PDA

View Full Version : AP tier pre-req's



shadereaper33
04-13-2013, 05:45 PM
So, I have seen quite a few threads about people complaining about there builds being broken, or this or that is too expensive to get to. Not a whole lot in the way of suggestions to improve the system to make it work better though. So, I figured I would post an idea that I have, and see what others think about it.

First, most of the enhancements currently cost 2 ap per rank, which is ridiculous. I personally feel that a good 80% or so of the abilities should only cost 1 ap per rank, which would go a long way in freeing up AP for more abilities so that we can get closer to what is available on live.

Second, the AP spent to access the next tier is too high. Needing to spend 40 AP to get the capstone core ability for a tree is fine, but that should be the single most expensive ability in the tree, both in terms of actual cost and required points spent. I would propose that the tier pre-req costs be changed to 0/5/10/15/20, instead of the current 0/5/10/20/40 point costs on the PrE trees. Change the pre-req costs on the racial trees to 0/2/4/6 instead of 0/5/10/20. This would allow for us to spread our points out more in different trees, allowing for more flexibility in our builds.

For example, as things are on lamma currently, if you are elf fighter trying to get AA, you have to spend at least 14 points in the elf tree (10 pre-req points, 4 to unlock the AA tree), and then at least 42 points in the AA tree to get slayer arrows, which is an iconic ability of the PrE. This means that you have to spend at least 56 of your 80 points just to get slayer arrows. Now, you do get a whole lot of other stuff on the way, but the problem is that this only leaves 24 points to spend on another tree, like the fighter kensai tree. Under my suggestion, you could get to AA with only 8 points in the elf tree, and then get slayer arrows with only 22 points in the AA tree, leaving you with 50 AP still to spend in other places.

Having written it all out, it leaves me feeling that my proposal might be a bit extreme. I am curious to see what others think about this idea.

DeafeningWhisper
04-13-2013, 06:00 PM
What I would do is first off make all enhancements cost 1 point, save the big ones like the OP suggested, second make it so to get the cap skill requires 31 points BUT make sure picking a "cap" skill locks out the others.

This way we can get 2 full trees (minus a cap) and 2/3 thirds of another tree.

This way multiclass builds can get 2 tree and 2/3 of a third one and racial class builds 2 trees and racial core.


If all that is too much power at our finger tips simply removing the pre-reqs in the racial core to gain access to the racial classes would be a great start.

CoasterHops
04-13-2013, 08:31 PM
What I would do is first off make all enhancements cost 1 point, save the big ones like the OP suggested, second make it so to get the cap skill requires 31 points BUT make sure picking a "cap" skill locks out the others.

This way we can get 2 full trees (minus a cap) and 2/3 thirds of another tree.

This way multiclass builds can get 2 tree and 2/3 of a third one and racial class builds 2 trees and racial core.
If all that is too much power at our finger tips simply removing the pre-reqs in the racial core to gain access to the racial classes would be a great start.



I like the idea of only being able to get one *Capstone* type ablility with others being locked out.
I like the idea of multiclasses getting a capstone like ability, I would love the idea of Pure builds getting an autogranted capstone ability, which doesn't lock out another capstone type ability. (not a Pre one but just a base class type one, it doesn't have to be uber, but tempting enough to at least tempt people to look at staying pure)

I would think that Getting 2 Full Trees + 2/3 of a tree is too powerful.

ArcaneArcher52689
04-13-2013, 09:23 PM
So, I have seen quite a few threads about people complaining about there builds being broken, or this or that is too expensive to get to. Not a whole lot in the way of suggestions to improve the system to make it work better though. So, I figured I would post an idea that I have, and see what others think about it.

First, most of the enhancements currently cost 2 ap per rank, which is ridiculous. I personally feel that a good 80% or so of the abilities should only cost 1 ap per rank, which would go a long way in freeing up AP for more abilities so that we can get closer to what is available on live.

Second, the AP spent to access the next tier is too high. Needing to spend 40 AP to get the capstone core ability for a tree is fine, but that should be the single most expensive ability in the tree, both in terms of actual cost and required points spent. I would propose that the tier pre-req costs be changed to 0/5/10/15/20, instead of the current 0/5/10/20/40 point costs on the PrE trees. Change the pre-req costs on the racial trees to 0/2/4/6 instead of 0/5/10/20. This would allow for us to spread our points out more in different trees, allowing for more flexibility in our builds.

