U11 and almost still is against red/purple nameds in current Epic content). Increasing AC (by spending feats on Dodge/Mobility/CE instead of more Toughnesses) should be one way to tank, but not the only way.
Goal #8: If possible, the d20 system's '5% auto-hit, 5% auto-miss' should be preserved.
Goal #9: AC shouldn't trivialise content the way that it did when the level cap was 16 (where a single AC tank was the difference between 'this PUG can't complete normal VOD without pots' and 'this PUG can trounce elite no problems and finish with healers having 1300 mana')
Goal #10: Escalating returns on AC should go away. (See my thread for details, but be warned it has suggestions in it). Going from 350 DPS to 400 DPS on a melee helps your raid/party exactly as much as going from 450 to 500 would, but the difference between 92 and 94 AC in Elite Tower of Despair is massively bigger than the difference between 90 and 92 (again, this assumes big H has not been debuffed).

Dreamshifter
04-19-2012, 08:21 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Prior to Giant Hold? No. After that? Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Only a specific 19 points of AC matters, the rest (high or low) don't. How far you need to get for those last 19 points is often far too far for most characters.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

All AC should matter. Every point should help, we should never be able to ignore AC entirely. If you are looking at items, and one offers +4 AC over the other, it should always be something you have to at least consider. You might decide you don't need it, but it should be a decision, not something you don't even look at.

Scraap
04-19-2012, 08:23 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:




1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Multiple, but the highlights:

1) Pursuing damage avoidance doesn't go up at the same rate as output.

2) Maintaining the simplified (and it is simplified to say d20 system when you consider half the specialty cases that modify it listed in the srd adjust the final number rolled against quite a bit) range of useful AC limits the results of pursuing defenses.

3) Of the methods provided for physical damage mitigation where it does work, we've a choice between
a) taking little damage physically, and quite a bit magically
b) taking little damage from either
c) simply having a big enough HP bar and heal+spell amp that the damage is erased as if it never happened.
d) ducking/kiting

4) All the little bonuses adding together has the net result of diminishing each. Things like the halfling inherent ac boost are left largely pointless, even when factoring in the extra dex attainable, or for that matter, spending an entire feat on dodge.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


Ideally, and in a perfect world, a physical<->magical defense continuum so that the full range of armor sets are tough choices, not just fullplate/adamantine body or robes barring specialty epic items, that is effected not only by raw numbers, but by player actions beyond simply kite/shield-block/blugeon-it-with-big-numbers. In short, tactics based on the dungeon and it's denizens, not just math that might as well be based on a flat surface as we go room to room regardless of where we're at. (edit: wow trying to stay vague enough not to make a suggestion comes off as ranty)

bhgiant
04-19-2012, 08:23 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Not necessarily. It's either AC, mob to-hit, or both.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
AC pretty easy up to about level 10-14. After that, gear becomes scarce as you need to start getting very specific and hard to get items in order to gain any benefit.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change
To make most AC beneficial at end game. To make it so that if someone ground out all the AC gear they could, they would still be nigh untouchable BUT is you had a modest amount of investment, you still get a modest amount of damage mitigation.

daniel7
04-19-2012, 08:26 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes.
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
1. It's all or nothing. You would think that a Barbarian would want to wear medium armor so he gets hit a little less but instead he walks around in a robe because DDO doesn't work like that.
2. It's so gear intensive that new players can't (shouldn't) try out an AC build. New players often ask for advice on the forums about a build just to have the veteran players tell them not to even bother with AC on their first life because they have no gear and need to spend lots of time grinding it out.
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
I would like for lower AC scores to have some meaning. I would like to see some rogues walking around in leather and barbarians walking around in hide armor because it helps a little bit.
Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Comments in red.

orakio
04-19-2012, 08:29 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1) Yes

2) Too much potential to AC stack causes excessively high mob hit values and makes moderate to high(normal high.. not crazy max stacking AC) AC investments pointless as they are no better than running with 10 AC once a mob hits on a 2

3) To see moderate to heavy AC investments give returns to characters even through epic content without running into the problem of 95% avoidance due to complete AC stacking. Also for heavy armor characters to see AC that isn't easily exceeded by high dex chars with monk splash for wis to AC as well.

Desonde
04-19-2012, 08:30 PM
1) Yes

2) Uncontrolled numbers and power creep have resulted in the numbers being grossly unaligned with practicality and possibility.

3) Average toons should be hit 50% of the time, armored toons 10-20% of the time, toons that shouldn't be hit 85-90% of the time.

sirgog
04-19-2012, 08:33 PM
Oh one more thing.

Mob to-hit and damage per swing are generally too closely tied together.

In Epics there are really two types of (non-boss) mobs - ones that have low-ish To-Hit (missing 85 AC most of the time) and that do little damage in melee, and ones that have high To-Hit (hitting 92 AC more often than they miss, some even hit 100 AC a good quarter of the time) and these are the ones that do the most damage per swing.

This adds to the escalating returns on AC that I mentioned above.

Imatotalnoob
04-19-2012, 08:37 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1 yes
2 It does not increase with levels at the same rate as the monster to hit increases
3 The AC can be used by all class in all armours and not be able to get the best AC in a friggn dress as a ranger!

Correlan
04-19-2012, 08:39 PM
Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.



1) Yes

2) For AC to be workable in non epic content, A Tank build has to sacrifice a huge amount of time on attaining the best gear to reach a stellar AC and mitigate it with DR. Using Intimidate and Hate generation to maintain aggro. In non epic content this works reasonably well.
The problem being, a tank's DPS is relatively poor compared to everyone else. The movement penalty that tanks have is detrimental to the build, if everyone else can get to the mobs before the tank has even arrived, what is the point in having a tank?

If you have been fortunate to enough to aquire all the best gear and can reach that stellar AC that matters in non epic quests, as soon as you step foot inside even the lowliest of the 'easy' epics with a full group, the stellar AC becomes mediocre at best. Because the Tank has made sacrifices to reach that AC, a tank's DPS is poor when compared to other melee types. I'm not saying that they're useless, but if you let the tank beat down a mob, everyone else would be stood waiting after killing everything else. The problem being that the AC tank is taking as much incoming dmg as any other melee build, but taking far longer than anyone else to kill a mob. So, what is the point of taking a tank build into epics if they're taking as much dmg as everyone else? There isn't a point, unless you want a lengthy completion and flower sniffing along the way.

3) I, personally would like to see a workable AC that is useful in epic content and better damage mitigation for that knight in shining armour, who is taking it on the chin so others don't have to.

BananaHat
04-19-2012, 08:42 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1. Yes
2. That a d20 only has a limited range that it can be variable.
3. That a moderate AC at end game (40-60) feels like it has some usefulness vs. the current requirement for misses in the 75-100 range.

noinfo
04-19-2012, 08:46 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1. Yes there is.

2. The problem has nothing to do with monk splashes vs heavy armour, you have done a great job in balancing the two now to the point that I have a pretty even split between my ac toons as to which path they take. It is the scaling for non ac toons, the futility of AC in epic partly due to even trash mobs causing large grazing hits when you do manage to get to a workable ac.

Blur, Displacement and Shadow Fade (all low level abilities available to level 6 and below) all function BETTER than someone with epic level AC in virtually all epic situations. Some would argue that these effects stack and yes they do but look at who is able to cast/use these effects and you would see why many believe them to be the most OP in many cases (it is not traditional melee doing it)

3. I would like to see AC become relevant in all areas of the game but in a way that does not discount AC builds over non AC ones. Expand the die range like you did with epic trash but further with grazing only applying to those who are missed due to the expanded range (in the case of trash) or 13+ Purple 15+ Red 18+ Orange bosses if you are concerned with not being hit by grazing.
Less of the the healer timing heals based on massive hp damage per swing and wider variation of damage/attrition
Do not break the AC model and go for a DR approach, AC is core to the game this MMO is based off.

waterboytkd
04-19-2012, 08:47 PM
Goal #3: On Epic difficulty, a highly optimised multi-TR character that is decked out in top-notch defensively-oriented raid/epic loot and that fights in a defensive combat stance should be missed often enough to matter by the majority of monsters and should observe significant AC-based damage mitigation from the tougher raid bosses. Again it is fine if some monsters (Bladesworn Assassins and the like) can still hit them easily, but these mobs should be in the minority.

Not sure if we're really supposed to comment on others' posts, but I really wanted to comment on this.

The way I feel, Epic is not so much a difficulty setting as it is a mechanic to turn "heroic" level quests into "epic" level quests. I think the notion that Epic is the difficulty for the best of the best is, if not already, about to be trashed, because the increase in level cap is going to require us to get Epic XP, which means everyone, not just the best of the best, is going to NEED access to epics.

But I also think that the idea that epics are for the Best currently is also fallacious. To me, running epics seems a natural progression of the game for just about everyone: as a player plays this game, if they're like most, they try to get the best gear they can for the level they're at. Once a player reaches cap, they start raiding, then eventually start doing epics (sometimes doing the easier epics as they start raiding). But, eventually, most players start running epics. If most are doing it, it's not really for the Best of the Best, but for everyone, and as such it should probably not be scaled for the Best of the Best.

If AC in epic is only viable to the " highly optimised multi-TR character that is decked out in top-notch defensively-oriented raid/epic loot and that fights in a defensive combat stance", that means that AC is still going to be a dump stat for almost all melees, even those that took advantage of it in the earlier levels (or even the last few levels up to cap), once they start running epics. It seems like a really weird progression to me that a character who takes advantage of AC from levels 1-19 suddenly finds their AC useless from levels 20-25. I mean, it's not much different than the current issue of characters finding their AC useful up to GH, then finding it useless thereafter without serious investment, right?

PS I know MF said no suggestions, but the above to me is why I think, with the XPack, it would be cool if quests that have the Epic difficulty instead only have N/H/E, and then also have another check box for Heroic or Epic. So you could run Elite Epic Big Top if you wanted a challenge where you needed super high AC to not get hit, and needed super high to-hits to hit Malicia, but you could run Normal Epic Big Top if you were somewhat new to it, or were just running it on a character who only recently hit level 20, or if you were just absolutely sick of Malicia's super-high AC. Or, you could run Normal Epic LoB if you weren't interested in the brutal swingy-ness that often characterizes that raid on Epic currently, but could run Elite Epic LoB if you wanted the bragging rights.

Jitty
04-19-2012, 08:55 PM
1) Yes

2) Heavy investment =awesome returns, moderate investement=no return

3) The number on your sheet should have some meaning

Memnir
04-19-2012, 08:55 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes, absolutely and without question.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
To have an AC worth a **** in the second half of the game, you need to devote far too much to it to the detriment of other aspects of your character.

Also, it is far easier to achieve an AC worth a **** with pajama or robe wearers then it is to do so with plate armor.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
That shields and heavy armor need to count for more - either in terms of AC or DR. DR in this game is borked anyways and needs fixing as well, but that's another thread entirely.

noinfo
04-19-2012, 09:10 PM
Yes.




I would also like to see a heavy armored Kensai TWFing be able to get the same AC as his 18/2 monk-splashed counterpart. It's not as far off as many ignorant people think but I would like to see that gap closed.



My concern with something like this is that, the heavy armoured kensai has given up nothing where as the 18/2 splash has given up 10% straight up doublestrike from capstone AND if they have had to achieve an equivalent heavy armoured AC invest far more in DEX and WISDOM, items, slots as well as stat points. I have no problem with the pure kensai being able to achieve that AC too but I would expect that they have to give up just as much.

Claver
04-19-2012, 09:11 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

yes


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

AC is an all or nothing proposition - either nothing can hit you or everything can beyond a certain level and certain AC score


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


Curve the relevance of AC across a broader spectrum of levels. Make moderate AC moderately useful in the catacombs, moderately useful in Gianthold and moderately useful in Epic content. Make exceptional AC exceptionally useful in catacombs, exceptionally useful in Gianthold and exceptionally useful in Epic content.

Monkey-Boy
04-19-2012, 09:19 PM
My concern with something like this is that, the heavy armoured kensai has given up nothing where as the 18/2 splash has given up 10% straight up doublestrike from capstone AND if they have had to achieve an equivalent heavy armoured AC invest far more in DEX and WISDOM, items, slots as well as stat points. I have no problem with the pure kensai being able to achieve that AC too but I would expect that they have to give up just as much.

One could call that a trade-off for Evasion and two extra feats.

Last I check with "best in slot" items I think it's only a difference on 3-4 points on toons people actually might play/build. it's not as much as most think, only a few points.

noinfo
04-19-2012, 09:22 PM
My signature proposes a solution, so you'll need to avoid it :)
e) There is a player perception that AC does not work at all in Epic content. This perception is wrong, but it has an impact as it means players do not pack To-Hit debuffs like we did when the level cap was 16 and there was no such perception.
f) Another player perception problem - that only robe-wearing toons can manage AC - which hasn't been true since you changed Mobility but the perception lingers on.


e) Players really should not have to be packing too hit debuffs vs trash who no matter how debuffed are currently going to be grazing you on a 13+ anyway.

f) Is just so true and what is more with shield mastery unless you are a monk being AC 2WF is just not as good in general.

noinfo
04-19-2012, 09:32 PM
One could call that a trade-off for Evasion and two extra feats.

Last I check with "best in slot" items I think it's only a difference on 3-4 points on toons people actually might play/build. it's not as much as most think, only a few points.

I can't say I have done a best in slot check for a kensai so I won't comment here. But being 3-4 behind is acceptable to me.

Evasion without a good reflex save is not that spectacular and you would be lucky really if the 1 feat (you do get a fighter feat at 20 don't you?) covered the loss of hp from your con or other attribute required to be dropped so that you can have a decent (14) wisdom let alone the dex bump you would need.

pjstechie
04-19-2012, 09:40 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1) yes and no: no in that a (super) high AC value is a great defense, yes in that anything short of this is useless.

2) the window of to hit values is too low compared to the range of AC values - that is under normal circumstances a monsters attack roll range is only 19 numbers wide vs the (reasonably geared) AC value range of oh lets say 50-60.

3) i would like to see a larger range of relevant values of AC that works in a sort of sliding scale or usefulness culminating in how current AC (as in my AC is demi-godly and you cant touch me) works.

rcmcneil
04-19-2012, 09:40 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented? Partially.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

From DDO Compendium Glossary:
Armor Class (AC): A number representing a creature’s ability to avoid being hit in combat. An opponent’s attack roll must equal or exceed the target creature’s Armor Class to hit it. Armor Class = 10 + all modifiers that apply (typically armor bonus, shield bonus, Dexterity modifier, and size modifier).

This suggests that if you attain a high enough AC, you will only get hit on glancing blows and on auto-hit. It also suggests that there is enough gear/enhancements/feats/etc. to achieve this. It makes no reference to Armor Class being a "tank-only" ability. It makes no reference to a point at which Armor Class is no longer an achievable, functional, and reasonable part of the game.

Currently, high AC is only achievable with sacrifices made to nearly all other melee mechanics (dps, saves, hitpoints). Even if this high AC is achieved by level 20, it becomes useless the second you walk into an epic dungeon, making lower dps/saves/hp an issue. The sacrifices made to attain high AC do not outweigh the benefits to completely ignoring AC & going for other enhancements/feats/gear more suited to a "get-hit-except-on-a-1 build". Few other mechanics in the game have this stark imbalance.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Armor Class is supposed to matter to just about every character class, just like saves, hitpoints, DPS, healing ability, and spell DCs. These are mechanics DDO has advertised as having significance worthy of including throughout the game, with development investment in it reflected by the total number of AC-based Player Characters.

Stormblade721
04-19-2012, 09:42 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.
can gear out a
This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.l
I don't think the current systemote a a is broken, my biggest complaint with the system is AC for warforged characters. Most squishes with a bit of work are able to attain superlative armor classes. The same is not true for tin men. I can gear up a flesh based character and a warforged with equivalent gear, and the warforged armor class will grade out 20 to 30 points lower, with identical feats and gear. I truly would have thought it would be the other way around, as an war forged should be able to to carry as much as it wants to nails to it's physical form.

Aelonwy
04-19-2012, 09:51 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?


Absolutely Yes.



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?


The closer you get to endgame the more AC becomes all or nothing. That is you either have to devote all gear grinding, most or alot of feats, class levels, alot of enhancments, and alot of build points into attaining an AC which will actually matter or you ignore it completely in favor of DPS and HP/healing amp gear. You have to give up almost everything to achieve a crazy high AC, if you only achieve a moderate AC (middle of the road) it means almost nothing in the main game from I would actually say level 14 and above.

Part of the problem seems to be things that add to AC but for extremely unsustainable time limits (like AC boost) and/or requiring a certain party makeup to achieve a useful AC (Paladin, halfling in party). Things like that should really, really be considered bonuses and never be considered as part of the max. That is once upon a time someone posted the max attainable AC that they could achieve (that lasted perhaps a minute and a half tops) and it feels like the entire game was balanced around that AC threshold without considering that it required all gear slots, a particular race, a particular set of class levels, a particular build, and a particular party makeup to be with that person.

I'm sure thats not exactly true but it definitely feels that way.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


I want a moderate investment in AC to count for something. I don't understand how it ever became possible for us to achieve a 100+ AC (on very select builds with very select gear) but I don't want the game to be balanced around that anymore. I'm not saying tanks shouldn't be tanks, I'm saying it shouldn't take everything (build/gear/class/enahancements) to have an AC that causes the trash to have trouble hitting you. Maybe that should be true of bosses, but the trash? And I'm not saying it should be impossible for the trash to hit a moderate AC character but it should probably be impossible for the trash to hit the tank. Right now it feels like its balanced such that the trash can moderately or better hit the tank and the boss still can hit him pretty darn well but that means the trash hits everyone else 99% of the time.... especially since building a tank (or just a high AC character) requires so much investment most ppl don't even try.

People, especially newbies, are actively told from the beginning that unless they intend to build a tank to ignore AC entirely. There is definitely something wrong with that... the information is wrong to start with because in the early game AC helps, it works, it does what its supposed to without taking up every gear slot and every character choice... but the advice becomes more true the further into the game you get and that is also wrong.

Urjak
04-19-2012, 09:53 PM
1) Yes

2) During low levels it works more or less fine ... but the closer you get to level 20 and then especially in epic content AC is useless for 99,99% of all characters, since at least somewhat useable AC is only attainable by completely forsaking dps, heavy grinding for past lives and gear and having a very specialized build.
As it is atm I don't even look at AC enhancing buffs/gear ... since it simply doesn't matter ... on the average toon an AC of 50 or even 60 means you have put quite some work into reaching that AC ... but you could just as well run around with 0 AC ... it would mean no difference in epics ... thus with the exception of those few people who can actually manage to get 100+ AC all AC enhancing equipment is kinda useless atm ... at least for endgame that is ... this also renders a lot of gear options as well as feats and character build options useless, which is a waste

3) I would like to see a lot wider range of AC having an effect at least ... in pnp there were secondary attacks when you reached higher BAB ... I think mobs/bosses in DDO should have something similiar ... so that medium AC at least helps avoiding the weaker attacks ...
also I think mobs should have more diversed stats ... for example foes with rogue levels should naturally have a lower to-hit compared to fighter type foes ... foes with monster HD also have only 3/4 BAB as far as I remember

voxson5
04-19-2012, 09:58 PM
I think it needs to be put into perspective.

Are we talking about first life toons without access to guild buffs and twink gear (people who shouldn't really be running at level elite anyway).

Or the twinked and geared TR who's just looking for another past life?

Or the player just running epics and elite raiding?

There is a HUGE difference with all of these scenarios

voxson5
04-19-2012, 10:01 PM
1) for 99% of the game- it works fine, for epics- not so much

TheDjinnFor
04-19-2012, 10:05 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The situations where building for a high AC doesn't help you outweighs in importance and value the situations where building for a high AC helps you. In a nutshell, building for AC costs more than it is worth.