For example, as things are on lamma currently, if you are elf fighter trying to get AA, you have to spend at least 14 points in the elf tree (10 pre-req points, 4 to unlock the AA tree), and then at least 42 points in the AA tree to get slayer arrows, which is an iconic ability of the PrE. This means that you have to spend at least 56 of your 80 points just to get slayer arrows. Now, you do get a whole lot of other stuff on the way, but the problem is that this only leaves 24 points to spend on another tree, like the fighter kensai tree. Under my suggestion, you could get to AA with only 8 points in the elf tree, and then get slayer arrows with only 22 points in the AA tree, leaving you with 50 AP still to spend in other places.

Having written it all out, it leaves me feeling that my proposal might be a bit extreme. I am curious to see what others think about this idea.

i had similar thoughts, here
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=414865

I agree with lowering the base costs on most ap's, or possibly change some of the multiple tiers to have a 2/1/1(or 1/1/2 for the one's that give bonus in the third rank)

I disagree about racial requirements., 14 might be a bit "too much" but, 6 is way too low.

Not sure about the PrE tier requirements, but i'm that's probably just because i'm attached to my idea.

shadereaper33
04-13-2013, 11:27 PM
i had similar thoughts, here
http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=414865

I agree with lowering the base costs on most ap's, or possibly change some of the multiple tiers to have a 2/1/1(or 1/1/2 for the one's that give bonus in the third rank)

I disagree about racial requirements., 14 might be a bit "too much" but, 6 is way too low.

Not sure about the PrE tier requirements, but i'm that's probably just because i'm attached to my idea.

yeah, after letting the idea sit for awhile, the reduced racial pre-reqs feel a bit too low. What about 0/3/6/10?

Jay203
04-14-2013, 02:43 AM
keep the core requirements to 40 spent in tree for capstone
change the tree requirements from 0/5/10/20/40 points spent in tree to 0/5/10/20/40 points spent total

this way it'll behave a lot more like the current system where you can take some tier 1s from another PrE to qualify for tier 2s of another
but if one still wants the capstone, one still must invest the 40 points in that tree
also, the linked enhancements will still require the previous one in order to acquire the higher one

shadereaper33
04-14-2013, 02:58 AM
keep the core requirements to 40 spent in tree for capstone
change the tree requirements from 0/5/10/20/40 points spent in tree to 0/5/10/20/40 points spent total

this way it'll behave a lot more like the current system where you can take some tier 1s from another PrE to qualify for tier 2s of another
but if one still wants the capstone, one still must invest the 40 points in that tree
also, the linked enhancements will still require the previous one in order to acquire the higher one

well, sure, if you want to take the easy way about it...

Seriously though, this is another good suggestion that would go a long way to fixing a lot of the problems.

ArcaneArcher52689
04-14-2013, 02:09 PM
yeah, after letting the idea sit for awhile, the reduced racial pre-reqs feel a bit too low. What about 0/3/6/10?

I'd go with 0/4/8/12, which would be 10 ap's. 1/8th of your total is fair for unlocking a PRE, especially when 4 of those can be stats, and 3 for 100sp(which is relevant in the new AA).

If you combine that with 30ap top tier, you're at 42 for slaying arrow through racial PrE. Not too much, but enough that you can't get everything (note: you shouldn't be able to get everything you want. If you can, you don't have to make decisions. No decisions=bad)

Hopefully the devs have seen some of these suggestions, and our 2nd pass(in a month or two) will be better. Right now, I can't wait to see Druid/fvs/pally/monk

Jay203
04-14-2013, 02:24 PM
I'd go with 0/4/8/12, which would be 10 ap's. 1/8th of your total is fair for unlocking a PRE, especially when 4 of those can be stats, and 3 for 100sp(which is relevant in the new AA).

If you combine that with 30ap top tier, you're at 42 for slaying arrow through racial PrE. Not too much, but enough that you can't get everything (note: you shouldn't be able to get everything you want. If you can, you don't have to make decisions. No decisions=bad)

Hopefully the devs have seen some of these suggestions, and our 2nd pass(in a month or two) will be better. Right now, I can't wait to see Druid/fvs/pally/monk

mm.... 12 AP for a tier 5 is a bit OP o-o
being able to get a tier 5 ability by lvl 5 sounds just.... wrong :p

ArcaneArcher52689
04-14-2013, 02:58 PM
mm.... 12 AP for a tier 5 is a bit OP o-o
being able to get a tier 5 ability by lvl 5 sounds just.... wrong :p

Sorry, I didn't specify it in that post, but the 0/4/8/12 was for racial trees. The other option would be to keep racial pre's in lower tiers. And since facials offer significant-build changing abilities, I think that they should be available early if you wish to spend it. Say I want a dwarven cleric dualwielding axes, using con for hit/damage? Ideally, I should be able to play to my style, sooner rather than later. If I can have tier 4 racial abilities by Lvl 4/5, it's not that big of a deal-racial trees shouldn't be overwhelming, they should just support different build choices/differences.

EllisDee37
04-14-2013, 03:04 PM
From another thread, worth repeating. A four-point plan to fix the new system:

1. Core abilities (bottom row) remain unchanged; they require points spent in tree

2. Tiered abilities (columns) changed to require AP spent in any tree, including racial trees and core lines.

3. Tier 5 locks out all other trees' Tier 5 when you pick one. You only get one Tier 5 tree, period. (This is the current design, but it works by virtue of costing >40 points out of an 80 point pool.)

4. Tier AP gates drastically raised from 0/5/10/20/40 to 0/7/15/30/60, since they are now met by any AP spent instead of just AP spent in tree

ArcaneArcher52689
04-14-2013, 04:50 PM
From another thread, worth repeating. A four-point plan to fix the new system:

1. Core abilities (bottom row) remain unchanged; they require points spent in tree

2. Tiered abilities (columns) changed to require AP spent in any tree, including racial trees and core lines.

3. Tier 5 locks out all other trees' Tier 5 when you pick one. You only get one Tier 5 tree, period. (This is the current design, but it works by virtue of costing >40 points out of an 80 point pool.)

4. Tier AP gates drastically raised from 0/5/10/20/40 to 0/7/15/30/60, since they are now met by any AP spent instead of just AP spent in tree

I just don't like the idea if being able to get a single t4 ability with no other points spent in tree.

EllisDee37
04-14-2013, 05:25 PM
I just don't like the idea if being able to get a single t4 ability with no other points spent in tree.Like we can currently do on live, you mean?

As an example, Ranger Favored Enemy Damage is a tier 4 enhancement on alpha. On live it has ZERO prereqs. Why is this bad?

Jay203
04-14-2013, 05:48 PM
I just don't like the idea if being able to get a single t4 ability with no other points spent in tree.

there are a lot of Tier 5s that requires some ability from lower tier in order to acquire
what that system does is so that you can just take that line up to tier 5 without having to waste extra APs into other lower tier stuff from the same tree

DeafeningWhisper
04-14-2013, 05:55 PM
there are a lot of Tier 5s that requires some ability from lower tier in order to acquire
what that system does is so that you can just take that line up to tier 5 without having to waste extra APs into other lower tier stuff from the same tree

And it would a perfectly viable system if they added a general tree per class, but we don't have one right now.

The best I can come up with is a 4 tree system: a racial core tree, a class tree, a general class tree and a second class tree. If you unlock a racial class tree it would replace one of your class trees choices.

Yes it would limit the amount of skills you can take from each 3 prestiges, but it would prevent having to take a large amounts of skills in a tree that we do not like just for the useful core skills we used to have at entry lvls and that were arbitrarily put in a particular prestige tree.

ArcaneArcher52689
04-14-2013, 06:49 PM
Like we can currently do on live, you mean?

As an example, Ranger Favored Enemy Damage is a tier 4 enhancement on alpha. On live it has ZERO prereqs. Why is this bad?

I attribute that more to the lack of a generic class tree/ poor planning. Honestly, all the other favored enhancements didn't really need to be there anyways, just make favored damage a t1 ability. Or maybe change the favored enemy enhancements into feats- similar to what they did with monk stances. And auto grant them to rangers at 5/10/15/20 +1/2/3/4

I'm more concerned that in the system you mentioned, the only actual choice someone makes is which tree they want T5 abilities in. after that, they can put the remaining points wherever they want, as long as it's not a t5/core enhancement. While very nice, it means there are fewer actual decisions that need to be made, and goes straight to the cookie cutter builds everyone wants to avoid.

Example:
You're a ranger, why don't you have maxed out Favored enemy damage, or the tempest enhancements. Fighter splash, why no kensai? Deepwood sniper, better have some AA imbues...