I'll illustrate this dichotomy with several points:

1. Investments in AC can greatly boost your survivability at lower levels but much less so in higher levels. Higher leveled mobs are generally more lethal to an individual player at-level than lower leveled mobs, so it is more important for AC to be valuable against the higher leveled enemies than the lower-leveled enemies when considering a build as a whole (and considering the fact that many builds stay at level 20 for quite some time, this is even more true). Because investments in AC are less useful against mobs that are already more lethal, AC is considerably less useful that it would otherwise be. For most other investments available to a character, they do not become significantly less useful the higher CR the enemy is.

2. Relevant investments in AC are harder to attain than other defensive investments. For example, to reduce melee damage from most enemies in the game by half a wizard need only cast a single level 4 spell (Displacement) on himself costing just 25 sp (and +10 sp to extend it). For another example, almost any class can sacrifice very little and obtain a 20-30 reflex save, which is enough to put them within a d20 roll of almost all damaging monster spells in the game. Given that, in nearly any raid situation, very strong heals that can fully fill an entire parties health are on just a 6 second cooldown timer, adding additional hp can greatly boost an individuals survivability as it allows them to withstand both the general damage output of the raid enemies in addition to high damage spikes. And finally when the need for sustainability in a tank arises (in very rare occasions), it is generally sufficient to use cheap, sp-free heals (i.e. Heal scrolls), on a tank who has invested moderately in Healing Amp (think 30% + 20% + 10% ship). As such most builds should prioritize AC investments last when considering defenses.

3. Relevant investments in AC are usually only useful against less popular content and are worth much less than investments in damage, which is useful in all content. For example, a Half-Orc Barbarian is useful for damage output in both Vision of Destruction on any difficulty and Lord of Blades on any difficulty, but a highly specialized defensive build with lots of investments in AC may only be useful in VoD on normal or hard for the utility of his or her defenses and can contribute little in hard or higher LoB.

4. Most other investments scale per point invested. Hp helps you last longer between heals for every point you add. Spell DCs are low enough overall that each additional point of reflex save decreases the average damage you take from spells (after a certain easy-to-reach minimum). Every point in damage, attack speed, crit rating, and double strike increases your damage output no matter how little or much damage output you already have. Only for AC and attack rolls is this not true.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change

In a nutshell, each of the above four problems must be solved: each point of AC added above a fairly low initial number needs to add a material benefit to a characters survivability. AC would stop being a strong factor in a limited number of quests and raids and start being a moderately useful factor in the majority of quests and raids. Useful AC would stop being nearly impossible to get at higher levels and maybe stop being so easy to get at lower levels. And each individual investment in AC needs to be comparable to investments in other defenses.


Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

That is indeed tricky to do. :D

I'll compromise: I'll suggest a solution but make it brief. The problem with AC is really a problem of monster attack bonuses. Make the individual rolls vary more and make the attack bonuses of different monsters in the quest vary more, and you've suddenly expanded the "you must have between 83 and 102 AC to see a defense benefit" range into a "you must have between a 23 and a 122 AC to see a defense benefit range".


Mob to-hit and damage per swing are generally too closely tied together.

In Epics there are really two types of (non-boss) mobs - ones that have low-ish To-Hit (missing 85 AC most of the time) and that do little damage in melee, and ones that have high To-Hit (hitting 92 AC more often than they miss, some even hit 100 AC a good quarter of the time) and these are the ones that do the most damage per swing.

Also, ^this.

Edit: Heck just read sirgog's post, it says the same basic thing in less words.

QuantumFX
04-19-2012, 10:05 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

BokBokBokkkkkkk!!! :) It’s on now. Every time I snip one of your posts I’m adding chicken noises! :D


1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The TLDR Answer: It’s very powerful at levels 1-8 and then quickly become irrelevant.

The Long Answer:

The core of the problem is that your team thinks like a bunch of MMORPG developers and not Pencil & Paper Dungeon Masters. This manifests itself in a variety of ways:

First, I got introduced to the design philosophy of one of your lead DDO devs a few years ago. I don’t have the exact quote, but the gist of the message was “People play MMOs to see big numbers”. This doesn’t work in a game where the biggest dice you can roll is a d20. First, you give us unnecessary +5/+10 to hit bonuses (Rather than penalties) to keep this game from becoming a charge attack festival. And then you try to balance it by giving stuff like sacred bonus AC auras. Escalation will not help you. All it does is make the d20 roll irrelevant and cause problems like this:

A character can invest heavily into AC and it won’t provide any meaningful damage avoidance from melee attacks at the higher levels of this game.
Since it becomes too difficult to get that damage mitigation, other systems like concealment bonuses become more important than AC at the high end of the game.
Armor becomes so meaningless to most of the classes that can wear it, that they switch to outfits and robes to avoid Skill Penalties/Arcane Spell Failure/equipping times.
In order to invest in it, you are required to stack 4 different dodge bonus items on one character.


Second, when this game came out, you guys seem to be married to the idea of “This class is a ‘tank’. This class is a ‘mezzer’. This class is ‘DPS’.” You’re a lot better at this. But, for the love of God, cut the gordan knot that the original devs tied for you already. “Tanking” shouldn’t be limited to fighters and paladins.

Third, you guys tend to over-think solutions rather than looking at your source material. The whole grazing hits system was a pointless and completely useless thing to implement. If monk splashes are giving you AC balance issues you take the time to find out why. It’s because TWF builds didn’t have the option to leverage the rules involving shields. “Sword and Board” is a flippin’ Two Weapon fighting style. I can trade some offhand DPS and a feat for a buckler shield. Or I can trade some weapon DPS for a heavier shield. If one of your team is chomping at the bit to make a complex game system… they can always work on improving the hireling A.I.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

That you make AC into a game mechanic that all classes will be interested in investing in it, but won’t require them to devote every equipment slot to it.

That a character with a decent AC and good saves shouldn’t have to have 1-2 dedicated “Healers” in order to fight a “Boss”.

Expalphalog
04-19-2012, 10:08 PM
1) Before Gianthold, no. After that, dear lord yes.

2) Devoting some time and gear to AC yields no results. Devoting quite a bit of time and gear to AC yields no results. Devoting ALL of your time and gear to AC yields excellent results. Nothing else functions like this in DDO. 10% Healing Amp? Not great, but it does have an effect. 50 DPS? Well, you'll never lead the kill count, but at least you CAN still kill stuff. 40AC? Significantly harder to achieve than the other two, and yet you're absolutely no better off than the guy with 9AC once you hit level 16 or so.

3) For AC to matter at all levels. The difference between 30 AC and 40 might be as small as the difference between 10% and 15% Healing Amp, but there should still be a difference.


Personal note: AC becomes broken before Epics. The majority of players are not min/maxers and since that's the only way to achieve worthwhile AC there is clearly an issue. Don't get me wrong, I know that min/maxers (or "optimizers" or whatever they prefer to be called) will always have the best toons and that's fine. Heck, it's more than fine, it's the way it should be. But there is a difference between "worthwhile" and "best."

Impaqt
04-19-2012, 10:10 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Technically, its "Implemented" exactly how the Source material says it should be.... Unfortunately, its not Functional in this game, so I have to say YES. Its broken.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

It is unreasonable to achieve a reasonable AC in this game. Characters that DO get to a functional number are generally useless for any quest that doesn't require their service. The system basically forces you to build a character for a handful of quests or the rest.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


I would hope that if any change is made, the result would be a much larger range of functional AC while maintaining a appreciable difference for toons that do choose to focus all their effort on AC.

Its a good thing you didnt want suggestions.. cause I would have no idea how to do that.

Kielbasa
04-19-2012, 10:12 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1) Yes
2) The problem is that there are far too many different sources of ac. There's armor, shield, dexterity, wisdom, dodge, incite, and natural sources of armor class just to name a few. The other problem with this is that the UI does a poor job of showing what stacks and what does not stack. For example dodge 1,2,3 and 4 stack while armor 5 through 8 does not a new player is going to have a very tough time figuring this out. The changes to the chat log recently where it lists out what buffs your character has upon login is a good step in the right direction. Another problem is that you can have characters at level 20 with 10 to 20 ac and some that are 70 to 100 ac. This massively inflates monster to hit so that people who moderately invest in ac have that investment marginalized.
3) Reduce some of the stacking of different sources of ac, lower player and monster to hit and ac, Clean up the UI so that you can clearly see where your ac is coming from. The same thing can be said of other things in the game certain things stack and the sky's the limit while others don't.

HungarianRhapsody
04-19-2012, 10:17 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1) Yes.

2) AC is entirely worthless if you are under the "break point" and there is no difference between 0 AC and one point less than that break point. There is no incentive to build for AC unless you go completely nuts with it AND it is exceptionally hard to build for since it is so very gear intensive - more so than any other character build option.

3) I would like AC to be at least marginally relevant at every amount. I would like 0 AC to be at least a bit different than 50 AC even when the enemies attacking you have a +75 To Hit. I don't care if there are builds that are effectively immune to melee attacks at low level. That's not a problem. Twinked characters are effectively immune to low level quests in the first place. I don't particularly mind if exceptionally well geared characters are highly resistant to melee damage even in Epic content since they are spending so much of their character's build focus AND gear slots on AC... and also, there are still lots of other ways for those characters to die in quests.

The "nightmare scenario" of having AC actually be effective to the point where some characters are close to immune to melee damage really isn't a nightmare to me. I am confident that a large majority of DDO players will still manage to die in quests.

GeneralDiomedes
04-19-2012, 10:18 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The fact your damage mitigation ranges from all (95%) to nothing (5%), and that the window of AC values which fall into this range are small.

I have no problem with the gear requirements .. 95% damage mitigation is a major advantage .. other MMOs have nothing remotely close to that.

A simple partial solution would be to lower mob TH and give them a TH progression so the average works out to just what it is now. Make the progression un-interruptible by target change or movement.

Of course, I think LOTRO-style block/evade/parry/DR% mechanics are better .. but this still has to remain D&D.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

It should be realistically possible to have an AC that does "something" better than having no AC at all. From there, it should get progressively more difficult to being even harder than it is now to get 95% mitigation.

Bronko
04-19-2012, 10:21 PM
* SNIP *



1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


* SNIP *

1) AC is meaningless in so many cases and obtaining a meaningful AC in the rest of the game is extremely difficult to obtain.

2) A character's ability to contribute to any content is disproportionately gimped if they have an AC focus making them almost completely worthless in all but a few niche cases. Heavy armor wearing builds have almost no chance of competing with light or no armor wearing builds making the former a substandard character.

3) Make AC meaningful at all levels, including epic content. Allow AC to be through methods other than just feats and super-gear. AC from heavy armor and shields should have a different "flavor" than AC from robes to reflect the different way they have been achieved.

macubrae
04-19-2012, 10:22 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1) Yes.
2) Like many before me have stated, it is all or nothing.
3) A reason to have AC after level 15, that does not gimp everything else to do so. A logical progression of armors would be usefull. And why the heck is the best AC armor in the game, light armor? eRakshasa Hide with max dex bonus allowed comes to a 28AC. eCalvary Plate(tier 3) is only a 19AC. Why isn't the best AC in the game some sort of full plate(adamantine or mithral)? Again, a logical progression of armors.

Blank_Zero
04-19-2012, 10:30 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1. Yes.

2. The requirements for AC scale in a ridiculous manner. Worse even that the amount of XP needed to cap a 36 point TR (The latter has been remedied to an extent, but it's still a lot). I understand it's more due to the areas in question of scaling were the Endgame at one point, but it's just gotten worse as the level cap has gone up and up.

3. I'd like to see AC be a viable option through all levels of play, including Current and Future endgame, as well as Epic quests.

luvirini
04-19-2012, 10:32 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1: Yes
2: Too small band of AC:s that matter. Either you get near immunity or you get hit all the time. For example some monster has +60 to hit, then AC 60 will not help at all and AC 80 means you are nearly invulnerable.
3:Wider variety of ACs should help to reduce damage and it should be harder to get the near invulnerability.

sirgog
04-19-2012, 10:39 PM
I have to say that I don't agree with people that say AC works fine up to Gianthold.

AC is insanely overpowered in lower level content. Characters that invest in AC have a near blanket immunity to almost everything that the ~75% of mobs that are mostly melee can do to you.

Players aren't allowed to get fire immunity because that would make fire elementals (and other foes) totally trivial. But for ~14 levels we have basically immunity to melee damage if we gear out for AC.

sephiroth1084
04-19-2012, 10:41 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:


1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

AC late in the game (hard/elite raids, epics) needs to be unreasonably high in order to have any effect at all.
Attaining very high AC is difficult. By that, I mean that it requires a devotion of more feats, enhancements and equipment slots than basically any other attribute our characters are concerned with, and is largely restricted to rare items (raid items, epic items, low-drop named items).
Coupled with the above, there is really very little by way of return for people "on their way" to attaining meaningful AC. Unlike for things like DPS, where a lowish DPS character (someone using Cannith crafted items and some lower-level DPS gear) can still contribute fairly meaningfully in their role in almost all content, and can even do so when someone else clearly outclasses them, AC is an all or nothing deal: either you have enough to not get hit some of the time (and really, players are a fickle folk, so we're really looking for a significant miss chance--say the 20-50% range at minimum), or your AC is totally meaningless.
AC is of limited use across the last fifth of the game (levels 16-20), in part because of the difficulty attached to making it work at all, and in part due to the game mechanics that indicate that crowd control and over-healing tend to make up for characters with lots of offense and no defense, and in part because we have so few places where more than one character having AC has any meaning. If you are focused on AC, but someone else is tanking (raid or otherwise), your AC becomes rather meaningless, and so too does your investment. Many players are admonished for holding a shield when beating on something's backside.
The difference between an ideal party (a ranger with Barkskin +5, a divine with Recitation, an arcane with Haste, a bard with Inspire Heroics, a Defender of Siberys III and an artificer with Enchant Armor and Enchant Weapon--for a shielded character) and a group missing some of the key bonuses is too large. That's a difference of as much as 17 points if your AC tank would be a fighter (doesn't carry his own aura). That's almost a completely separate d20 from the same fighter in a party without those buffs, or during a situation where he doesn't have them.

Putting that all together, the problem with AC is that it requires a high investment that only rarely pays off, and basically never does in the true endgame, and when it doesn't, you're left with a sub par character. This is more true, I think, for characters without enough bonus feats and enhancements to also build for DPS (a fighter, for example, can pick up all of the AC/tanking feats and stuff like Greater Two-Weapon Fighting in order to swap roles when needed), but is definitely not restricted to those characters.




3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


AC should be relevant in all levels of gameplay, especially epics and raids (and epic raids).
There really needs to be some return for players who are making an attempt at AC, but who can't reach the highest tiers, or who simply haven't yet. The fact that in Lord of Blades on normal, an AC of 60 is the same as an AC of 0 is a problem, for instance.
AC gear should not continue to draw upon so many equipment slots.
AC should not render characters devoted to it largely useless in places where their AC isn't relevant (in this case, I'm also including things like Shield Mastery). Currently we have Dodge, Mobility, Past Life: Fighter, and Combat Expertise as AC feats, with Shield Mastery and Improved Shield Mastery as tanking-themed feats (basically there to justify wearing a shield), which take up a lot of a character's feats, and do nothing to actually help them hold aggro or kill the stuff beating on them or their party members.
There should be more of a penalty for not having AC than there currently is.
There should be more emphasis on having multiple characters that can defend or support themselves, possibly in a way that doesn't simply promote casters even further.
I'd like to see the exclusivity of buffs get reduced.

Galeria
04-19-2012, 10:46 PM
Yes.

The investment in AC is not worth it to end up with a character that can hardly damage anything.
Light and medium armor are pretty pointless.
The AC number means nothing unless it's stupidly high.

Would like an investment in AC to be reflected with graduated benefits instead of all or nothing.

sephiroth1084
04-19-2012, 10:59 PM
Oh one more thing.

Mob to-hit and damage per swing are generally too closely tied together.

In Epics there are really two types of (non-boss) mobs - ones that have low-ish To-Hit (missing 85 AC most of the time) and that do little damage in melee, and ones that have high To-Hit (hitting 92 AC more often than they miss, some even hit 100 AC a good quarter of the time) and these are the ones that do the most damage per swing.

This adds to the escalating returns on AC that I mentioned above.
Agreed. We should see more lowish to-hit, high-damage monsters (think about how the pen and paper Power Attack works, with a potential -20 attack, and +40 damage, or up to +100 damage on a Frenzied Berserker with Leap Attack), and some more high to-hit, moderate damage types.

I have to say that I don't agree with people that say AC works fine up to Gianthold.

AC is insanely overpowered in lower level content. Characters that invest in AC have a near blanket immunity to almost everything that the ~75% of mobs that are mostly melee can do to you.

Players aren't allowed to get fire immunity because that would make fire elementals (and other foes) totally trivial. But for ~14 levels we have basically immunity to melee damage if we gear out for AC.
I feel like grazing hits addresses this somewhat, but, yes, this also needs addressing.

Veriden
04-19-2012, 11:06 PM
Edit: Also a nerf to monk wis-to-ac is in order, monks and monk splashes have become defensive powerhouses when it should be left to heavy armor and shields.

Um...no. The best defense is to not get hit at all, heavy armor should reduce incoming damage not negate it. People who wore heavy armor in the medieval days were bruised to all hell after battle due to being beat on like a drum they merely took a greatly reduced amount of damage because their armor took the brunt of it. A person NOT wearing 50lb of armor is more likely to dip, dive, dodge, duck, and dodge much better than some one who is a walking panzer. If you can dodge a ball, you can dodge a spear.

On topic. Yes, there is something wrong with Ac, the monster's scaling to hit is far to drastic in it's increase. I understand getting people injured is your job but some one who is built to be jet li or bruce lee should be able to put even the most powerful lumbering creatures to frustration in their attempts to hit. Even in pen and paper it's fairly difficult to get a lot of damage per strike out of defensive character and its difficult to even get to ac 60 with out some wack job build.

Yazston_the_Invoker
04-19-2012, 11:32 PM
1) yes

2) It takes some good dedication to get a useful AC past level 13 or 14, and even then, it takes some decent twink gear to have a viable AC past level 8 or so...

3) I'd like to see AC mean something all the way to cap...Epic is another beast and SHOULD require dedication, but you should be able to get an AC by lv20 that would at least help in a normal shroud, without having to farm raids and/or epics. Also, it would be nice to see new players able to put together a moderately useful AC...think of it as a fighter's version of being able to cast blur or displacement. I would also like to see it possible for those who DO dedicate time and effort to make an AC toon that could run all but the best epic content and be near unhittable. yes, that might seem broken, but in my opinion, someone who dedicates enough time and effort to get the gear they need and the perfect build, SHOULD be rewarded for their efforts...and the game should not be balanced towards that end.

Also, there are quite a bit of people that seem to call for easier healing options for non-blue bar classes, since after a point wands and pots become almost useless in the middle of a battle. It would be nice to be able to hold one's own without having to max UMD, or build specifically towards popping SF pots in the middle of a fight...one way to do this would be to make armor, particularly heavy armor, viable as damage mitigation throughout the game. It would be nice to be able to solo quests as a pure fighter SD, and only have to rely on non-SF healing pots. Problem is now that to get that level of AC and DR, it is nigh impossible for a first lifer, and takes amazing amounts of farming.

just my opinion... :D

Monkey-Boy
04-19-2012, 11:33 PM
I have to say that I don't agree with people that say AC works fine up to Gianthold.

AC is insanely overpowered in lower level content. Characters that invest in AC have a near blanket immunity to almost everything that the ~75% of mobs that are mostly melee can do to you.

Players aren't allowed to get fire immunity because that would make fire elementals (and other foes) totally trivial. But for ~14 levels we have basically immunity to melee damage if we gear out for AC.

Yes, god forbid melee not have to chug cure pots or be chained to a healer.

God forbid melees have some independence.

Compared to firewall . . . you're call low-level AC OP? You've got to be kidding me.

Jaxom_Faux
04-19-2012, 11:37 PM
1) yes

2) AC is a formality. it's all or nothing and i believe takes far too much investment to be useful. (basically insert what everyone else has said for #2)

3) i would like ac to always be useful. i would like my characters wearing platemail to have a reason other than i think it looks cool. (again insert just about everything said for #3)

also to everyone discussing pnp... hp is not life points, it's a combination of toughness, fatigue and determination. a lvl 1 fighter and a lvl 20 fighter have exactly the same amount of life, one just knows how to survive better.

same deal with AC. ac from armor isn't take less damage, it's the blade cannot penetrate so it might as well have missed. sure in real life you take a bruise, but that's considered trivial in the game world.

feel free to disagree, but i'm just pointing out what the good 'ol phb says.