We can say it won't happen, but it does. It may even be offered as friendly advice, but the point is it creates a clear cut build where there are few relevant decisions

EllisDee37
04-14-2013, 07:00 PM
I attribute that more to the lack of a generic class tree/ poor planning. Honestly, all the other favored enhancements didn't really need to be there anyways, just make favored damage a t1 ability. Or maybe change the favored enemy enhancements into feats- similar to what they did with monk stances. And auto grant them to rangers at 5/10/15/20 +1/2/3/4

I'm more concerned that in the system you mentioned, the only actual choice someone makes is which tree they want T5 abilities in. after that, they can put the remaining points wherever they want, as long as it's not a t5/core enhancement. While very nice, it means there are fewer actual decisions that need to be made, and goes straight to the cookie cutter builds everyone wants to avoid.

Example:
You're a ranger, why don't you have maxed out Favored enemy damage, or the tempest enhancements. Fighter splash, why no kensai? Deepwood sniper, better have some AA imbues...

We can say it won't happen, but it does. It may even be offered as friendly advice, but the point is it creates a clear cut build where there are few relevant decisionsIt boggles my mind that you think reducing choices is the way to increase build diversity.

Right now on live my Ranger does indeed have tempest III and maxed favored damage line, btw.

But the heart of the matter is this: On live, no enhancements of any kind, regardless how powerful, have these "points spent in tree" requirements. They can all just be taken. Have you been feeling for years now that the current enhancement system is way OP because there aren't enough limitations on the higher power enhancements?

ArcaneArcher52689
04-14-2013, 07:20 PM
It boggles my mind that you think reducing choices is the way to increase build diversity.

Right now on live my Ranger does indeed have tempest III and maxed favored damage line, btw.

But the heart of the matter is this: On live, no enhancements of any kind, regardless how powerful, have these "points spent in tree" requirements. They can all just be taken. Have you been feeling for years now that the current enhancement system is way OP because there aren't enough limitations on the higher power enhancements?


Reducing choices does increase build diversity. If everyone can have all they want from every tree, then the optimal builds will be apparent. Flavor builds will still sneak through, but how many times will you have to decide between two things? As an example( simplified), if AA Paralyzing arrows were amazing, and tempest got an ability that gave all their weapons an additional +1[w], and deepwood sniper got an ability that gave their weapons greater * bane/slaying for their favored enemies, all in tier 4, in the system you proposed, i can have all three, no problem! which is wonderful, but why would any pure ranger NOT have all 3? That means there is only 1 option. Instead, if you can only have 2 out of the 3, there are now 6 different options (including which PrE you choose T5) so yes, limiting options does in fact increase diversity.

EllisDee37
04-14-2013, 07:53 PM
As an example( simplified), if AA Paralyzing arrows were amazing, and tempest got an ability that gave all their weapons an additional +1[w], and deepwood sniper got an ability that gave their weapons greater * bane/slaying for their favored enemies, all in tier 4, in the system you proposed, i can have all three, no problem! which is wonderful, but why would any pure ranger NOT have all 3?This is what's known as a strawman, and here's why: You're completely making way OP tier 4 abilities that don't exist -- nothing in tier 4 approaches the examples you've given -- and thus you conclude that being able to easily take tier 4s without "points spent in tree" gating would be OP. Well, yeah, of course; when your fictional example of super double-plus powerful tier 4 abilities that don't exist, that would definitely be the case!

But that's not the situation, and that's not the case. Any tier 4 ability that is so powerful that it would unbalance the game if you could pick and choose tier 4s should be moved to tier 5. Problem solved, no fuss no muss.

shadereaper33
04-14-2013, 08:18 PM
From another thread, worth repeating. A four-point plan to fix the new system:

1. Core abilities (bottom row) remain unchanged; they require points spent in tree

2. Tiered abilities (columns) changed to require AP spent in any tree, including racial trees and core lines.

3. Tier 5 locks out all other trees' Tier 5 when you pick one. You only get one Tier 5 tree, period. (This is the current design, but it works by virtue of costing >40 points out of an 80 point pool.)