GoldyGopher
04-19-2012, 11:44 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1) Depends on what you mean by "wrong". You have implemented AC and Attack and Damage extremely close to the way the source material is written, with that in mind there is nothing wrong with it.
However the Source material is for a PnP game where campaigns might run for years before characters reach 10th level as opposed to the the way MMO's work where characters can pike for two days and have their first character reach level 10. Obviousily its not working in the minds of the MMO players.

2) Do you have about two weeks, a white board and four cases a beer a day and I could explain it in detail. The very short version is listed below.

The basis of the problem to begin with AC is an all or nothing function in the game that becomes harder to achieve as your character levels and impossible once you reach epic level.
At level 4 for example if you have a 23 AC you will be hit often enough that a rent-a-clerics will blow their entire SP bar keeping you healed. Yet same quests with a 24 AC and you ask yourself why do you have a healer in your party. As you move up in levels it becomes harder for characters to stay above that AC hit bar at roughly level 12 you have to choose AC or HP and if you weren't prepared your character becomes worthless one way or the other.
Once you reach the Epic level characters with AC in the god like range (over 100) are hit on basically every attack which means you put everything into that character for AC you can and now cannot do anything else to help your party.
The next part of the problem is it is to easy for characters to take damage and blow it off. Because AC is so pointless a 800 HP Barbarian is tanking taking 100 points at a chop and no ill effects.
The next part of the problem because of the blue bars it is too easy to repair/heal all that damage.
In the Epic part of the game there is too much damage and not enough damage reduction.
While I deal with the part above its the resulting play styles from all that above that annoys the **** out of me. In older games the importance of team work to complete raids/quests was very important, in DDO players ask themselves why we bring so many characters (ranged, rogues, ...) into raids when four Barbarians and four healers and a couple Arcanes probably have the easiest time in Epics Raids. DPS/Mass Heals and a little crowd control/buffage.

3) I would love to see more play styles achive "playable" status. Not just some big DPS characters and healers.

BoBoDaClown
04-19-2012, 11:47 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1) Yes

2) AC is either worthless or too powerful. Going by Pnp rules allowd for 95% mitigation which is ridiculous, thus the devs making useful AC diffficult to attain in order to keep the challenge.

3) Where most AC scores (non dumped) give value, but you can't have 95% mitigtion from it.

AZgreentea
04-19-2012, 11:52 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1. Honestly I'm not sure. I've only tried to build an AC based character once, and she has only made it to lvl 6 after a year. I suppose the fact that an AC based character is relegated to 'flavor' compared to any other form of gameplay would suggest a problem.
2. In my experience it is simply a huge investment of resources (both gear and feats) that mean you have to sacrifice other aspects of play (healing, casting, and DPS). A decent AC means you spend your time walking around in heavy armor while your party members do their thing.
3. A change that makes AC an equal consideration to building a character, and not something you do because you have run out of other things to do in DDO.

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.
That is going to be a tough proposition for a lot of fourmites. :D

Denssor
04-19-2012, 11:52 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes, but I also feel damage mitigation is part of the problem.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

A couple of things. One being that AC has certain thresholds to be met. If your under it your getting hit 95% of the time. If your past the first threshold, your getting hit between 10-90% of the time. If your above it, your only getting hit 5% of the time. You are either in one of these three spots. It takes quite of bit of grinding just to past the first threshold, and to pass the second threshold you need even more grinding along with the right build.

The second things is cloth vs. full plate. I feel cloth should allow you to move freely and allow you to dodge and evade attacks, like it does now, but full plate should be able to mitigate the damage from being hit which it doesn't do right now (unless you have adamant, but that bonus DR is a joke at endgame).


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

I would like to see AC have a larger range of being meaningful, where just about any amount of AC helps. I'm not saying a low AC is going to help lot, but make it so there is a difference between an AC of 10, an AC of 30, and an AC of 50.

I also would like to see more reason to wear full plate and heavier armors. Maybe give heavier armor some DR or better chance of glancing blows. Cloth isn't going to protect you any if you do get hit. Chain mail, full plate, those might be harder to dodge in, but they should absorb some of the damage through either DR or glancing blows.

Scraap
04-20-2012, 12:12 AM
3) I would like to see a lot wider range of AC having an effect at least ... in pnp there were secondary attacks when you reached higher BAB ... I think mobs/bosses in DDO should have something similiar ... so that medium AC at least helps avoiding the weaker attacks ...
also I think mobs should have more diversed stats ... for example foes with rogue levels should naturally have a lower to-hit compared to fighter type foes ... foes with monster HD also have only 3/4 BAB as far as I remember

A few SRD notes, with DM options ranging from most to least confined:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm



Full Attack

This line shows all the physical attacks the creature makes when it uses a full-round action to make a full attack. It gives the number of attacks along with the weapon, attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The first entry is for the creature’s primary weapon, with an attack bonus including modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. The remaining weapons are secondary, and attacks with them are made with a -5 penalty to the attack roll, no matter how many there are. Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower.

A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1½ times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only ½ the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses.


That one's a strictly enforced primary+ secondary/tertiary/ect at half str damage+ a -5to-hit.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm


Increasing Hit Dice

As its Hit Dice increase, a creature’s attack bonuses and saving throw modifiers might improve. It gains more feats and skills, depending on its type, as shown on Table: Creature Improvement by Type.

Note that if a creature acquires a character class, it improves according to its class, not its type.


The chart after the quote has the 3/4 progression you'd mentioned in quite a few of it's entries, although there are a few creature-type outliers going as low as 1/2.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm


Base Attack Bonus

A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combinations thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types. A second attack is gained when a base attack bonus reaches +6, a third with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, and a fourth with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Base attack bonuses gained from different sources, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.


That one supports a raw BAB based itterative attack bonus/penalty range noted in the last line of the second quote.

Think I'll stop there before I start using the 'S' word. (Besides, I already threw out a tl;dr version dealing with that aspect at one point. :p)

Krell
04-20-2012, 12:19 AM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

I wouldn't say something is wrong with it since that would indicate there is a right way it should be modeled after. In D&D AC for the most part becomes irrelevant at high levels so you couldn’t say it is wrong because it doesn’t capture the spirit of D&D. It can be very helpful for low to mid levels and less for high levels, but this doesn’t make it wrong and is similar to other benefits, such as resists in many cases. It requires a very high investment to be useful in limited end game content, but that doesn’t make it wrong and the same could be said for skills such as intimidate or diplomacy.

Today for the most part damage is managed through mitigation such as DR, blur/displacement, stoneskin, protections, spell resistances, evasion/reflex save, etc. If you add AC as a more readily available source of damage mitigation, then you have to decide if balancing has to take place, or if less damage across the board on average is ok, and either choice could cause problems.

So to summarize, I wouldn’t say something is wrong with it based on any existing standards, but I do think it would be interesting to see any proposed changes and how that would impact game balance. Game balance including melee to caster, and even balance between different melee classes since some are inherently easier to build AC with, would be challenging.

yk49
04-20-2012, 12:35 AM
1) yes.

2) mob to-hit inflation. quite obvious isnt it.
item sources of AC bonus need revamp too maybe, for example the uber-complicated way dodge bonuses stack.

3) clerics are proficient with fullplate. FvSes are not.
as is, fullplate proficiency for clerics are nothing but player trap.
wearing fullplate does nothing but penalize their jump/balance and such for the armor check penalty.
make these clerics' 35 AC matter and offer better protection than FvSes' 28 AC, even slightly.
when thats achieved, i consider this problem being resolved.

btw, same thing can be said for concentration checks.
mob damage is so inflated on high end contents that quicken feat is must-have for everyone.
well its been like that for 3+ years or so and everyone's so used to it though its one thing i dont feel DnD.

moshptato
04-20-2012, 12:36 AM
I stopped reading after the first couple of pages, so I apologize if I’m repeating someone else’s comments. Here’s what I’ve got:

Is there something wrong with the AC system as currently implemented?

Yes.

If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The current AC system works well at lower levels, but completely falls apart at endgame. The root cause of this is the D20 system. By its very nature, it is not scalable. It wasn’t designed to deal with armor classes above 60 because you usually don’t see that sort of thing in pen and paper. Furthermore, DDO has added several mechanics that don’t exist in the tabletop system (such as glancing blows and double strike) which the D20 system doesn’t take into account. What I’m saying is; nobody screwed up the AC system, it just wasn’t designed for a game like DDO.

That said; here are the three well known issues that need to be addressed:

1) The “all or nothing” issue: Anyone who has been playing for more than a few months knows that if you can’t get your AC above 90, there is really no point in putting any effort into it. The only reason that the majority of melees even bother to wear armor at all is to gain the secondary bonuses (like healing amp or threat increase).
2) The “what’s the point” issue: Even if you manage to get your AC above 90, natural 20s and glancing blows will still hit you. To make matters worse, achieving that 90 AC requires so much sacrifice in other areas that few high AC characters are truly effective in combat.
3) The “pajama vs. heavy armor” issue: Many players are bothered by the idea that a monk in a robe is harder to hit (or more importantly, harder to damage) than a character wearing full plate armor and carrying a shield.

If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1) I would like for there to be some sort of meaningful benefit from having an AC in the middle of the spectrum. An AC of 90 should, of course, be more beneficial than an AC of 50, but an AC of 50 should not be worthless.
2) There should be some sort of difference between the benefit of agility based AC and armor based AC. They represent fundamentally different approaches to defense, and there is a lot of potential for fun customization options if they are treated separately.
3) Whatever the solution ends up being, it needs to be scalable. If, in five years, you decide that the level cap is going up to 40, you don’t want to be back here trying to figure out a new AC system.

lugoman
04-20-2012, 12:37 AM
Yes

A guy in full plate armor and a tower shield should not have less ac than a guy in a robe with a lot of wisdom.

There should be some variation between armor and robe wearers. Maybe armor users get hit more, but for less due to dr. Robe users get hit less, but when they do it is for a lot of damage.

Niv-mizzet
04-20-2012, 12:46 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1. yes

2. The arms race between AC and to-hit with only a 20 point variance puts us in the situation where any AC that is high, but not high enough, is useless. (regarding higher levels.)

3. That the AC mechanics would in some way make everyone from any class want to strive to fit higher AC into their build. That even slightly improving your AC at high levels from "abysmal" to "not quite abysmal" has some effect.

morticianjohn
04-20-2012, 12:53 AM
No

JasonJi72
04-20-2012, 01:03 AM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?



1. Yes, absolutely!

2. a. Too hard to obtain for high level content.

b. If you do get viable end game AC, congratulations, you have now gimped your character for 85% of the game.

c. Once you have finally got to where you want to be with past lives and very hard to obtain gear, what you have put all that effort toward is now wasted, because now you are running epics.

3. a. My hope is that anyone could build an AC character if they wanted too put forth the effort, and still be able to play end game / epic content using the primary ability (AC) that they built their character for. (Casters complain about SR... OMG!)

b. Using armor and shields have some effect on glancing blow damage reduction. Something like a 5/10/15% for armor and a stackable 5/10/15% for shields with the shield mastery feats adding 5/10%.

c. An AC rating listed on the entrance pannel to quests, listing the AC required to only be hit on a 1 for the majority of the mobs in that quest.

AC should require a significant investment, but should remain viable throughout the entire game if you put forth the effort. The current system will work, we just need some tweakage and more gear options.

paraplegic
04-20-2012, 01:06 AM
after reading 6 pages ..


who think AC is fine as it is? better question i belive.

redspecter23
04-20-2012, 01:24 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Breaks down slightly in high levels and is completely broken in epic.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

AC as a viable form of damage mitigation in all content, not just non epic. Casters had abilities adjusted for epic a while back because the way they played became so vastly different between standard content and epic (instakills were added back in). AC characters should be given the same treatment in that their defenses should be viable in epic if they invest enough into it. Currently even if you can get AC up to epic levels, the grazing hit system keeps it in check anyway and comes very close to making it moot even if you do get enough AC to matter as something as simple as displacement has a similar effect and is so much simpler and easier to come by.

maddmatt70
04-20-2012, 01:51 AM
Yes there is something wrong with ac specifically at the end game. I would say there is two types of AC. There is AC for trash mobs or just mobs in general and there is AC for end bosses/raid bosses.

Sadly even in the Cannith outdoor areas my ac character needs an ac of close to an 80 ac to have trash opponents miss much of the time. Of course by doing so that means it takes him much longer to kill mobs so having AC pays a heavy price. Now for bosses my character is actually more relevant but of course this does not include epic raid bosses which require a 110+ ac. Really the fact that an ac character has to sacrifice and grind so much to gain so little just makes it painful. It takes 10 years to kill a mob and they hit me like I made no sacrifice = weak..

Aashrym
04-20-2012, 01:55 AM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1) yes
2) meaningless in some content and misleading as it starts strong and becomes less relevant later on
3) defensive features for classes that become meaningful forms of damage mitigation

EDIT: PS, let us know when you want suggestions.... I'm sure they will be plentiful... ;)

maddmatt70
04-20-2012, 01:59 AM
[COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"]1)

Also, it is[B] far easier to achieve an AC worth a **** with pajama or robe wearers then it is to do so with plate armor.


This is totally incorrect. I had to work ridiculously hard on my ac rogue to make AC worth a **** and on a Full plate character it requires much less gear and they can much more easily swap to a dps two hander and kills things quicker if a full plate character wants.

If you do not like monks just say so, but a twf rapier character should not get hurt just saying - its brutal..

letour
04-20-2012, 02:01 AM
I personnaly find that Ac have some problem compare to the Pnp.

In Pnp, the monster attack have these rating +19/+12/+7.With those value even if you are hit by the monster a first time the other time you may be able to be miss. This concept was supposed to mean speed of character. In ddo, what you have is only increase speed when leveling up and we didn't really sacrifice any hit bonus for it.

Also, in Pnp, a tricky could use some monster with power attack to trick some poeple who didn't care about AC. Some monster hurt a lot more on poeple with 8 AC, but will still the 32 AC tank.

There are two things why it work on Pnp and not on DDO.

Havok.cry
04-20-2012, 02:10 AM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1 Yes
2 I think the problem is how focused you have to be to be an AC tank. I believe every build should be able to contribute meaningful DPS (not barb, but still decent) DPS, in addition to their primary focus and AC tanks cant do that. I might be wrong about that, but that is my current perspective.
3 I would hope to see characters able to build AC as a secondary focus, and AC characters able to build something else as a primary focus. I would hope this would not be done through feats as this would hurt the classes with less feats to build for AC.

noinfo
04-20-2012, 02:36 AM
l
I don't think the current systemote a a is broken, my biggest complaint with the system is AC for warforged characters. Most squishes with a bit of work are able to attain superlative armor classes. The same is not true for tin men. I can gear up a flesh based character and a warforged with equivalent gear, and the warforged armor class will grade out 20 to 30 points lower, with identical feats and gear. I truly would have thought it would be the other way around, as an war forged should be able to to carry as much as it wants to nails to it's physical form.

You might want to go and take a look at the WF tank that just went and duoed TOD before making this statement. WF are a couple of points short of fleshies due to lack of Icy Rainments (in wis/dex based ac builds) but then fleshies dont get a DOD for DR either and are identical to most non dwarf fleshies in heavy armour.

Dawnsfire
04-20-2012, 02:39 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

It is practically worthless as implemented for the vast majority of characters. As an all or nothing thing, if you do not excessively grind for it you are better off not trying at all.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Two things:
1) That middling AC mean something. Those that actually grind it out should gain a much higher benefit than those that do not but middling AC should mean something at endgame.
2) Heavy armor should mean protection. I find it pretty sad that almost everyone that builds for AC does it in PJs.

Dark_Helmet
04-20-2012, 02:43 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1) Yes
2) It doesn't follow the books (to-hit / ac bonuses became an arms race). Glancing blows are ridiculous.
3) Get rid of glancing hits, reduce the insane amount of bonuses. Let tanks be tanks.

Xyfiel
04-20-2012, 02:51 AM
Yes

Level 12+ AC loses its cost/benefit ratio. By epics, your greatest str that you spent 20 levels and time gearing just became your greatest weakness.

Monk wisdom to AC stays the same, it has a high cost of increasing an extra stat, unlike armor it can be lost in certain situations(dex bonus to ac), less dps, and being forced to multiclass resulting in no capstone for a 5-15 point difference. The ability to get such a high dex/wisdom from ship buffs, yugoloth pots, store pots, tomes, etc are the real issue. It makes sense that lighter quicker char would be harder to hit, while a armored char would take less damage. Perhaps a stacking dr to each type of armor is in order.
Iterative attacks for mobs to make a larger range of AC useful. For example, if a mob has a 70 to hit, you need a 90 to make them need a 20 and anything 71 and below becomes useless. If mob changes to +70/+65/+60/+55 than you start seeing misses at 57, and a 65 AC would make a difference without requireing every gear slot dedicated to ac. The AC needed to miss 50% of the time drops from 81 to 74, and the number needed to see a miss drops from 72 to 57. If the 70 to hit was the boss, then anyone could get 60+ ac and see decent use from it.

noinfo
04-20-2012, 02:53 AM
I have to say that I don't agree with people that say AC works fine up to Gianthold.

AC is insanely overpowered in lower level content. Characters that invest in AC have a near blanket immunity to almost everything that the ~75% of mobs that are mostly melee can do to you.

Players aren't allowed to get fire immunity because that would make fire elementals (and other foes) totally trivial. But for ~14 levels we have basically immunity to melee damage if we gear out for AC.

As opposed to mobs being 1 or 2 shot by a caster? Or imobilised and picked off? Or the divine throwing a heal scroll/spell whenever? Trash mobs are trash.

Sorry this is very much an non issue. There are many other sources of damage. No there is no immunitiy to fire, but lets stack that 33% absorb with 50% firesheild + whatever else u want on top of fire prot.

noinfo
04-20-2012, 03:00 AM
This is totally incorrect. I had to work ridiculously hard on my ac rogue to make AC worth a **** and on a Full plate character it requires much less gear and they can much more easily swap to a dps two hander and kills things quicker if a full plate character wants.

If you do not like monks just say so, but a twf rapier character should not get hurt just saying - its brutal..

This

I have both types of AC tanks and to be honest it is MUCH harder to gear the splash, and on the heavy tank? I throw a eSOS or the ele great axe on and without all that investment in dex and wis, they hit harder in dps mode and have more hp.

FuzzyDuck81
04-20-2012, 03:04 AM
1) yes
2) it's all or nothing. As it is at the moment, there's almost no point in going for AC at endgame (levelling its handy till about 12ish then needs progressively more work) unless you can hit the very top end possible & even then as others have said in epics its useless regardless, and if you're better off just having a displacement spell cast on you for that flat 50% miss chance - a level 3 spell giving the practical equivalent of eg. 120+ AC in epics makes all that high-end AC loot grinding seem like a pretty significant waste.
3) a system that has a compromise between investment in it & actual benefit.

IMO the best AC system i've seen in a game was actually from the Fallout series, where it had a combination of damage threshold (like DR) & the more "standard" armour class.. heavier armour had a higher damage threshold so you'd be able to absorb damage but be somewhat easier to hit since you'd be slower & bulkier, and higher AC meant you'd be harder to hit in the first place, but if you DID get hit it'd naturally hurt quite a bit more.

cru121
04-20-2012, 03:10 AM
Guys in heavy armor should enjoy better protection than in pajamas.

Illiamfryn
04-20-2012, 03:10 AM
My post will agree with all the OP's. AC needs fixing it just is all or nothing. BUT i have a question for Madfloyd. Why do you open so much discussion threads for so serious game mechanics when as you stated in the Let's talk enhancements thread, you don't have enough time you devs to see and iterate and consider players views and proposals?

I mean it is almost May, we get nearly no info on new things just advertising and on top of that you just open new discussions into very important game matters.

This post means no offense to anyone, nor a doom or hate thing. Just comments and inquiries after a deep .......sigh

dougnugget
04-20-2012, 03:13 AM
1) Yes

2) There is a very narrow range in which AC is meaningful - either you are getting hit all the time, or none of the time, or some of the time. There aren't enough situations where someone is getting hit some of the time (and therefore where more AC would actually make a difference).

3) I want more situations where increasing my AC would be relevant.

red_cardinal
04-20-2012, 03:21 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?


Yes.



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?


Well, it means something only to extremists. :) My halfling AC monk has to get loads of gear to make AC a viable
option to use - be untouchable or hardly touchable. Now, on one side, this part is fine. Sure, it's a game, there's AC gear and stats have to be chosen accordingly as also feats in order to achieve that UNTOUCHABLE. But...

The way AC it's done, there are to few options on how to achieve it. Many things don't make a meaning:
- Mage armor and Shield spells - they do nothing for Sorc/Wiz when it comes to AC. These classes need to multiclass in order to have their AC mean something. And they have to wear a shield - but this doesn't give them AC, it gives them DR. I don't think this is ok.
- DEX modifier to AC - this is something that's messed up. I can't have a clean rogue 20 and a meaningful AC. IMHO, there are two types of armor - the one that makes you "invulnerable" by damage reduction and the one that comes from DEX/dodging/moving around. But you have all put into one variable and this doesn't appear good to me. I'll either jump around and avoid attacks - gain AC from there or take hits but DR will matter.
- WIS modifier to AC - just by taking 1 level of monk - WIS modifier is added to AC. This might make sense for multiclassed chars, but is it possible to achieve meaningful AC to be in Amrath as a pure class - not getting hit - say 70% of the time - just from wearing light armor and DEX modifier and some feats - not SD/DoS tank?



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


I don't know. Maybe it's okay after all. :P
Maybe more options for pure classes, such as rogue, wiz/sorc, etc.

Aerinsma
04-20-2012, 03:24 AM
1. Yes.

2. AC currently is only effective if a character's AC falls within the 20 points really only 18 above the attacker's bonus. This is too small a percentage when ACs can vary so widely in the game. Investing in AC is pointless unless you do so to the exclusion of everything else.

3. I would like every point of AC to have some meaning. Ideally, I'd like to see character builds with high hit points balanced with those with high armor and those that choose to invest a little in each.

Moltier
04-20-2012, 03:27 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

At higher level, mobs have too high to hit. At epic levels, its just crazy. Only epic geared dedicated AC builds have a chance to see misses vs weak enemys who die in seconds anyway. Some rare but non named mobs will still hit them on a roll of 2. Casters, divines can cc and instakill them in seconds. High DPS characters can kill them before they do too much damage, especially if there is a cc caster. AC tanks can do what with their AC? Nothing. They have to switch style, because they still take almost full damage. They should take minimal damage.

Most orange nameds could hit these epic geared tanks even on a roll of -5 (if that would be possible. Red nameds on a -10... With all the buffs possible, bosses hit our tanks on a 2. So even in a perfect party, with all the buffs on the tank, and many debuffs on the boss, he still getting hit often (or all the time).


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Since every important end game boss have some kind of special attack (Horoth dots and spells, LoB debuff and special attacks, CAD spells...), and grazing hits hit hard anyway, plus most raids have other things to bother with not just the boss, AC isnt an auto win, so it should work. Im not saying all the time, but with good buffs and debuffs we should see misses more often.

Against non named mobs, AC should be a slow auto win. Caster+dps is fast auto win, so why not?




Bonus: Shield AC bonuses are weak.

Malky
04-20-2012, 03:39 AM
1. Yes

2. AC starts by being useful, and even somewhat overpowered at low-mid levels, and becomes a hamper once you hit epic difficulty. HP/healing amp/concealment is what works in epics, AC do not.

3.
* AC being useful all the way from korthos to e-LoB, without being "lol joo only hit meh on a 20"-like, from korthos to e-LoB as well.
* AC being somewhat tied to class BAB, so a tank-type melee build would be less squishy than arcanes/divines. The fact that atm it's the other way around is bad.

quijenoth
04-20-2012, 04:07 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Three things.

First the range of ac values is too high for a d20 roll. Making a 50-60 ac as worthless as a 2 ac.

Second AC is balanced around the upper tiers making it hard to reach the useable range and at very steep tradeoffs.

Third Epic raid boss ac have unattainable Ac requirements.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

A wider range of useable ac values. Ability to get even moderately useful AC in all content without having to completely forgoe dealing dmg and then be able to ramp up your ac to better values with more tradeoff.

+1

I concur with LeLoric on all counts

I would like to add that actually wearing armor vs no armor at all should mean something to AC beyond a few more points of armor class. be that DR, fortification or whatever I dunno but it needs to mean something.

Pank
04-20-2012, 04:56 AM
I think it has been said before (I didn't go through the whole thread) but to me the main problem regarding AC is that the range of achievable AC is too wide for a d20 roll system.

What I mean is that a fully AC geared toon can reach about 100 AC whereas another character not AC puposedly specced (even melees) will stand in the 40s-50s.
This means that either you buid for AC and almost never get hit (many sacrifices to make here) or don't and you get hit but on 1s.

This makes AC that shoul dbe a progressive thing (the higher it is the less you get hit) and all-or-nothing stat, and thus it get deprieved of the original sense it had.

Teharahma
04-20-2012, 05:15 AM
Yes, AC is useless in epics.

Stop worrying about high AC tanks soloing epic content, casters do it anyway.


Endresult, fix AC so it's useful in epics.

I believe I read a post somewhere about adjusting the monster's tohit.

Instead of 1d20 +100 make it 3d20 +60 (Tohit), this would allow further ranges of AC to be useful.

Meetch1972
04-20-2012, 05:30 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The "useful" AC band at high levels is narrow. In a certain situation, 80=always hit, 100=always missed. But you need significant investment just to get to 80 and the amount of effort to get that far alone is too hard for most (myself included) to bother with.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

I would hope that a moderate investment in AC would make some difference to survivability, even if only a small percentage - and that difference should continue to go up as the AC value goes up. I would hope that ultimately we don't simply throw our hands up and say: "Epics? There's no point in AC. Invest in DR, guards, heal procs and/or heal amp, but forget AC because you'll never have enough."

Thanks for lurking!

MnaSidhe
04-20-2012, 05:33 AM
I don't play melee classes, because of.... Oliver Cromwell.
Oh wait... AC not OC. I don't play melee classes because of AC.



1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?


Yes



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?


The All or Nothing effect, already mentioned by others.
Having a system where a farmer in his underwear the same chance to stay safe as a battlehardened warrior (AC10 vs AC 60 in some content).



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


Making achievable AC relevant in all content, so that the Stalwart can see some benefit, without having to spend 8 billion hours farming gear. Doesn't have to be much benefit... just more than the farmer in his undies!

Razcar
04-20-2012, 05:43 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1) Yes

2) I think the problem is that it is way too hard to get a useful AC at high levels unless you do a monstrous grind for gear and make a very, very specific build. Also, it is very binary - the window where "some AC" will decrease the hits you take is way too small. The attack die is 1-20 and the AC range in DDO at high levels is from 0 to about 110. Too large a difference - the D&D AC system breaks badly when faced with DDO's inflated Monty Haul numbers.

3) I would hope that if you invest a mediocre amount of gear and build decisions in AC at higher levels, monsters would miss you more often. Now you have to go full ACtard for it to matter.

BDog77
04-20-2012, 06:12 AM
I would essentially like to add my "vote" to this thread.

Yes, there is something wrong with AC.

Rather than repeat what everyone has said in reply to points 2 and 3, I will just say....

I believe most folks covered the reasons why, and what most people would like to see seems very reasonable to me.

patang01
04-20-2012, 06:23 AM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

The problem is that AC is a combination of many different things that doesn't make sense, partly because armor is always DR. While avoiding damage (that is flexibility) is always about not getting hit.


So the heaviest armor have the same damage reduction (unless it's adamantine) as a light armor, except that light armor have better flexibility.

That's simply not a good way to do things since if you're hit (and at a certain point you will get hit regardless of AC unless you're a tank speciality).

Heavier armor should always be about DR. You'll get hit alright, but most of the hits you should recieve should be highly reduced blows unless it penetrates.

While light armor should always be higher chance of missing with small chance of deflecting blows.

And since you're not looking for a solution, I leave it at that :)

Dendrix
04-20-2012, 06:40 AM
1) Yes

2) The problem is if your AC is 19 points below the incoming Attack bonus then your actual AC is completly immaterial.

An Attack of +60 vs an AC of 10 is exactly the same as an Attack of +60 vs AC40.
Achieving AC40 takes some investment of equipment and build, but that investment has no in-game effect.

3) lower levels of AC should have some mitigating effect.

taurean430
04-20-2012, 06:43 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

End game content requires an investment that is all but impossible. Heavy investments in time and crossing fingers/rabbits foot/burned wikimen to get one item in a list of at least 5 that only together allow one to tank in level 16-18 content comfortably. As soon as the same toon steps into even the most trivial of epic quests, it is hit on a '2'. One should not need epic or rare gear to tank a boss in a level 14-16 raid setting. This is heavily unbalanced and favors only those who grind/grind with guild.

Lack of variety in slots forces one to choose from only a couple of options in terms of gear choice. Any gear worth having requires months of grind, with the exception being having multiple characters and a membership in an end game raiding guild. Everyone else loses.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

AC in less than 20 content to be re-examined. For example, expecting to tank Lilat at level requires at least 80 ac. This is not a realistic threshold, especially considering the majority of the playerbase. Most of the gear you would have (had you ground it out in mind numbing fashion), cannot be utilized at the level one would run the content for bravery bonus. So, in conclusion of my example, one would have to be a multi tr that farmed until their eyes bled to have a chance at it.

End game to hit on epic type mobs is so high, the numbers required are frequently questioned in terms of being achieved at all. So, as a result of both of these, people playing melee are encouraged to completely dump any defense. This in turn contributes strongly to attrition in players who run characters capable of healing. My hope would be a better balance. This would encourage players to better invest in their surviveability - which, in turn, would significantly increase the number of players willing to run their healing capable characters in pug settings.

PlaneswalkerJP
04-20-2012, 06:46 AM
Yes.

AC in epic quests is not useful because even the lowliest trash mobs have to-hit bonus that hits even the highest attainable AC on a roll of a 2.

Ability to build an epic tank that can tank epic quests similar to how a non epic tank can tank non epic quests. Similar mitigation percentage wise and similar miss chance for similar DPS sacrifice percentage wise in building the toon.

P.S. I feel AC works in the 1-20 game and is broken in epic quests. Some of the 1-20 game requires higher values to be effective but at least those values are attainable readily enough.

Agree with this.

I dont agree with people complaining with AC being meanless without a high invested time, this don't make sense. You need to invest time to reach significant values in almost anything.

There are other ways to protect yourself than AC, like misschance, DR, etc.

AC have been working as it is less in Epic content.

iRexxar
04-20-2012, 06:50 AM
imo, the ONLY problem from AC is that tankers cannot reach enaugh to tank Epic quests.. i still think that only chars focused for AC should be the only ones to make it usefull :P

if they reached enaugh AC to tank it, there would be more ways to do epic quests then just cc cc cc cc kill kill kill kill kill :P or kite kite kite kite

CaptainSpacePony
04-20-2012, 06:51 AM
AC will always be borked. It is an archaic system.

D&D was the original attempt to add individual complexity to character combat and was based on wargames. In wargames a "hit" is generally lethal, so the "hits' and misses are all that counts and the AC system reflects that. This "Egg Plants Go to War" model was quickly abandoned by almost all later RPGs in favor of things like Damage Resistance or reduction/absorbtion (percentage of damage). DDO is constrained by the rich D&D legacy and held to AC.

Yazzman
04-20-2012, 07:08 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes.


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
The d20 range is too narrow. In endgame there is no difference between 0 AC and 50 AC.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
I'd like to see some effect for high-yet-meaningless in endgame AC.

karl_k0ch
04-20-2012, 07:14 AM
1) Yes.
2) Due to the D20 mechanics, there is only a narrow strip of AC values for each content which actually provides some kind of damage mitigation. Furthermore, there is a point where a further increase in AC doesn't have a beneficial effect.

Take my Shieldbard Thorkar (http://my.ddo.com/character/orien/thorkar/) , for example. Currently, he achieves an AC of about 60.
That's enough to provide a very good measure of damage mitigation in Vale quests, and Elite Devil Assault, for example. The viability of this would not increase if he would be granted 20 addtional points of AC.
However, an AC value of 60 is completely useless in Epic Quests, or Normal Lord of the Blades. Even if he would be granted 20 additional points, the viablility does not add much.

Here's the kicker: He has a fair amount of AC enhancing items (cf. here (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=369527) for a planned intermediate gear breakdown), and there isn't much available to enhance his AC any further in an essential way (I think situational 80 is possible on a bard). Thus, from a power gamer point of view, it is not a good idea to pursue the plan of an AC bard, since it does not provide any kind of damage mitigation in end-game content.

3) A broader range of viability of AC. Imho, the situations where AC provides an environment where the player character is nigh invincible (i know that there are Grazing Hits) are very nice and convenient, but imho not worth the trade-off to have AC not working at all in some content.

Disclaimer: This is posted without reading any of the posts above. Except for the OP.

sweez
04-20-2012, 07:21 AM
I wouldn't say something is wrong with it since that would indicate there is a right way it should be modeled after. In D&D AC for the most part becomes irrelevant at high levels so you couldn’t say it is wrong because it doesn’t capture the spirit of D&D. It can be very helpful for low to mid levels and less for high levels, but this doesn’t make it wrong and is similar to other benefits, such as resists in many cases. It requires a very high investment to be useful in limited end game content, but that doesn’t make it wrong and the same could be said for skills such as intimidate or diplomacy.

Today for the most part damage is managed through mitigation such as DR, blur/displacement, stoneskin, protections, spell resistances, evasion/reflex save, etc. If you add AC as a more readily available source of damage mitigation, then you have to decide if balancing has to take place, or if less damage across the board on average is ok, and either choice could cause problems.

So to summarize, I wouldn’t say something is wrong with it based on any existing standards, but I do think it would be interesting to see any proposed changes and how that would impact game balance. Game balance including melee to caster, and even balance between different melee classes since some are inherently easier to build AC with, would be challenging.

Someone making sense on an AC thread :o

Guess I'm gonna go grab a lottery ticket

sweez
04-20-2012, 07:22 AM
AC will always be borked. It is an archaic system.

D&D was the original attempt to add individual complexity to character combat and was based on wargames. In wargames a "hit" is generally lethal, so the "hits' and misses are all that counts and the AC system reflects that. This "Egg Plants Go to War" model was quickly abandoned by almost all later RPGs in favor of things like Damage Resistance or reduction/absorbtion (percentage of damage). DDO is constrained by the rich D&D legacy and held to AC.

Make that two lottery tickets

2x4
04-20-2012, 07:24 AM
Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?



1) I have a Pure AC build at Cap. Pally/Ranger/Monk. Investing in AC is an all or nothing endeavor. I rarely run this toon now, will TR him into Druid. All my other toons AC is irrelevant because AC has zero impact at all.

2) The problem IMO is basic. You have to invest totally in AC gear and or build and everything else about your Toon becomes secondary.

3) I don't mind having to invest in the build and/or gear for AC but why does it have to be such an overwhelming thing to do. Also, why can't AC start to be relevant after lets say 30? I don't understand game mechanics enough to know how it really works, but I would like to be able to get some kind of benefit from a little gear and/or build choices that will at least contribute something.

Arlathen
04-20-2012, 07:47 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.


1) Yes.

2)
A - It's extremely difficult/involves ludicrous grind to get AC to matter at end game
B - Achievable AC is worthless in Epic content, currently
C - Robe/Outfit wearing Monk splashes can achieve better AC than Heavy Plate wearers.
D - Light Armour wearers have an even worse time than Heavy Plate or Outfit wearers to achieve relevant AC at End Game (ridiculous Dex requirements at the expense of everything else)
E - I don't feel the Hit or Miss nature of PnP AC rules really fit the combat model that DDO has.

3)
A - Easier to acquire AC relevant Gear. Grinding out a 3 piece Epic Abishai set for 3 AC? OMG.
B - AC that matters in any content, no matter the level.
C - A system that takes into account AC as a factor, instead of a straight miss/hit where the only goal is a top end, grind-fest of a number.

Atremus
04-20-2012, 07:50 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.



1) Yes
2) It appears that after L10 A/C starts fighting for item slots on your character. Forcing a melee build to choose the A/C path
3) Easier Access to A/C without requiring epic equipment

tihocan
04-20-2012, 07:55 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1. Yes.

2. Three things for me:
- The extremely specialized and powerful gear we can get, as well as the class & race enhancements, lead to an increasing gap between builds in terms of achievable AC as the level increases. For instance at low level a pure Cleric can have good AC not that far from a Fighter's, but at L20 this is impossible.
- As mentioned in this thread, achieving meaningful AC for Epics is not worth the effort (and seems impossible in some places).
- High AC actually make PCs too powerful sometimes (although the current investment to reach this point at high level balances it out).

3. I would like most character builds to be able to benefit from AC at any level with reasonable investment in gear / build, but without making AC mandatory for everyone either! (don't go too far the opposite way)

Lestarion
04-20-2012, 08:07 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Every investment in AC should change something, obviously someone concentrating on getting High AC should get the minimum dmg. But even if I don't have enhancements or feats or special gear there should be a difference if I wear +1 chainshirt or a +5 heavy plate mail. currently it's only a difference if your AC is very high already.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

An endresult where even a dmg oriented build could take a better armor and get less incoming dmg, but someone with heavy investment in AC still gets the least dmg.

RTN
04-20-2012, 08:10 AM
The all or nothing nature of AC at endgame with "all" being extremely difficult to reach for non-pajama wearers. That's two separate, but very related things that I think are wrong with the system.

Avidus
04-20-2012, 08:25 AM
First, thank you for this thread. Thank you.


1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?AC is all or nothing. As you progress closer to the end-game and progress further into the end-game AC, even for those that dedicated their entire build to it, becomes worthless. It takes a monumental effort to get a viable AC. That effort includes lots of sacrifices, pretty much making AC your only option. Other, non AC focused builds, are often able to spec for 2, 3 or even 4 things and be successful at all them all the way through the entire game. AC is not like this. Wizards can instakill and boost their other school dcs with no sacrifce at all, and still provide decent burst dps on bosses, Favored Souls can deal decent melee dps and still be top notch healers, bards can do a ton of stuff as can rogues and artificers. All with little to no 'tough choices'. It does not work like this with AC. With AC its lots of sacrifices, lots of grinding for specific hard to aquire gear, making AC the only thing you have going for you, and then all of it is completely useless more you get into the end-game.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?I would like for a system to have a wider range of viable AC values. A 60 AC should mean more than a 20 AC. It should, but as of now it doesn't. I would like for AC as a whole to mean more in the entire game. I would like a system that allows the removal of grazing hits.

Talon_Moonshadow
04-20-2012, 08:29 AM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1) Yes.
2) The problem is that at higher lvls AC becomes increasingly less useful, to a point where it eventually is useless.

Also, the higher you lvl up, the harder it becomes to add any meaningful AC. What I mean by this is that while any character can eventually get +5 armor, a +6 Dex item, a +5 Protection item, and a +5 Shield, and a Barskin pot..... That's it! For most classes.

Most clases get into the high 30's and top out on AC. If they grind for rare items, they can get 40's and 50's.

Most classes will never see a 60 AC.


There is a second/related problem with how the D20 system works with AC.
Once a monster can reaches a BaB of +40, (for example) then any AC below 41 is completely useless.
remember... most players will have an AC less than 40.

Then when the monsters get BaB of +50, anything below 51 AC is useless.
Now you just cut out 90% of the players......

etc. etc.

Eventually most players will have a completely useless AC at end game.
a few might be able to grind for something useful. But from what I hear, even the best possible AC in the game right now, is barely useful in epic quests. (but I am going off of hearsay, and no real hard data.....)