4. Tier AP gates drastically raised from 0/5/10/20/40 to 0/7/15/30/60, since they are now met by any AP spent instead of just AP spent in tree

I generally like this, but the idea of top tier of a tree locking out other top tiers doesn't sit well with me. What if we changed the requirements to be X points spent overall, and Y points spent in tree to access the top tier, or top two tiers of a tree. Such as 0/7/15/30/60 overall as you suggest, and then 0/0/0/5/10 or something like that in the specific tree? Other than that, I don't have any other problems with this suggestion.

ArcaneArcher52689
04-14-2013, 08:20 PM
Actually, you completely missed the point of my example. I made the abilities powerful to make my point, it doesn't matter how powerful they are as long as they are all desirable. The point I was trying to make was that you shouldn't be able to take whatever you want. Not because it's "overpowered", but because it creates an environment where there are only cookie cutter builds, at least in terms of enhancements. My point is that you should have to make relevant choices.

I made the 3 abilities overpowered to help emphasize wanting all 3 abilities.

EllisDee37
04-14-2013, 08:44 PM
Actually, you completely missed the point of my example. I made the abilities powerful to make my point, it doesn't matter how powerful they are as long as they are all desirable. The point I was trying to make was that you shouldn't be able to take whatever you want. Not because it's "overpowered", but because it creates an environment where there are only cookie cutter builds, at least in terms of enhancements. My point is that you should have to make relevant choices.

I made the 3 abilities overpowered to help emphasize wanting all 3 abilities.My point remains. Your strawman doesn't give your case any credibility.

That you don't like the currently existing flexibility on live means we will never, ever come to any common ground.

shadereaper33
04-14-2013, 10:19 PM
Actually, you completely missed the point of my example. I made the abilities powerful to make my point, it doesn't matter how powerful they are as long as they are all desirable. The point I was trying to make was that you shouldn't be able to take whatever you want. Not because it's "overpowered", but because it creates an environment where there are only cookie cutter builds, at least in terms of enhancements. My point is that you should have to make relevant choices.

I made the 3 abilities overpowered to help emphasize wanting all 3 abilities.

Your point is only valid if the number of desirable choices is less than or equal to the number of choices that can be made at one time. If it is possible to choose 80 total enhancements (everything costs 1 ap and only has 1 rank), then there simply needs to be at least 81 attractive choices available. Given that a large portion of the enhancements will either cost 2 ap and/or have multiple ranks, the minimum number of attractive choices is actually much lower. As it is currently on lammania, most of the tree's themselves contain enough attractive choices, at a high enough cost, that it is not feasible to spend very many points outside of one's primary tree, if any at all. For example, I created a dwarven stalwart defender, and I was able to spend all 80 of my AP on things I actually wanted just within the stalwart defender tree. That left me absolutely nothing to spend in the kensai tree or the dwarf tree.

Yes, the ability to choose too much is bad for customization, but at the same time, the inability to choose is equally bad for customization. With the current cost system, you will end up seeing more cookie cutter builds simply because people lack the ability to pick more than the absolutely necessary enhancements in many cases.

Jay203
04-14-2013, 10:27 PM
Yes, the ability to choose too much is bad for customization, but at the same time, the inability to choose is equally bad for customization. With the current cost system, you will end up seeing more cookie cutter builds simply because people lack the ability to pick more than the absolutely necessary enhancements in many cases.

i'll take having ability to choose 'too much' over inability to choose...

i hate the fact the new system standardize everyone's choices to 1 racial and 3 class tree

Karters
04-15-2013, 02:02 PM
i really wish i could i could connect to lama and try this out for myself 1st hand instead of looking at what people have posted on the forums but my client is stuck on the connect stage. and with that said this is my opinion from what ive read of the new system and what people have talked about.

1 of the main reasons i multi class any non caster (most of the time its just a lvl or 2) is so i can limit the useless Enhancements i have to take to unlock more good ones. but with this points spent in tree system multi classing looks like it will lose most of what it has going for it and pure class will be the way to go

yes some have pre reqs now that i view as useless to my builds, such as the other imbues on both my AAs, the moves that remove status effects on my monk for shinto and i hate the fact that i have to take things that serve no purpose for me at all but i get that for PREs and can deal with it.

i feel the ap pre req should be total spent not spent in tree, that would fix almost all the issues most people have with this new system. but i do agree with the needing to spend points in a racial tree to get PREs from that, im sure most people will b spending points in that tree anyway (for the stat boosts).

for the most part you should be able to create what your character does on live with this new system, with some tweaks here and there. but be able to make some completely new build without much of a change to the core of your character.