One more problem is that Armor type is meaningless after a certain point as well.
The highest AC's are gained from wearing Robes, rather than Full Plate a a Tower Shield.

While this may be ok for Monks, it should not be the case for anyone else.

Light/Medium/Heavy/shield/tower shield proficiencies require feats. These feats should be an advantage.


Shields are another issue. with there own problems, but mostly, if AC had more meaning, then shields would have more meaning.


3) I would like for a high a character with +5 armor, +5 shield, +5 prot item, and Barskin pot to get some benefit from it at higher lvls.

I would like those players who grind for more AC items to get even more benfit from them.

I DO NOT want the super grinder to become immune to ever getting hit!
I think if high lvl players can hit anyting on a 2 or better so should high lvl monsters. (or some of them anyway)

I would like to se raid bosses hit people as good or better than we hit them, but I also want AC to be useful.





Ok.... I know you said no suggestions, but consider this....

AC/armor could theoretically provide protection in some other way than deciding what to hit roll a monster needs to damage you.

DR is the first idea that comes to mind.

I really, really like the idea of Light, Medium, Heavy Armor and shields adding passive stackable DR..... and lots of it.

I think it could be tied to character BaB so that low lvl characters don't become invulnerable as soon as they put on some Full plate.

Not a perfect fix, but an easy one IMO.

Note: I am not an AC junky. I have no desire to build or play a tank, or grind for a high AC. My characters average about a 40 AC at lvl 20. Or less. a couple can easily get into the 50s if I equip them for it. I think my Monk can break 60 fully buffed....

so what can barely hit my monk, hits most of my characters on a 2 or better....
and.... at end game, it doesn't seem like very many things miss my Monk either. :(

(should also mention that more variety of monster BaB at end game would allow some AC to be useful sometimes, but more to be needed at other times.)

psteen1
04-20-2012, 08:43 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?



1) Yes
2) -It doesn't work in epics at all.
-Pajama builds w/ monk splashes or full monk are basically the only thing that seems to work while maintaining a decent DPS. Full armor builds and shields mean that you can virtually do no damage since most every inventory slot will be dedicated to eeking out another 1-2 AC points.
- A caster with displacement- a single spell- can get better damage mitigation than toons who grind and grind for AC gear.
3) Pajama builds work and S&B builds work (meaning at least a 50% damage mitigation) from level 1 to level 25, given that the players is using the best available AC gear for that level. Epic items give AC relevant to epic quests. You shouldn't have to have a full set of past life gear for AC to be meaningful.
Also- you should get damage mitigation in proportion to the amount of effort spend gaining it. Casters should not get 50% mitigation from a single spell. It is too powerful.

Lleren
04-20-2012, 08:53 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1) Yes

2) The range of AC's on one character is too great, let alone between multiple characters. The top effective AC is too high. Building a "tank" style character, whether it be an old style armored hero, or a Saturday morning martial arts theater Monk should not take forum/wiki research or stars aligning of buffs /debuffs.

3) I think that AC should matter. That is should be easy enough for a first life new player that is building a defensive melee along one of the "paths" to aquire, all the way through the game including Epic without using Raid gear or rare drops. By using only things that can be grinded for on the auction house, through crafting, challenges and questline end rewards, effective and even maximum effective AC should be likely in a character taking one of the defensive Prestige Enhancements.

Forum research should not be required to build a Tank with effective AC. Rare drops and Raid gear should allow you to build more effectiveness onto your character and round it out, not be required for basic functionality. We may be the 5%, but balancing AC, or anything, for us is "doom"

Truga
04-20-2012, 08:57 AM
Also- you should get damage mitigation in proportion to the amount of effort spend gaining it. Casters should not get 50% mitigation from a single spell. It is too powerful.

You are aware that good casters also cast this on you, where relevant? Also in most cases it isn't relevant, I don't think there's any tough purple name without true seeing. The only caster damage mitigation spells that work well on higher level bosses are cloudkill with 10% concealment, and stoneskin with DR10/adamantine. Not exactly awesome, seeing how AC can get you up to 95% damage reduction, and stacks with all of the above.

Edit: To fix the AC issue either:
a) reduce the maximum amount achievable by gear, AC tank should be defined by starting stats and gear, not mostly gear and a point or two of AC depending on starting stats. (unstack dodge, remove profane/insight, things like that)
or
b)increase the enemy d20 attack roll to d(20*CR/5). Decrease their to-hit bonus accordingly. This way it's d20 until level 9, 10-14 it's d40, 15-19 it's d60 and 20+ is d80. It's probably a bit too high (d60 would be fine, I think, that way AC starts to matter as early as 40 and gets really good at 80+). Crit range needs to be fixed in this case.

And yes, glancing blows hit too often/too much on elite. What's the point of AC if you're still getting hit anyway...

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 08:58 AM
A guy in full plate armor and a tower shield should not have less ac than a guy in a robe with a lot of wisdom.



They don't, at least not on anything that can actually generate any threat.

People who still think this don't understand the game mechanics.

JOTMON
04-20-2012, 08:58 AM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1) yes

2) No cap to Dodge AC allows PJ builds to achieve Much higher AC than Armour builds. Armour builds don't mitigate damage by wearing heavier armour.
A soldier sitting in a tank being fired upon by snipers has little worry that he will take any damage as the bullets ping off his tank. The guy running around behind the clothesline of bed sheets had better hope he is not standing where the bullet comes through.

3) A balancing of Damage mitigation for Armour builds vs AC for PJ builds and something inbetween where Armour and AC have a optimal blend.
Stalwartfighter(hit me in my tank) - Barbarian Rogue(deflect, evade & armour) - Monk(be not where the attack will strike.. young padwan/grashopper) at endgame all should be able to achieve comperable less incoming damage via decent AC and/or Damage mitigation in different ways.

Rework of Mob attacks to miss uber AC completely(glancing blows hit too often and for too much), Armour to absorb damage via Stacking DR or Damage Absorption. Cap to Dodge bonusses to control the stupidly high AC that can be achieved with all the stars aligned.

BurnerD
04-20-2012, 09:05 AM
Yes there is an issue.

AC does not scale well as levels progress and becomes almost meaningless at the highest levels. While it should be difficult to obtain a "hit on a 20 only" AC there seems to be little difference between a poor AC and a good to very good AC at higher levels.

The speed of combat in DDO magnifies this issue.

good thread... thanks for starting :)

noinfo
04-20-2012, 09:06 AM
1)

2) No cap to Dodge AC allows PJ builds to achieve Much higher AC than Armour builds. Armour builds don't mitigate damage by wearing heavier armour.



It seems there is a serious misunderstanding ac possible what is given up comparing AC to splash builds, I would wonder how much experience people posting these actually have in making them? I have both equally geared and am curious how they make these blanket statements.

merentha
04-20-2012, 09:08 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
Attempting to adhere to PnP's original implementation and then scale for MMO player behaviors. But then later adding glancing blows and other bandaids.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
To avoid giving a 'suggestion'. I will comment that Asheron's Call had the best armor rating and damage mitigation system of any MMO I have been exposed to. Anyone newer just mimic's them.


There ya go.


There was a comment regarding Monk's Wisdom AC bonus needing a nerf. I do think it needs to be nerfed to become:
No Monk Stance = no monk wisdom bonus to AC.

Truga
04-20-2012, 09:13 AM
It seems there is a serious misunderstanding ac possible what is given up comparing AC to splash builds, I would wonder how much experience people posting these actually have in making them? I have both equally geared and am curious how they make these blanket statements.

It used to be possible to get huge* AC advantages by doing robe monk splashes. Not the case anymore, there's a couple of seriously good epic plates around now.

* Huge here being ~5 points.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 09:15 AM
It seems there is a serious misunderstanding ac possible what is given up comparing AC to splash builds, I would wonder how much experience people posting these actually have in making them? I have both equally geared and am curious how they make these blanket statements.

I'm getting the same impression, I'm hoping the devs have enough sense to weed out the opinions that reek of game mechanics unfamiliarity.


There are SOME things that should be tweeked between heavy armor and Pajamas but the difference is only a few points and not some drastic gap that many of our less informed posters thinks it is.

Thrudh
04-20-2012, 09:16 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

I think AC works fine from levels 1-19. With the PrEs and ship buffs, and new gear, it's not that hard to get a workable AC in the 1-19 game. And if you focus on AC, you can definitely see a real benefit. You lose DPS, but you become near invulnerable to physical attacks (other than glancing blows). Note that there's more ways to get hurt and die than just physical attacks, so invulnerable to physical attacks, does not equal invulnerable.

I think AC is broken in most of the epic game, because the monster to-hits are so high that AC doesn't matter. I think it's very frustrating that one can spend so much time and effort working on one aspect of the game, and as soon as you hit 20, all that effort is wasted. I've noticed that AC does seem to work in the level 21 challenges though.

The end result I'd like to see is for AC to work in the level 20-25 game the same way it does in the level 1-19 game. I don't think AC characters are overpowered in the 1-19 game, and I think they are fun to play. I'd like to see the effects of building for AC continue into the epic quests.

Khurse
04-20-2012, 09:22 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?




1) Yes there is
2) It's a multiple answer issue
- The d20 mechanic doesn't provide enough variation/scaling either for AC or to hit rolls.

- The Monk (pajama wearing splash) gives a *far* larger benefit to AC than anything else.
Allowing evasion,quick change robes, and (the important part) easy AC boosting - An easy to hit 20 Wisdom nets 5 "bonus" AC. With better gear/planning it adds even more of a bonus.

- AC doesn't work in Epic quests, and (can) work too well in non epics. Having a super near demigod like pit fiend only able to hit on a 20 is stupid. At the same time having a rat able to essentially ignore AC is equally dumb.

I would like to see a system that results in

1) Not having Heavy Armor wearing tanks at a disadvantage over some guy in Pajamas.
2) Some kind of viable AC in Epic quests, at the same time not giving some tanks a "Horoth can only hit me on a 20" AC in non epics.
3) An AC/damage mitigation/damage avoidance system that needs some definite investment in gear/enhancements to get missed most of the time by trash, and substantial investment to get missed most of the time by bosses.

Hafeal
04-20-2012, 09:23 AM
BUT i have a question for Madfloyd. Why do you open so much discussion threads for so serious game mechanics when as you stated in the Let's talk enhancements thread, you don't have enough time you devs to see and iterate and consider players views and proposals?

I mean it is almost May, we get nearly no info on new things just advertising and on top of that you just open new discussions into very important game matters.

This post means no offense to anyone, nor a doom or hate thing. Just comments and inquiries after a deep .......sigh

You don't open up a discussion when you are ready to make a change. You begin the discussion when you are ready to start thinking about an issue and whether or not changes need to be made. MadFloyd is simply giving himself and his team lead time on this point. You are correct they are not working on it now - but they will in the future so they are putting a long term project, like this, on the "to do" list. This is good news for anyone who believes AC needs revision in DDO.

This thread will allow him to gauge player perception as well as see/review what the players feel they are experiencing in their game play. My guess is that the devs are somewhat aware of player perception and have their own ideas on the AC conundrum.

Taking the time to think and contemplate a problem while having a gathering place for players' comments will hopefully lead to a better solution and a better game as a result. I only wish MF had started some of these threads years ago! :)

Khurse
04-20-2012, 09:25 AM
There was a comment regarding Monk's Wisdom AC bonus needing a nerf. I do think it needs to be nerfed to become:
No Monk Stance = no monk wisdom bonus to AC.

No, Monks only have to not be wearing armor or a shield to get their Wisdom bonus to AC. Being centered gives them another bonus.

Flavilandile
04-20-2012, 09:25 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?


Yes... and No...

Yes there's something wrong with AC as currently implemented
No there's nothing wrong as it is implemented as it should from PnP perspective..



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?


*makes X-Files* sounds* The problem lies elsewere.

The problem is that AC is meaningless beyond LVL 16ish.
Mob will get through, unless you try ( extremely hard ) to max your AC... with Epic Gear.
Mob will get through anyway in Epic quests.
No point in wasting slots trying to max AC. DR is ( partially ) the way to go as things are right now.

This problem is inherent to the game system, especially as we players are fully geared with legendary artifacts if not heavenly relics... To make it enjoyable to us you had to cheat and create mob with tons of HP, huge To-Hit and High AC, as it's the only way to keep the CR in control ( CR is mainly based on Hit Dice, but even there you can cheat... as a monster with 18HD will have more or less the same CR as a monster with 18HD+20.000 )
There's no easy way out and I won't even try to suggest one... It's one of the many problems people that designed Play Worlds for NWN encountered.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?.

Make it worthwile to actually invest a bit in AC...
So that a Cleric in Full plate ( AC in the high 40ish range ) will see a difference when he join the melee with a pajama wearing Cleric ( AC in the low 30ish ) when it comes to being hit by mob.
Or so that a chainmail wearing rogue will not be hit as many time as a dress wearing one.
Or that a naked barbarian will be hit more than a Barbarian in a Mithral Full Plate.

Thrudh
04-20-2012, 09:26 AM
I find it works conditionally. It works up till about level 10 or 12 depending, but after that, forget it.

Even during my days of being a power gamer, I didn't care because I absolutely hated the grind necessary. You just about have to have an elitest attitude and 40 hr a week work ethic for the game to have relevant AC.

This isn't true anymore... PrEs and ship buffs and even basic gear make it pretty easy to get a decent AC if you want it.

Stalwart Defender

10 base
15 DragonTouched Armor
4 Dex
9 Tower Shield
2 Alchemical bonus on armor and shield
5 Protection
3 Barkskin potion
4 Insight Bonus
1 Haste
3 Airship buffs
5 Combat Expertise
3 Stalwart Defender
4 Stalwart Stance
1 Dodge Feat

= 69 AC

That's good enough to tank VoD on normal, and not get touched in the Vale and in Amrath quests. The only thing that takes any grinding in there is a Shroud Insight weapon.

Throw in ranger barkskin, and a bard song, and you can tank VoD on hard, and Suulo in ToD on normal.

Dagolar
04-20-2012, 09:32 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
AC is erratic and unreliable for casual builds, overwhelmingly beneficial for well set up lower level builds, requiring of extreme emphasis at high level builds to have any use whatsoever.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
Building a good AC tank is a delight of utilization of the game's available equipment. The opportunity to build a dominant, overwhelmingly defensive tank shouldn't be removed at the expense of making AC viable both for casual builds and for high level content. Rather, that usefulness ought be made to reliable benefit- and, of course, without diminishing challenge.

AC should always be important to an active opponent, helpful against all opponents, and both meaningful and yet not overly easing against bosses.

I don't have any particular problems with lower ACs not providing any benefit, though I admit that an approach that adds benefit would be enhancing to gameplay. However, the 'all-in, all-out' requirement for full tanks that both makes it necessary to have max defense against any boss you can get such for, and that makes LoB and the like impossible to tank at higher difficulties.. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, either- after all, 50% chance to miss is still 50% chance to miss, and having unique encounters is good. At the same time, though, it comes across as awkward and a strict limitation on defense builds.

Any approach'd have to continue to emphasize the full tank benefit and the unique feel of certain encounters, while smoothing out the general benefits of armor. Likewise, emphasis should be placed on having more diversity in encounters- have some touch attack bosses to emphasize dex-ac builds, and some other bosses- psionic, perhaps- that are stronger against dex-ac than armor-ac. Have AC really have a feel to it, rather than being a black and white "meaningless number" and "no fail number".

grandeibra
04-20-2012, 09:37 AM
No, I don't have a problem with AC, If by that we mean the implementation that AC gives % chance to get hit and DR equals damage mitigation when hit. There is zero reason to mix the two together like many other MMOs do. AC and DR being separate is fine. The way they are implemened is also fine.

So it is not the AC system in itself that is broken at all. The problem is twofold imo
1) Abundance of "overpowered" gear that stack giving too large a set of possible AC numbers for a d20 game :)
2) The lack of implementation of the attack chain minuses on additional attacks narrowing the variation in attack numbers. I have no idea why this is not implemented.

So AC as a system is fine. The variation based on potential plusses together with a lack of implementation of DnD attack chain differences means AC is broken at higher levels since to hit is too static (per mob) and AC too varied (on toons).

Trasak
04-20-2012, 09:39 AM
1) Is there a problem with AC?
The implementation of AC is spot on with the design of 3.5 with the exception that a DM cannot limit the access of their character to stacking bonuses. As in any high level table top game though it becomes apparent when the horse is out of the barn.

One can assume that the people running the hardest content will have nearly the best gear posible. The real problem is that AC is not predictable enough currently that encounter battles can be written such that a tank with equivalent gear to the encounter will be hit a specific percentage of the time between 10% and 90%. As a good DM you need to balance the encounters you build based on your average party member and limit the access of your power gamers to the items and situations that drive their focus strength an order of magnitude higher than the average player, who is trying but not power gaming. In an MMO everyone is a power gamer so tighter controls would need to be instituted to control what players have access to and so keep their respective strengths down.

If I were asked my opinion what a solution would be I would look at the math. Maximum Armor bonus + max Armor enhancment bonus + Shield armor bonus + shield enhancement bonus + dex bonus + Protection + NA + dodge + combat expertice. I would get rid of all insight, luck, competence, untyped bonuses. Dodge would be hard to stack by never placing it on an item higher than +1 or dont let item dodge stack with item dodge. All spells and buffs become one of the above catagories and you only get the best slot option. Monks can be more challenging but you can still predict based on a double TR full monk with +4 tomes what their power gamed Wis and dex bonus will be. You could limit the effect of Wis bonus to AC to unmodified Wisdom or control how bracers of armor and +5 enhancement bonus stack but they can be fairly predictable as well.

Ship buffs though a cool insentive to be in a guild with a big boat add head aches as do consumables, would nix them. Take what you have here and find what your maximum attainable armor class is for the level and set your boss monsters able to hit it 50% of the time. The right debuffs will decrease this and the monsters debuffing the players will increase it but it will still be controlable.

My second opinion is tie your AC value into fighting defensively. Increase threat generated when fighting defensively and decrease damage caused by the player then use the armor class of the character to decrease the incoming damage by a percentage based on their armor class vs the mobs to hit. That way the mob could always hit but on a 200 damage hit with +100 to hit on a 80 AC the tank would take (200-200/2*80/100) or 120 or some such nonsense.

Either way I dont envy you as it will be a massive amount off effort to rewrite all items or code defense or just dealing with the fact that in epic encounters warriors and paladins might as well DPS in cloth while tanking.

Xyfiel
04-20-2012, 09:42 AM
I'm getting the same impression, I'm hoping the devs have enough sense to weed out the opinions that reek of game mechanics unfamiliarity.


There are SOME things that should be tweeked between heavy armor and Pajamas but the difference is only a few points and not some drastic gap that many of our less informed posters thinks it is.

We should make Wisdom AC only work while centered? Yeah we should make Divine Grace only work if you have a Holy Avenger and a shield equipped also.:rolleyes:

We should lower dodge stacking bonuses to lower Monk splash AC? Yeah because everyone else doesn't get the same ac from dodge items as monk splashed do.:rolleyes:

Don't forget getting pj ac is a piece of cake. You don't have to be a certain alignment, lose a capstone, and get 40 dex and wisdom. Your dps is just as high as every other melee.:rolleyes:

licho
04-20-2012, 09:43 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

YES


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

All or nothing aproach, 20 dot range when to hit bonuses are like 60+.
No option to build Epic tank.
AC gives less survivability revenew than other means (blurlike effect, tons of healing, pile of hp)
For no monks, demands serious investment in gear which is hard to obtain to mean anything.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
Ability to build tank for all content.
Ability to benefit from AC mechanics even if you dont focused on it, as long as you put "some investment" in the same way as dealing not a top dps is still useful.
Sacrizing one slot for AC gear giving similar profit to GS Smoke HP item.
Some benefit for using (heavy) armor over pyjama.

Note: Guys could you move your discussion to some other topic? Any discussion/argue in this one makes it less useful for devs.

ulticleo
04-20-2012, 09:45 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1) yes
2+3)
in PnP, certain classes can achieve meaningful AC without sacrificing major parts of their other utility - fighters, monks, paladins, and to a certain extent, rangers and divine casters. other classes cannot - arcanes, bards (not easily, at least), and especially - barbs. This balances aspects of the classes - barbs are amazing dps, but are vulnerable, while other classes are lower dps, but have some protection.
In DDO, however, meaningful AC requires sacrifices in DPS. Both in stats and gear. And significant sacrifices at that. I can understand that a raid boss would require a dedicated tank who has been built for that purpose, but in regular questing, fighters, paladins, monks, and to a lesser extent, rangers and divines, should be able to slap on a couple of level appropriate pieces of gear and notice a major difference in incoming damage. As an example, the last monk I levelled was a monkcher. He had good AC up until amrath (~65 at level 19-20). but to achieve that AC, he had to: max wis, significant dex investment, wear armor bracers + icy rainments (or dodge bracers + dragontouched), chattering ring, barkskin buff, ship buffs, and probably something else I forgot now. Now, his dex/wis stats were going to be high due to the ranged nature of the build. a more melee focused monk, who wants to invest more moderately in those stats and pump strength up, would be hard pressed to achieve relevant AC even while leveling.

In short, I would like to see certain classes achieve meaningful AC via small sacrifices for regular questing. E.g. a fighter in full plate and a shield should not be hit as much as a barb in leathers in gianthold.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 09:51 AM
Some perspective int he PJs versus armor debate.

The Below are for KENSAIS, not defensive builds. Defensively built heavy armor is ahead right now on any build that can maintain threat. PJ splash MIGHT be able to get a few points ahead at the sacrifice of HP, Intim gear and DPS that a heavy armor person doesn't need to do and anything calling itself a "tank" should have.

Back to this hypothetical . . . Two 36 point Fighters, 1 pure 20 the other 18 with a 2 monk splash. Both have 30 DEX (16 starting, plus tomes, gear, buffs, etc . . .) 52 STR, the Monk-Splash will need two lower CON to get some Wisdom. Both have the SAME amount of feats slotted towards AC. The heavy armor guys has mobility.


Heavy armor Gear:

Head Epic Frost
Neck Kensai
Belt Ravager
Armor Epic Calvary (+7 Slotted)
Ring 1 Stalwart (20% healing amp)
Ring 2 Ravager
Boots Boots of corrosion
Bracers Level 16 Bracers of Wind (+3Dodge) (+1 Dode AC crafted)
Cloak Epic envenomed
Gloves Epic Claw (30% healling amp, will have set bonus for +4 damage and 20% threat)
Goggles Dodge 2
Trinket Epic GoMF

Still can't figure out where to put the HP item. Anyway, yields an AC of . . .

10 Base
1 Dodge
1 TWD
1 Alchemical Dodge
17 Epic Cav Plate slotted +7
4 Shield wand
4 Bracers of wind (+3 and +1 Dodge)
10 Dex
4 Insight (Shroud Crafted)
5 Protection
2 Dodge Goggles
1 Haste
5 Barkskin (assumes ranger in party, 18/2 gets the same)
3 Abishai
3 Airship

71 - If he takes Combat Expertise and has the raid buffage it'd be more. He's also has the option of slotting Red Scale Armor for more DPS and I think the same AC. He's still able to wield some impressive DPS gear in this setting including two ToD sets.



Time now for Mr. 18/2

Head Epic Frost
Neck Epic Grim's (+7 STR and Green Slot)
Belt Ravager
Armor Icy Rainments
Ring 1 Stalwart (20% healing amp)
Ring 2 Ravager
Boots Boots of corrosion
Bracers Epic Scorched
Cloak Epic envenomed
Gloves Epic Claw (30% healling amp, will have set bonus for +4 damage and 20% threat)
Goggles Dodge 2
Trinket Epic GoMF

You really can't fit in Dodge 1, that's a point lost and you need to sacrifice a TOD set to make this work. Either loose 2 haste boosts from lack of Kensai set or lose ravager. losing Ravager would allow Epic Siren's belt to be used in it's place, maybe freeing up a slot.

Either way it's still an additional DPS loss added to the loss of the pure's capstone.

This yields the below AC:

10 Base
1 Dodge
1 TWD
1 Centered
4 Icy Raiments Dodge
1 Alchemical Dodge
8 Armor Bracers
4 Shield wand
3 Epic Grim's
10 Dexterity
9 Wisdom
4 Insight (Shroud Crafted)
5 Protection
2 Dodge Goggles
1 Haste
5 Barkskin
3 Abishai
3 Airship

75

So the difference is about 4ish points - that's really all it is. And to get those 4 points he's losing 10% Double-strike, at least two points of CON, a TOD DPS set, and the option of wearing red-scale for more DPS against targets that take fire damage.

That's doesn't seem out of whack to me. Though I'd still like to see heavy armor get a SLIGHT boost so it's about equal, but that means 4-5 points at the most. I'd like to see it easier to get a high MDB in all armor as getting the DEX that high should pay off for it's cost.

Of course none of that means ANYTHING if they are getting hit on a 2 in any above level 20 content.

YMMV depending on builds, I took DPS kensais for this purpose because in regards to tanks, there are other considerations that but S&B ahead right now.

Nyvn
04-20-2012, 09:54 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes




2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?


Yes

I see it as a combination of two parts Extreme to Hit and the Small Window for Meaninful AC

Outside of EPICS AC is relevant, however it suffers from the small useful window. If a character can't hit the AC threshld then any investment is wasted. If I build a melee cleric that contributes a small amount of DPS then it's beneficial to include that small increase to DPS. However if I build a Fighter with a small focus on AC it doesn't matter in the slightest. If your AC is not in the meaningful range then any investment is wasted. Similarly if you're above a meaningful range then AC is wasted. The meaningful range is restricted to a D20 roll, and with the large to hit number the d20 is awfully small.




3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Make even small investments in AC meaningful and lower the extreme to hit, especially in Epics

Sillk
04-20-2012, 09:59 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1) Yes
2) I think it's an issue of DR. I could walk up to a parked tank (a real army tank) and hit it all day, and it would never be damaged. I could walk up to a rabbit, and never catch it....
3) A balance of AC to DR. A reasonable AC, for quick nimble characters.... and heavily armored tanks (characters) would have lower AC's, but would have a comparable survivability to a guy running around in his pj's.

Spartywinz
04-20-2012, 10:07 AM
1) Yes
2) Sub-problem - incentive currently limits uses of various armor types which means alot of wasted art development and unused items
3) inherent armor type abs bonuses cloth/robe 0% dmg absorb with an escalating ladder up to Heavy plate 20 or 25% absorb
and adjusted "time to equip" it is to long now, making all instant or tiered rob/cloth/docent instant, light armor 2 seconds, medium 4, heavy 6

Razcar
04-20-2012, 10:13 AM
It seems there is a serious misunderstanding ac possible what is given up comparing AC to splash builds, I would wonder how much experience people posting these actually have in making them? I have both equally geared and am curious how they make these blanket statements.
It is a lingering meme. It used to be more like that (after monks were introduced), and it is something that people find irritating because it speaks against "logic", especially the endurance of metal versus cloth. And because of that irritation people still say that armor/shield builds have much lower AC than monk splashes.

(Never mind the firmly established trope of the lightly armored hero - from chain-mail bikinis to Errol Flynn-style swashbucklers. Heroes in fantasy seldom have heavy armor, and manage to effectively avoid damage through quickness of feet and mind. Villains on the other hand are often heavily armored.)

sweez
04-20-2012, 10:21 AM
If the devs take anything from this thread, hopefuly they take the fact that most people seem to be stuck in 2010 lol.

Hafeal
04-20-2012, 10:23 AM
I think AC works fine from levels 1-19.

I disagree. For 1st life and casual players in particular, AC is broken long before that. Nor is it intuitive. Contrary to the instinct that some AC is better than none, game experience tells players forget AC.

Nor is AC easily obtainable for the 1st life/casual player, imo. Using your example below:

1) Stalwart Defender and Stalwart Stance (requires a specific build choice contrary to the instinct that at least some AC is good for any build, like a plain 'ol fighter);
2) Combat expertise (another build sacrifice feat which most casual and 1st life players will not understand)
3) Use a tower shield (same as above and contrary to the idea any shield should help);
4) Dragontouched armor (ok, so we're already talking teen levels, when AC is really degrading fast);
5) Alchemical bonus (advanced, relatively obscure game mechanic, which requires either plat to buy your ingredients off the AH or wizzie kind enough to get your earth gems);
6) Airship buffs - which casual may not have or if their guild is small, won't have;
7) Dodge (another feat sacrifice which casual and new players may not realize the value of taking for AC).

Overall, the example you gave is an expert building up a flavor build - exactly what is wrong with AC. Add in that DDO has a terrible interface for character sheets showing stackable breakdowns - it is way too easy for new and casual players to just give up on AC, especially when other players will be telling them it isn't worth it. Add in that the game overwhelmingly rewards players with the joy of whacking something, AC is currently vastly disappointing as a tactical choice.


T
Stalwart Defender

10 base
15 DragonTouched Armor
4 Dex
9 Tower Shield
2 Alchemical bonus on armor and shield
5 Protection
3 Barkskin potion
4 Insight Bonus
1 Haste
3 Airship buffs
5 Combat Expertise
3 Stalwart Defender
4 Stalwart Stance
1 Dodge Feat

= 69 AC

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 10:28 AM
Nor is AC easily obtainable for the 1st life/casual player, imo. Using your example below:

1st life/casual players typically suck at everything, why should AC be any different?

Not really joking, but their DPS will be pretty lousy also. Odds are they'll make squishy casters/divines/rogues/etc . . .

Uska
04-20-2012, 10:31 AM
My favourite pet peeve about AC in ddo is that no matter how shiny how durable your armor is and has a decent ac rating. Somehow your plate armor makes enemies MISS you instead of protect you from incoming damage. It's kinda counter intuitive.. I mean Chainmails should protect you from arrows penetrating you even if they hit but instead all chainmail ac does does is make the arrows miss you totally.

I think the concept of armor class should be discussed as in what it is supposed to represent. Clear definition might be very important to this thread.

Right or wrong armor in dnd has always been about missing or hitting the target and they shouldnt change that, I agree that armor should be protecting you not stopping you from being hit but they changed that now we wouldnt be playing dnd.

Shadow_Flayer
04-20-2012, 10:33 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes



2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The current system only works at the lower levels. After 10 or so, unless you are dedicated to getting a very high AC, your AC doesn't matter. Just get some blur/displacement.

Also, it's sad to see so many different armor types in the game, but only a few of them used (robes, outfits, some chain, mithral full plate). You folks put a lot of time into other still (leathers, brigandine, etc), that look cool, but have no real use in the game.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


Having an average AC would get you hit an average amount of the time, rather than almost always. Having more choices in what to wear, so we don't all look like clones unless we buy armor kits.

Uska
04-20-2012, 10:34 AM
Yes there is something very wrong with ac in the game

It scales poorly and takes to deep an investment to make it worthing anything and in later stages it is almost impossible to have a workable ac and epic forget it

I would like to see ac build be worth while the whole game through.

RigorAdar
04-20-2012, 10:36 AM
1. Yes
2. Riegn in stacking bonuses and cap dex/wis bonuses. If you cant have a cap on AC you will never be able to have a functioning system using d20 without fundamentaly changing core rules by implementing some kind of foriegn system. I think most people would be agreeble to changing rules on stacking vs adding a whole new non PnP change to AC.
Peoples complaint about AC builds sacrificing every item slot to achieve is valid and comes from the fact that you use 4 slots for dodge, 1 for hieghtened awareness, 1 for protection, ect. this could easily be resolved by changing the type of bonus and only taking the highest value for each type.
The argument over cloth vs plate/shield could be resolved from having a cap to stat bonuses.
3. Meaningful AC achieved for all chars with some DPS sacrifice

DANTEIL
04-20-2012, 10:38 AM
So this is my perspective just as a casual player who has never done Epics and is only moderately geared:


1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
For the most part, I have ignored AC on all of my characters. I grew up playing PnP when THAC0 was *the big thing* and so the fact that AC just seems irrelevant in this game, unless you make that your sole focus, was a big shock. Armor (and related skills that boost AC by reducing the chance of being hit and/or damaged) is there for a reason and so I couldn't understand why it wasn't that big a deal here.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
I would like the feeling that the improvements from increased AC are noticeable all along the AC-curve, rather than just a big boost at the highest ends, as it seems like it is now. Since I am not a game-mechanics nerd, I have no suggestions for how to do that, which is good since you aren't asking for any.

grandeibra
04-20-2012, 10:46 AM
If the devs take anything from this thread, hopefuly they take the fact that most people seem to be stuck in 2010 lolThis

+1

GoldyGopher
04-20-2012, 10:47 AM
Some perspective int he PJs versus armor debate.
Snip


Under ideal conditions and Fully Raid Buffed the PJ wearing Monk Splash can easily attain a 7 point AC advantage over a Defender Build.

I have both or rather before my latest TR I had both.

Lormyr
04-20-2012, 10:48 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

Three things.

First the range of ac values is too high for a d20 roll. Making a 50-60 ac as worthless as a 2 ac.

Second AC is balanced around the upper tiers making it hard to reach the useable range and at very steep tradeoffs.

Third Epic raid boss ac have unattainable Ac requirements.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

A wider range of useable ac values. Ability to get even moderately useful AC in all content without having to completely forgoe dealing dmg and then be able to ramp up your ac to better values with more tradeoff.

LeLoric pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. I must echo his sentiments, though I will add one thing:

In a setting such as this (an MMO videogame), I understand the need for a semblance of balance in the to-hit/AC arena. Having character's that can only be hit on a 20 by epic raid boss's would be a little damaging to game balance, as much as I personally would love being able to build and play such characters. But that said, in the current game, building for AC is the single most feat, gear, and build intensive investment you can make on a character. It requires the steepest investment of any kind of build in the game, and it's effectiveness should reflect that.

As it stands, however, I strongly believe DPS geared and well built characters perform quite well overall in all content. The same cannot be said for AC characters, and their investment is considerably more too boot.

Aeolwind
04-20-2012, 10:54 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?



1 - Yes
2 - Grossly Inflated mob attack values in some cases, obscure, god-awful stacking bonus requirements & rarity of said bonuses. Dodge being the obvious culprit. Titan being the most painful.
3 - Removal of glancing blows (Except on mobs with 2 handed fighting), reduction in overall bonus available & required, bonuses tied more directly to PrE's that are 'supposed' to tank.

Chai
04-20-2012, 10:56 AM
This isn't true anymore... PrEs and ship buffs and even basic gear make it pretty easy to get a decent AC if you want it.

Stalwart Defender

10 base
15 DragonTouched Armor
4 Dex
9 Tower Shield
2 Alchemical bonus on armor and shield
5 Protection
3 Barkskin potion
4 Insight Bonus
1 Haste
3 Airship buffs
5 Combat Expertise
3 Stalwart Defender
4 Stalwart Stance
1 Dodge Feat

= 69 AC

That's good enough to tank VoD on normal, and not get touched in the Vale and in Amrath quests. The only thing that takes any grinding in there is a Shroud Insight weapon.

Throw in ranger barkskin, and a bard song, and you can tank VoD on hard, and Suulo in ToD on normal.

And with all that, it takes longer to run most quests - so leveling this beast sucks unless youre rolling with friends alot - which brings up another issue with AC. I can roll a monk or a ranger with a monk level who makes far less sacrifice to DPS - can still TWF - and has the same AC or in some cases better AC than your standard full plate + tower shield tank - can stun (monk) or use 2x khopesh (ranger). The ranger will also have evasion and the monk improved evasion. The only time I feel a shield is better is when AC doesnt matter as much - epic mobs. When AC is irrelevant DR comes into play.

In short: Getting the same AC on different builds does not require the same sacrifice as it does for others.

Angelus_dead
04-20-2012, 10:56 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
1. Yes there are problems, mostly apparent in the direction of monsters attacking players.


2. AC is not important to enough characters: if a player frequently has monsters make attack rolls on her, then she should care about AC. Buffs/penalties to AC/attack are used in too many game systems for it to be something that only a special thin slice of characters care about. Also AC is too disconnected from Fortification, which has become a far more important defensive stat, and yet one with only a few ways to obtain. A specific consequence of the problem is that characters with high dexterity / wisdom aren't as good as they should be (and granting heavy armor proficiency isn't good enough for classes).

There are also lesser problems in how +attack bonuses aren't important enough for players, since it is only extremely rare bosses where a reasonable player will miss on a 2. Another specific problem on that line is how Destruction weapons work: named vs generic, group vs single.


3. Results: the majority of characters desire obtain more AC (even if just a little), and at least find it a reasonable tradeoff to put on heavier armor, follow a paladin, or hold a shield: those things provide a nonzero defensive benefit. For example, if a player notices that he's taking the most damage of his 9 teammates fighting a boss, switching to a shield will usually change him to no longer be in the rear. Also, making at least a moderate investment in AC is a prerequisite for being immune to crits/sneak attacks (and also helps you retain that immunity against rogue-style mobs!). However! along with the bigger range of meaningful ACs, it's beneficial if the damage reduction isn't based too much on hits / misses, and instead uses some proportional decreases.

(Remember how DDO has an excessively high ratio of heal spells to player hp totals, and how that makes damage with an element of randomness more dangerous and punishing than if the ratio was lower or the damage was predictable)

Phemt81
04-20-2012, 10:57 AM
The problem about AC is that developers tried to avoid the "nothing achieved" effect of the P&P game. That is when you are on a low level character and pass several rounds without hitting the enemies, and vice versa.

They actually did a good job, since this is a real time action game.

The issue that mobs have huge bonuses to hit you after level 12 quests and on lower level quests on elite too.

On the other side, developers added lots of hp to both pc and npc/enemies BUT the DRs players can achieve are very similar, if not the same, to p&p version.

I think this is were the game failed to view the videogame adaptation of d&d and a little rework would improve balance a lot imo.

So, i like the suggestion to give a 1DR always stacking bonus each 13 AC points, but you didn't ask for solutions here, but to point out the problem. ;)

Hope this help.

Eladiun
04-20-2012, 11:03 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

a) It scales poorly and is useless in most end game and epic content.
b) The cost to achieve serviceable AC even in 16+ content isn't worth the investment.
c) Weapon Finesse and WoP like weapons no longer viable. AC generally have higher Dex than Str the toons offset DPS loss with this combo.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

a) Better Scaling
b) More varied gear that allow better slot consolidation and utility (i.e Dodge +4 on more than one level 16 item). Increased stacking of bonuses.
c) Weapons that make Weapon Finesse useful again.

Thrudh
04-20-2012, 11:04 AM
Under ideal conditions and Fully Raid Buffed the PJ wearing Monk Splash can easily attain a 7 point AC advantage over a Defender Build.

I have both or rather before my latest TR I had both.

4 of that is the Dodge bonus on Icy Raiments, and the rest of it probably comes from being Dex or Wis based, which is a trade-off the shield and plate fighter does not have to make. He can put more of his build points and level-ups into CON and STR

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 11:07 AM
And with all that, it takes longer to run most quests - so leveling this beast sucks unless youre rolling with friends alot - which brings up another issue with AC. I can roll a monk or a ranger with a monk level who makes far less sacrifice to DPS - can still TWF - and has the same AC or in some cases better AC than your standard full plate + tower shield tank - can stun (monk) or use 2x khopesh (ranger). The ranger will also have evasion and the monk improved evasion.

Replace the Tower Shield with a Stack of shield clickies (stop laughing, i do this at lower levels) and the TWD feat. Eventually you can get the UMB for Shield wands.

64 is nothing to sneeze at for leveling. That's about what an "Exploiter" would get with the same level of grind.

Comparing a Ranger/monk to a fighter is also when thing start getting silly. Since we're talking about low-gear toons (no HP item or ubber tomes) that ranger will weigh in at 400ish HP at level 20. Monk probably about the same.

The fighter will be 600-700.

Evasion my butt :)



The only time I feel a shield is better is when AC doesnt matter as much - epic mobs. When AC is irrelevant DR comes into play.

In short: Getting the same AC on different builds does not require the same sacrifice as it does for others.

When it's "kill the trash" time no melees should have a shield equipped. But when it's time to kill raid bosses the the shield mastery and static DR will absorb a ton of grazing-hit damage so even in non "hit on a 2" situations it's still better.

noinfo
04-20-2012, 11:08 AM
Under ideal conditions and Fully Raid Buffed the PJ wearing Monk Splash can easily attain a 7 point AC advantage over a Defender Build.

I have both or rather before my latest TR I had both.

Ah the word easily.

What was the relative str and hp of both toons? What was the DR of the Heavy armour toon? Improved shield mastery? What was the too hit of both toons?

I have several of both types and note the following:

You can achieve higher AC on dex builds due to limitations of dex. However that said the sacrifices to achieve Dex and Wis of that level in stats and gear is significant. You will have one or a combination of: Less too hit, less dps, less hp. To achieve a comparable AC to a maxed heavy armour costs, to exceed it costs a substantial amount.

Cyr
04-20-2012, 11:10 AM
In Red

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
Yes
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
There are numerous issues with AC, but the primary one is that the range of useful AC against particular monsters is limited to a range of 20. This means that you either go all out for AC or dump it lots of times and it is a system where incremental investments are not worthwhile. It also makes it so mobs are sometimes built as no miss mobs intentionally because if they are not incoming damage is dramatically lower the next time a new piece of gear comes out.
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
Having all ACs matter in all portions of the game from the highest to the lowest including crazy scaled ACs that could result from better gear and enhancement combinations.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 11:11 AM
Under ideal conditions and Fully Raid Buffed the PJ wearing Monk Splash can easily attain a 7 point AC advantage over a Defender Build.

I have both or rather before my latest TR I had both.

Spell this out. Gear, feats, everything including these "ideal conditions."

Can this PJ build still put out the threat to hold aggro over maxxed DPS melees and sorcs?

Can this PJ build get the 80+ intimidate needed to control the toughest raid bosses?

Can they hit their targets?

Do they have the great healing amp needed so scrolls can keep them alive?

I've seen a few builds that can do this but they weigh in at about 95-100 AC which is the same as the S&B guys.

The 110+ AC strange halflings with starting 6 STR do not count. They don't do any damage, cannot maintain any threat, and are in no way "tanks."


4 of that is the Dodge bonus on Icy Raiments, and the rest of it probably comes from being Dex or Wis based, which is a trade-off the shield and plate fighter does not have to make. He can put more of his build points and level-ups into CON and STR

What he said. What was sacrificed for those few extra points? did people go level-ups in DEX and not STR? Did they go halfling for more DEX instead of human/helf for more HP and healing amp?

You have to look at the total package, examine the build holisitcally. I know a guy who I think can get to 112 on his 18/2 pally tank . . . but he's 250-300 HP behind the good S&B guys, his threat isn't that great, doesn't have the best healing amp, and his INTIM weighs in at about 65. I'll take the new "Rock Candy" over than any day.

noinfo
04-20-2012, 11:15 AM
1. Yes
2. Riegn in stacking bonuses and cap dex/wis bonuses. If you cant have a cap on AC you will never be able to have a functioning system using d20 without fundamentaly changing core rules by implementing some kind of foriegn system. I think most people would be agreeble to changing rules on stacking vs adding a whole new non PnP change to AC.
Peoples complaint about AC builds sacrificing every item slot to achieve is valid and comes from the fact that you use 4 slots for dodge, 1 for hieghtened awareness, 1 for protection, ect. this could easily be resolved by changing the type of bonus and only taking the highest value for each type.
The argument over cloth vs plate/shield could be resolved from having a cap to stat bonuses.
3. Meaningful AC achieved for all chars with some DPS sacrifice

On the same day they do this they need to cap everything else in game from all stats, to total too hits and damage. How many different stacking bonuses to hit do we have and damage? Stat bonuses etc.

Please don't speak for most people they have the chance to discuss their ideas themselves. The too hit system already is different to PNP and DND the AC system can be easily made to work with expanded variation of dice providing pseudo iterative attack simulation which is very much PNP.

Djeserit
04-20-2012, 11:16 AM
AC is pointless during the leveling process.

Mobs die so quickly if you just focus on killing, there's no point any fancy strategy like tanks and dedicated healers anymore. Currently the best defence is offence, by a long shot, and you get the quest done quicker.

AC is just flavor, which doesn't mean it can't be fun. But perhaps it ought to have a more important role.

However, spearblock is quite useful. (Points to solution....)


(I only know about leveling up, haven't really tried AC in raids/epic. I heard it works for the tank in raids, but that is such a specialized role, kind of silly for most characters.)

Vanquishedfo
04-20-2012, 11:18 AM
Right or wrong armor in dnd has always been about missing or hitting the target and they shouldnt change that, I agree that armor should be protecting you not stopping you from being hit but they changed that now we wouldnt be playing dnd.

actually since even the old days many have house ruled variations on how to apply armor as DR rather then defense value. Some made there ways to all through articles and contest in issues of dragon such as vote for the best house rules contest I recall in an issue in the late 90s.

With D20 and the OGL as well as WOTC themselves sticking thier hands into non specific D&D genres like star wars d20 which in the revised( more or less 3.5) version they do swap armor from defense value into damage reduction. defense still comes from dex, feats, and a bonus given by each class reflecting its combat ability.

Conan D20 took it a step father, improving the base damage profile of many weapons, and giving them rules for armor penetration, more potential weapon breaking rules for them suffering abuse during battle( real swords rarely last extended periods of use without needing repair or outright replacment) and completely changed weapon finesse by dropping the need for a feat, making it a choice of how you wielded certain possibly finessable weapons, and made it so it outright by passed armor DR.

So although the original THACO system did indeed focus entirely on the to hit or not to be hit method. D&D long ago evolved past that point for the majority of players.

noinfo
04-20-2012, 11:19 AM
Spell this out. Gear, feats, everything including these "ideal conditions."

Can this PJ build still put out the threat to hold aggro over maxxed DPS melees and sorcs?

Can this PJ build get the 80+ intimidate needed to control the toughest raid bosses?

Can they hit their targets?

Do they have the great healing amp needed so scrolls can keep them alive?

I've seen a few builds that can do this but they weigh in at about 95-100 AC which is the same as the S&B guys.

The 110+ AC strange halflings with starting 6 STR do not count. They don't do any damage, cannot maintain any threat, and are in no way "tanks."

In all fairness this is a general AC thread not one about Tanking, though this is certainly part of it. I believe there is a place for those massive AC builds, they are no longer a game breaking build or even close to it as even if they are being hit only on a 20, they are taking at least x2 as long or more to kill providing x3 the opportunity. Ballancing around a much lower AC number means that this build will not only be putting out less dps it will actually be less protected than a lower AC toon who may also be only being hit on a 20 but killing mobs faster and having more HP.

These are not the AC's to be ballancing around.

Vanquishedfo
04-20-2012, 11:20 AM
The current AC system to me seems to have potential, but usually by lvl 14, due to the power creep of items like green steel, and the mobs, ac tends to take a back seat to HP and healing amp.

Being hit is just to frequent and common.

Id suggest devs try playing a totally dumped con finesse fighting drow kensai of the rapier to get a real idea of how abused some can be currently.

donblas
04-20-2012, 11:22 AM
1. Yes there's something wrong.

2. Different values of AC only matter in a narrow band of 20: if your AC is less than a monster's to-hit then it doesn't matter how much lower it goes (so AC55 is just as bad as none); if your AC is 21 more than its to-hit bonus it doesn't matter how much higher it goes after that. The former is the more usual state so AC is dumped by most players later in game.

Also, only a few basic armour types are used as they are clearly superior than others: mithral full plate (for medium and heavy armor users) and mithral breastplate (for light armor users), and adamantine full plate (for DR). This was also true of P&P but the advantages were offset by cost, but in DDo it's easy to afford better armor types.

3. I'd like to see all improvements to AC have a small effect on being hit (and it could be very small at the extremes). And extremely high values of player AC should only be achievable at some sacrifice (eg less DPS).

I'd like a rebalance of DR, ASF, AC and dex bonus for the different types of armor so there is no overall obvious best type - then the great art of the guys who designed the other types would see the light of day.

I'd like DR and AC being kept separate.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 11:24 AM
In all fairness this is a general AC thread not one about Tanking, though this is certainly part of it. I believe there is a place for those massive AC builds, they are no longer a game breaking build or even close to it as even if they are being hit only on a 20, they are taking at least x2 as long or more to kill providing x3 the opportunity. Ballancing around a much lower AC number means that this build will not only be putting out less dps it will actually be less protected than a lower AC toon who may also be only being hit on a 20 but killing mobs faster and having more HP.

These are not the AC's to be ballancing around.

He said "Under ideal conditions and Fully Raid Buffed the PJ wearing Monk Splash can easily attain a 7 point AC advantage over a Defender Build. "

He's refuting my 4 point difference by talking about tank comparisons which he concludes to be a 7 point difference.

My numbers were "open, I spelled everything out. My 4 point difference was Pure 20 versus 18/2 in a DPS role with realistic stats and as many best-in-slot gear options as possible.

Here's the thing . . . AC is a "black box" for far too many players. Far too many don't understand that it works, they don't understand the work involved in making toons that don't get hit on 2s, they just can't understand why that ranger/paladin/PJ fighter is holding aggro over their barb and not getting hit.

When somebody says the difference between armor and PJs is "7 points" that need to be explained in details so it can be shown what was given up to get that 7 points.

Woodmansee
04-20-2012, 11:29 AM
I don't get why armor makes you harder to hit, should be easier to hit, but take less damage.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 11:32 AM
I don't get why armor makes you harder to hit, should be easier to hit, but take less damage.

In D&D a hit means "a hit that landed hard enough to cause damage." it's a black-letter rule.

Ever get punched in the arm for no real effect? You got hit, but you weren't damaged.

Technically a weapon could have made contact with you even if you were "missed."

noinfo
04-20-2012, 11:35 AM
Here's the thing . . . AC is a "black box" for far too many players. Far too many don't understand that it works, they don't understand the work involved in making toons that don't get hit on 2s, they just can't understand why that ranger/paladin/PJ fighter is holding aggro over their barb and not getting hit.


Unfortunately I think this sums it up for most people. Particulary in the PJ vs Heavy debate.

And though it is important to think about tanking whent talking AC, trash mobs make up much of the game and need to be considered as well. People get particulary worked up over splashes being able to kill with minimal damage and being OP without grazing hits or if epic too hit is revised but then go on to defend their WF and FS being able to just heal through and instakil immobilise anything AND be missed 50% of the time due to displacement.
So what if you can solo through an epic quest on an AC toon or party of them when u cant on a pure dps. Each has its role/style.

Woodmansee
04-20-2012, 11:37 AM
In D&D a hit means "a hit that landed hard enough to cause damage." it's a black-letter rule.

Ever get punched in the arm for no real effect? You got hit, but you weren't damaged.

Technically a weapon could have made contact with you even if you were "missed."


Still doesn't make sense. If you are hit in ddo, without damage reduction, you take damage, even in full plate.

maddmatt70
04-20-2012, 11:38 AM
Under ideal conditions and Fully Raid Buffed the PJ wearing Monk Splash can easily attain a 7 point AC advantage over a Defender Build.

I have both or rather before my latest TR I had both.

Under ideal conditions? Come on man this is a mistatement that if you analze your characters should lead to a retraction. If you look on the forums there are sword of boards that have 90+ self sustained ac and with outside buffs hit in the 100s..

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 11:48 AM
Still doesn't make sense. If you are hit in ddo, without damage reduction, you take damage, even in full plate.

if you got "hit" in DDO, that means you got hit hard enough to take damage.

Enoach
04-20-2012, 11:52 AM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
No for levels 1 to Non-Epic - For Melee Damage, a moderate investment makes a difference - Many don't see this due to the Zerg nature of running quests. The old adage of "the best way to avoid a blow is to not be there".

Yes for Epic


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
At Epic levels the to-hit of trash mobs makes 90 AC similar to 18 AC - This puts characters that invested in AC at a disadvantage as the survivability advantage trade-off is removed from being relevant.


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?
I would like to see AC that is achievable by Full Plate AC builds to PJ AC Builds, while requiring an investment, matter in mitigating incoming melee damage at the Epic Level.

I would like to see more options for AC - Example: currently Dodge +4 only exists on one Armor slot item - WF Race and Heavy/Medium Armor Builds are locked out of that option.

Woodmansee
04-20-2012, 11:53 AM
if you got "hit" in DDO, that means you got hit hard enough to take damage.

Still its stupid. If a monster hits two people with the same armor class and the same dice roll, without damage reduction, the person in cloth takes the same damage as someone in plate.

Armor should reduce damage only, with heavy armor being the best reduction. Armor class should come from stats like dex, wis, or int, and maybe skill or enhancements.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 11:54 AM
Still its stupid. If a monster hits two people with the same armor class and the same dice roll, without damage reduction, the person in cloth takes the same damage as someone in plate.

Armor should reduce damage only, with heavy armor being the best reduction. Armor class should come from stats like dex, wis, or int, and maybe skill or enhancements.

You're not getting it. I'll just add you to "ignore."

Woodmansee
04-20-2012, 12:01 PM
You're not getting it. I'll just add you to "ignore."

I got what you was saying the first time, that doesn't mean its not stupid. Armor should reduce damage its that simple, armor class should make you harder to hit. Thats how it should work imo. Thanks for the ignore, one less troll.

TheLordBear
04-20-2012, 12:03 PM
1) yes
2) This will be a bit Melee-centric which are the classes I think it matters most on. Ac starts to become useless for most characters around gianthold. A +5 suit of plate and +5 tower shield (which would have been AWESOME in PnP) becomes useless in content over lever 13 or so. It takes a very specific build and gear to have a useful Ac through endgame. And if you get a useful AC, the tradeoffs for DPS are usually pretty severe. The only real exception are Monks which can get a decent AC with few tradeoffs.
My main, a Monk, has around a ~70, and great DPS to boot. However, even a 70 AC isn't that great in level 19+ content.
My fighter (a kensai) has around a 50 Ac with a full tower sheild (which I prefer not to use). He gets hit 95% of the time in anything in the vale or beyond. This is with semi decent gear.
As many have mentioned, AC is completely useless in Epic content.
3) I'd like to see some benefit from an AC in the 40-50 range to endgame. That is a number that is attainable by many melees without sacrificing DPS very much.
As it stands most Kensais and rangers and bards might as well be naked. As the game stands right now, unless you can get a 65+ AC, you might as well have nothing.

EatSmart
04-20-2012, 12:05 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1) Yes. Am I allowed to go further and say "hell, yes!"?

2) It's effectiveness drops like a rock. At low levels it is relatively easy to establish a competative AC that provides melee damage mitigation. At later levels AC is reliant on stacking bonuses. Upon reaching epic levels, AC becomes entirely irrelevent unless you are a hyper-specialised (arguably to the point of not being useful for any other purpose). In pen and paper, an intelligent monster coming accross a player with poor AC would dump all their attack bonus into power attack.

3) For incremental AC investment to be rewarded with incremental melee damage mitigation without implimenting even more feats into the game. Having a 60 AC should be noticably more survivable in epic content than -10 AC. For the difference between robes, heavy, medium and light armour to be an actual choice for all players.

GoldyGopher
04-20-2012, 12:12 PM
Nevermind.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 12:16 PM
Comments in Red.


"In S&B the number is in thier mid 80's a monk splash the number is closer 90's"

Wrong. http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4235377&postcount=1

Look up the new Rock Candy build as well (I couldn't find it) or Sirgog's Iron Defender.

GoldyGopher
04-20-2012, 12:30 PM
"In S&B the number is in thier mid 80's a monk splash the number is closer 90's"

WRONG. http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4235377&postcount=1

Look up the new Rock Candy build as well (I couldn't find it) or Sirgog's Iron Defender.

And what did the players have to do to build those builds?
That is the part you have missed. The vast majority of players can achieve an AC on a third TR of a defender build ~85 give or take a point based upon thier build style. You cannot plan out a game based upon the 1% of 1% of defender builds that have the time and willingness to grind out "hundreds" of hours to move that point up a few points or a lot of points in his build. The problem still remains that once you move from Elite TOD to EPIC anything that AC is basically pointless and even more so for people who are not tanking.

While you basic 32 point Dex Build Monk Splash with even the smallest grind for a couple of items can hit ~90, a third TR I am pretty sure that a 95 is easily achievable. Again add in the Grind and you can climb a few points higher. The problem still remains that once you enter a epic Level quest the AC is pointless.

Thrudh
04-20-2012, 12:36 PM
While you basic 32 point Dex Build Monk Splash with even the smallest grind for a couple of items can hit ~90, a third TR I am pretty sure that a 95 is easily achievable.

Break that down please...

My double TR AC Dex-based monk splash is approaching 90 AC, but it took quite a bit of epic gear grinding to get there, and I still need one more piece to complete my Abaishi set.

I wouldn't say 90 or 95 AC is attainable with a "couple of items" or the "smallest grind".

I think the devs have done a good job balancing out PJ and heavy armor AC builds.


The problem still remains that once you enter a epic Level quest the AC is pointless.

I agree with this.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 12:50 PM
And what did the players have to do to build those builds?
That is the part you have missed. The vast majority of players can achieve an AC on a third TR of a defender build ~85 give or take a point based upon thier build style. You cannot plan out a game based upon the 1% of 1% of defender builds that have the time and willingness to grind out "hundreds" of hours to move that point up a few points or a lot of points in his build. The problem still remains that once you move from Elite TOD to EPIC anything that AC is basically pointless and even more so for people who are not tanking.


And in Epics the S&B tank is clearly better in situations where damage mitigation is needed or can switch to THFing or TWFing for when it is not.



While you basic 32 point Dex Build Monk Splash with even the smallest grind for a couple of items can hit ~90, a third TR I am pretty sure that a 95 is easily achievable. Again add in the Grind and you can climb a few points higher. The problem still remains that once you enter a epic Level quest the AC is pointless.

Again, break it down, show me equivalent gearing where the Monk-splash over-takes the S&B guy. That's 90+ AC monk-splash is also going to need a ton of gear, tomes, and build-points. Show me the numbers please.

S&B tank with who's only epic item is the Crystal Cove Armor . . . 93 Raid-buffed AC without anything crazy. Show me a monkey-splash with the equivalent gear that hits the same.

10 Base
1 Dodge
3 Stalwart
1 Alchemical Dodge
17 Epic Cav Plate slotted +7
9 Shield
1 Shield ritual
4 Bracers of wind (+3 and +1 Dodge)
10 Dex (that might be pushing it for a non-dorf)
4 Insight (Shroud Crafted)
5 Protection
2 Dodge Goggles(?)
5 Combat Expertise
1 Haste
5 Barkskin
4 Bard song
2 Recitation
4 Stance
3 Airship
2 TOD set

93

dkyle
04-20-2012, 01:03 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

1) Yes
2) Only a very small range of AC matters in any given content, and in the most difficult content, AC basically doesn't matter at all. e.g., 8AC vs. 80AC doesn't matter in Epics.
3) Every point of AC matters, even if only a little.

Tsuarok
04-20-2012, 01:13 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?



1) yes
2) the vast diversity of armors available in-game are irrelevant because the meaningful range is limited to an interval of 20
3) every point of AC should matter a bit, even 1, even 50001. There should be no point where it's not better to have one more ac, nor where the AC attained is completely irrelevant.

PS it's really hard to answer #3 without feeling like I'm suggesting something... I hope this is the type of feedback you're looking for.

Silverleafeon
04-20-2012, 01:17 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

AC in DDO and 3rd edition D&D starts at certain numbers.
These numbers are easily tracked and balanced.

However, in 3rd edition D&D about level 13 everything starts going haywire.
It becomes difficult to keep things balanced in many ways, and one has to start customizing monsters.
By epic levels, everything has fallen apart.

DDO manages to keep a lot of things balanced out, much longer,
but AC becomes meaningless for most eventually.
However, AC verses some creatures continues to help.

The danger is allowing everyone to become unhitable yielding new problems.



3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Hmm...difficult question.

4th edition solved the problem by making all the numbers very rigid and making magic items very specific.
This solution actually made wizards have one of the highest ac in the game.
This solution would also tear the current DDO game into tiny pieces and cause many to quit.
Not good in itself, but there may be something to be learned from it.

Granting shields and heavier armor a small percentage DR rating would be an interesting start.
Granting a percentage DR by dividing number then applying value such as:

Armor Class divided by Monster's To Hit Roll multiplied by factor x number equals percentage DR stacked with other percentage DR then multiplied by damage amount then subtracted from damage.

However, looking at the big picture, I am not sure this is all.

Changing AC to make it less difficult to obtain would be very nice,
however what does that do to the tanks that have ground out many pieces of equipment?

All the dodge bonuses stacking seems a bit over the top, making them hard to obtain and slot.

In short, the all or nothing problem gets in the way ~ eliminate the full damage on hit, no damage on a miss and maybe you have something. Perhaps everyone should get hit a little bit even with high AC, but the higher the AC, the less damage you take?


Sigh...complicated, but if you can even remotely address this, I'll be very impressed.

Crann
04-20-2012, 01:21 PM
Its surely repeated here, but yes, it is broken.

Why?

Because your range of AC's is 6 times that of the variable by which you determine your to-hit.

It makes no sense that 2 toons side by side, one with a 5 AC and one with a 55 AC should both be equally protected versus end game mobs.

It has effectively removed the AC aspect of character design from the end game (Epics)

Make AC relevant.

SisAmethyst
04-20-2012, 01:30 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?


1. Yes (high levels) and No (low levels)
2. a. AC in Pen&Paper works as everything is often scalled smaller (e.g. monster HP) and slower (finishing a monster in 20 turns does not equal 20 seconds realtime) which is why a meaningfull AC is easier attained in lower levels.
2. b. Most AC in low levels come from the race, class, stats and feats while in higher levels the most part of the AC is attained by gear that is limited to prevent a powercreep (e.g. no +10 DEX item).
2. c. Because in DDO you not really notice a change below a certain magic threshold (all or nothing approach) like of an expotentail function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function).
3. The invested effort should net in the result, or in other words even a medium increase of AC should have a noticable feedback.

voodoogroves
04-20-2012, 01:31 PM
The value AC provides in higher level content is minimal.

Unlike many, I'm happy to have a mix of damage mitigation options - Temp HP procs, DR, % reduction, concealment, AC.

Unfortunately, AC requires a fair bit of gear ... and is nearly pointless in epics.




A first life wizard should be able to reach cap with a minimal DC value for their key specialty schools. A first life DPS toon should reach cap with a minimal DPS output value. A first life AC or defenses toon reaches cap and has to sit there for quite a while to get a useful AC. Only pure tanks or heavy multi-life or resource-invested-vets achieve a workable epic AC.

Chai
04-20-2012, 01:32 PM
Again, break it down, show me equivalent gearing where the Monk-splash over-takes the S&B guy. That's 90+ AC monk-splash is also going to need a ton of gear, tomes, and build-points. Show me the numbers please.

Monk splash keeps up point for point, and sacrifices far less DPS to do so - also has evasion.

Pure monk wins due to having even more centered AC and adds improved evasion. DPS sacrifice - minimal compared to sword and board.

I will also add that once the full 3 tier defender PRE can be tacked on to a monk splash (dwarf / warforged) this will leave sword and board behind unless they can compensate for it. There will also be little to no HP disparity between the two.

This also comes with full UMD, decent heal amp, some mana, many shot, traps and locks, higher attack rate than most TWF and much higher than S&B, ability to get its own anti stun monk buff in TOD, and can actually be leveled well solo at a speed much higher than the maple syrup drip in february.

10 base
10 dex
10 wisdom
2 centered (6 monk levels)
8 armor (Epic Scorched Bracers)
3 profane (Epic Abishai 3 piece set)
5 protection
1 alchemical (Dodge Ritual on Icy)
4 dodge (Icy)
4 insight
2 natural insight (Earth II stance)
1 Dodge (feat)
5 natural (Barkskin)
2 Favoured Enemy
5 Combat Expertise
3 Airship
1 Haste
4 Bard song
2 dodge cannith crafted
1 dodge cannith crafted
3 dodge chattering ring
4 shield wand
2 recitation

TOTAL = 92

LucidLTS
04-20-2012, 01:32 PM
1) Yes, there is a problem, I'm not decided on how big a problem, but at least moderate

2) The problem is there are so many buffs possible that a "bonus" range can be 50 or 80 points wide, but a d20 gives only 20, so you don't get most people in the "proportional returns" portion of the curve, you get a huge "you're hosed" region, a small "proportional returns" portion and then a huge "you pwned the game" portion. To give any challenge to the upper tiers, you have to really horribly crush the much larger low-mid geared/speced segment of the population.

This stratifies the server population, makes for fewer "useable" LFMs, and makes people who do get in the wrong group have a really bad time.

3) I'd like a system to greatly expand the "proportional returns" segment of the curve, so it doesn't matter if you have a low, medium, or high AC, you'd gain something by making it a few points higher. And similarly, you would always gain a real advantage by raising your to-hit a little, no matter what it currently is.

This would encourage mixing, allow a wider range of characters to group in a mutually profitable way, and in general be friendlier and more fun.

I know you said no solutions, but pointing out the root problem isn't the same as a solution. The root problem is power creep. There are so many stacking buffs, both gear and ability, that it's easy to outstrip the power of the d20 to balance. Real D&D has a +5 cap on magic weapons for a reason, it helps keep bonuses small enough for the d20 to compensate. Flatten out the buff slope and the current AC system wouldn't be a problem.

cdbd3rd
04-20-2012, 01:34 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

....

(Reply based partly on experience, partly on stuff I've read here over the years.)

1) Seems to be.

2) Early on, it seems to make little difference if a character walks into a quest with starter rags, or +1 Full Plate.

Mid-Late game, other than AC-build tanks, most folks ignore AC in preference to Blurs/Displacements, Evasion, etc. At that point, the difference between a 15, 20, or even 30 AC seems moot, and the only real defense is not being where the mob is swinging.

3) Not sure. Given the nature of an MMO, a large part of hit/miss should be about swinging in the right place at the right time, moreso than hitting a number that was designed as a PnP statistic simulating a characters' attempts to avoid getting hit. Otoh, the AC number is yet another facet of our PnP D&D roots, so I would hate to see it fade away like our dice notations did.


I know, my reply to 3) ain't much help. :(


edit: Reading Lucid's reply above mine, that's kinduv where I was leading in 2), but that explains it better.

SisAmethyst
04-20-2012, 01:38 PM
Edit: Also a nerf to monk wis-to-ac is in order, monks and monk splashes have become defensive powerhouses when it should be left to heavy armor and shields.

While this is already a suggested solution ... I guess AC for Armor Class is an unlucky description in D&D. AC is DEX based and much more mean avoiding damage in the first place like Evasion, and this is indeed much more a domain of the pyjama wearing monks. What you have in mind correlate more with DR (Damage Reduction) of a Ful Plate.


2) From a WF perspective, there are not many selections for high AC Docets.... I can't think of any to be honest. (I think AC of 32 was my best at lvl 20...after that I stopped caring about AC so most are in the 20-28 range and I just ignore it.)

Ohh yes, I have the impression there aren't much choices on named Docents anyway ...

M0NKEYB0Y
04-20-2012, 01:42 PM
+1

and signed


Yes.

AC in epic quests is not useful because even the lowliest trash mobs have to-hit bonus that hits even the highest attainable AC on a roll of a 2.

Ability to build an epic tank that can tank epic quests similar to how a non epic tank can tank non epic quests. Similar mitigation percentage wise and similar miss chance for similar DPS sacrifice percentage wise in building the toon.

P.S. I feel AC works in the 1-20 game and is broken in epic quests. Some of the 1-20 game requires higher values to be effective but at least those values are attainable readily enough.

Monkey-Boy
04-20-2012, 01:43 PM
Monk splash keeps up point for point, and sacrificed far less DPS to do so - also has evasion.

Pure monk wins due to having even more centered AC and adds improved evasion. DPS sacrifice - minimal compared to sword and board.


10 base
10 dex
10 wisdom
2 centered (6 monk levels)
8 armor (Epic Scorched Bracers)
3 profane (Epic Abishai 3 piece set)
5 deflection
1 alchemical (Dodge Ritual on Icy)
4 dodge (Icy)
4 insight
2 natural insight (Earth II stance)
1 Dodge (feat)
5 natural (Barkskin)
2 Favoured Enemy
5 Combat Expertise
3 Airship
1 Haste
4 Bard song
2 dodge cannith crafted
1 dodge cannith crafted
3 dodge chattering ring
4 shield wand
2 recitation

TOTAL = 92

Take away the Abishai set, mine didn't include that.

You're now down to 89. Less than Mr. Starter S&B's 93. You have a Chattering Ring listed, you cannot compare the ease of getting that to a Tier III Bracers of wind.

2 Points of favored enemy AC? is this a 12 Ranger/6 Monk/ 2 whatever? What HP does that weigh in as?

Don't get me wrong, monks are great but you have to weigh everything when evaluating builds. Above is a splash, I'm curious as to what. A pure Monk can't have intimidate as a class-skill which makes it impossible to get the 80+ desirable in some raids.

What I'm seeing is less AC, less damage mitigation (shield mastery versus tier 1 or 2 Earth stance), less HP, less threat for more DPS (possibly as I have no idea how to guesstimate S&B/Glancing blows or handwraps DPS) and evasion.




I will also add that once the full 3 tier defender PRE can be taked on to a monk splash (dwarf / warforged) this will leave sword and board behind unless they can compensate for it. There will also be little to no HP disparity between the two.

This also comes with full UMD, decent heal amp, some mana, many shot, higher attack rate than most TWF and much higher than S&B, ability to get its own anti stun monk buff in TOD, and can actually be leveled well solo at a speed much higher than the maple syrup drip in february.

.

I quoted before you edited. We'll see what we see when the changes happen, I don't like to guess. let's keep the numbers for the "now."

GoldyGopher
04-20-2012, 01:45 PM
Doing this off the top of my head on my iPad, without my notes.

10 Base
08 Armor Bracers
04 Icy
01 Alchemical
03 Chattering Ring
04 Insight
01 Dodge
01 TW Defense
17 Dex (Only using +2 Tome)
14 Wis (Only using +2 Tome)
01 Monk Centered
01 Pally
03 Pally Aura
03 Pally Defender Stance
04 Airship (Two +1 AC, +2 Dex, +2 Wis)
04 Bard Inspire Heroics
05 Barkskin
02 Recitation
04 Shield Wand

92 Total.

I think I missed something. Well at least I feel I did.
The grind: Icy, Chattering, Green Steel Min II (+4 Insight) and a TOD (+1 Exceptional Dex) Ring.

Problem with the build is you are low on HP, end up ~514 give or take a few points so it is basically unusable in Epics.

Missing_Minds
04-20-2012, 01:48 PM
Guys, Guys.... MF asked for our opinions for information gathering.

Please don't debate the value of each others opinions as it only cutters his information gathering.

Krago
04-20-2012, 01:53 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes


2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

The mob to-hit bonus


3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Wider range of viable AC to make mobs miss. 1d20 +79 is the culprit.

BruceTheHoon
04-20-2012, 01:54 PM
Still its stupid. If a monster hits two people with the same armor class and the same dice roll, without damage reduction, the person in cloth takes the same damage as someone in plate.

Armor should reduce damage only, with heavy armor being the best reduction. Armor class should come from stats like dex, wis, or int, and maybe skill or enhancements.

In the simplest form AC could mean two things:
a) thickness of armor or
b) ability to avoid damage.

D&D approaches it through option b. AC here does not mean what happens when a player gets hit. This is addressed by DR.
AC tells how hard it actually is to make contact with vulnerable tissue (example: natural armor). So in the example that You've given, the question is not what happens when a monster hits, but rather what happens when a monster swings (hence separate attack and damage roll). And what happens when a monster swings is either:
a) it hits,
b) it hits but the hit bounces off armor/magical barriers or,
c) it misses completely because the target has moved.

Option b) represents armor plated AC and option c) represents pajama hobbits on speed.


I agree, that wearing full plate should provide considerable DR, but this is a thread about AC not DR.
I would very much like to have as little changes to the core AC mechanics as possible.
This means leaving AC and DR as separate mechanics.

Narzic
04-20-2012, 01:55 PM
It's been said many times in this thread already but i'll add my voice to the masses:

1) Yes there is a problem.

2) Obtainable AC values, and monster to-hit values, have gone way outside the range of the d20.

3) I'd like to see all AC values have some meaning, or at least a larger percentage of all possible reachable AC values. I'd also like the change to stay true to D&D 3.5, or as close to true as you are willing to make it.

Woodmansee
04-20-2012, 01:55 PM
[I]

2) Early on, it seems to make little difference if a character walks into a quest with starter rags, or +1 Full Plate.



I agree. The problem starts at level one, not end game like most people think. A level one char in full plate with armor class 10/20/30 w/e, should not take the same damage as a cloth user with the same armor class.

MRMechMan
04-20-2012, 01:59 PM
1Yes.
2The amount of gear combined with the d20 system means that at high levels even missing 1-2 pieces of gear means you go from being untouchable to getting torn apart.

Even 2 points of AC can mean 3x incoming damage. That doesn't seem right in a game where there are only THREE sources of +4 dodge; a light armor that only appears once every 6 months, an outdated robe and a ***** QUARTERSTAFF. That +4 dodge can mean 5x more damage if you don't have it. Getting hit on a 20 and getting hit on a 15-16-17-18-19-20 is a huge difference.

It is too late to change all the stacking gear.

It is not too late to change the d20 system. Sirgog has some nice thoughts on the subject.

3 I hope that a low AC gives low damage mitigation, a moderate AC gives moderate damage mitigation and a high AC gives high damage mitigation. This isn't possible with just the d20 system. As of right now only those 100% specced and buffed for AC get anything out of it. Epic to-hit is insane.

Simply put, make AC a factor even for those who aren't going all-out AC monsters...right now it is dumped for most as it does nothing.

Alaunra2010
04-20-2012, 01:59 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?

Yes.

2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?

It is all-or-nothing. Having a low armor class in endgame content is no better than running around with no armor at all. In fact, players are dissuaded from achieving a higher AC because unless they bring it up to a point to be statistically meaningful in a D20 system, it can actually be a burden, given encumbrance mechanics.

3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Index damage resistance to armor class. This allows even modest armor class to have some damage reduction benefits.

Grailhawk
04-20-2012, 02:00 PM
Guys, Guys.... MF asked for our opinions for information gathering.

Please don't debate the value of each others opinions as it only cutters his information gathering.

I disagree with this if he is lurking a debate (as long as it kept civil about) who has better AC a Monk Splash or a Heavy Armor user will let him see what the deficiencies are or if there are deficiencies . What he doesn't want are people saying use this super cool ("cause I'm a better game designer then you") new system. Least that's what I think.

Chai
04-20-2012, 02:04 PM
Take away the Abishai set, mine didn't include that.

You're now down to 89. Less than Mr. Starter S&B's 93. You have a Chattering Ring listed, you cannot compare the ease of getting that to a Tier III Bracers of wind.

2 Points of favored enemy AC? is this a 12 Ranger/6 Monk/ 2 whatever? What HP does that weigh in as?

Don't get me wrong, monks are great but you have to weigh everything when evaluating builds. Above is a splash, I'm curious as to what. A pure Monk can't have intimidate as a class-skill which makes it impossible to get the 80+ desirable in some raids.

What I'm seeing is less AC, less damage mitigation (shield mastery versus tier 1 or 2 Earth stance), less HP, less threat for more DPS (possibly as I have no idea how to guesstimate S&B/Glancing blows or handwraps DPS) and evasion.

.

I quoted before you edited. We'll see what we see when the changes happen, I don't like to guess. let's keep the numbers for the "now."

Sorry you dont just get to arbitrarily wave away gear in slots simply because your build cant use it due to needing to equip other items. You wanted the numbers and I handed them in.

A pure monk would have the same mitigation get hit less and deal more damage. It is vastly superior to S&B in every way save for shield blocking, which is used in one raid currently and doesnt even need to be. We got 2 monks who tank this regularly on epic when we run it.

Ive also seen splashes tank everything in this game with 0 pot usage completions.

When we arent tanking bosses the pure monk would have 3 stuns for regular trash on 2 different saves, and 4 if some of the mobs are EE, elemental, or undead. Thats right, it puts 100% un-crittable mobs into helpless.

Pajama monk splash and pure monks are such a vastly superior option now than S&B tanks for just about everything save shield blocking. They tank hound fine, but a S&B might be better. Who fails the hound because of the tank, heh.

Theres a fine line right now where more AC isnt worth it, because at that point, the eLOB debuffed misses on a 5 or 6, but epic trash wont start missing for another 30 points which is likely not attainable.

Bart_D
04-20-2012, 02:09 PM
1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?1. It seems to work at very low levels but not after that.

2. AC is too often irrelevant since the d20 used for attacks has too little range compared to ACs; it's bad when increasing/decreasing AC by a couple points has no effect on chance to get hit

3. While I'd miss the simple d20 resolution mechanic, I think a much wider range of ACs (and to-hit modifiers but that's not for here) should be relevant. I'm not sure *all* levels of AC need to be relevant unless marginal benefits are made to decrease toward the ends. I'm thinking of a chance to get hit shaped similar to 1/(1+exp(AC)) [that's only meant descriptively, not as a suggestion]

Dolphious
04-20-2012, 02:11 PM
I'm not calling this a Let's Talk thread because I have no intention of responding. I plan to lurk. :)

Here's what I'm after:

1) Is there something wrong with AC as currently implemented?
2) If you answered yes to #1, what do you think is the problem?
3) If you answered yes to #1, what end result would you hope for from a change?

Now here's the tricky part:
Refrain from suggesting a solution.

In this thread I'm not interested in solutions - only because it will make parsing people's perceptions of the problems that much more difficult.

This thread will be closed as soon as it serves its purpose.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

1) yes, at least in epics

2) the small range of "in play" AC means that in most situations AC is either extremely powerful (only hit on a 20) or pointless (because you'll be hit on a 2 either way). Additionally the to-hit values for monster in epic quests are completely out of proportion with obtainable AC values.

I don't know what the dev perspective on epic to-hit values is (I would love to hear an explaination for why the values are so high), but from a player perspective it feels like the AC system was trashed because it was difficult to balance. This is particularly frustrating because there are such easy defenses in epics for casters: displacement, shield block, other DR, jumping about, etc. So the centerpiece of defense in D&D (and ddo in much of the content) becomes a joke in the end game content.

3) I would like to see AC be the primary source of physical damage mitigation in all content. Other types of damage mitigation are fine (spells, maneuver, blocking, etc), but they should be poor substitutes for building a defensive AC character.

I would also like to see a much larger range of AC values be useful such that most characters would benefit from an improved AC.

I would also generally second Sirgog's summary thread on this issue, particularly in regard to identifying the problem and it's sources (this isn't about proposed solutions anyway).

[edit] I should also note that while I am willing to sacrifice some of the simplicity of the pure d20 system I would like AC to be as similar as possible to the D&D system, and not changed to a DR system. I also don't care about low level twinks having insane AC for their level, that's just the nature of twinking.

MRMechMan
04-20-2012, 02:12 PM
Sorry you dont just get to arbitrarily wave away gear in slots simply because your build cant use it due to needing to equip other items. You wanted the numbers and I handed them in.

A pure monk would have the same mitigation get hit less and deal more damage. It is vastly superior to S&B in every way save for shield blocking, which is used in one raid currently and doesnt even need to be. We got 2 monks who tank this regularly on epic when we run it.

When we arent tanking bosses the pure monk would have 3 stuns for regular trash on 2 different saves, and 4 if some of the mobs are EE, elemental, or undead. Thats right, it puts 100% un-crittable mobs into helpless.

I kinda doubt that a pure monk can hit the intim numbers and the hp totals that a S&B stalwart can, and those are very much relevent to tanking.