PDA

View Full Version : Levels 29 & 30 Feedback



Vargouille
11-19-2015, 01:50 PM
Please post your feedback about your experience on Lamannia with level 30 changes here!

This would include comments or issues with things such as granted Fate Points, Twist of Fate slot, etc.

Some initial details here:
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/467833-Update-29-Level-30-Overview

Thanks!

Aletys
11-19-2015, 05:51 PM
I thought you were going to revise the flat leveling curve. It's exactly the same as you originally posted, and which got howls of protest from players. On live I cannot go to "The Guide" and have all the XP granted to me. It should not have been that hard to change a table & implement it.

So, my reaction is, this is not what I was expecting, and am very disappointed.

Vargouille
11-19-2015, 05:54 PM
I thought you were going to revise the flat leveling curve.

Changes do not happen that fast. Us saying we'll think about it on Wednesday doesn't mean you are going to see changes in game on Thursday.

Nachomammashouse
11-20-2015, 12:26 AM
when we get to L30 can we get a "You win DDO!" like when we use a button of winning?

IronClan
11-20-2015, 01:28 AM
Changes do not happen that fast. Us saying we'll think about it on Wednesday doesn't mean you are going to see changes in game on Thursday.

HOWLS? Varg you guys are educated proffesionals, being fellow gaming oriented computer nerds I assume at least *almost every one of you* is scientifically minded. can you please start using in game/email polling and stop listening to the 10 people who are "howling" the loudest on the forums?

Objective data please, stop listening to the loudest. I read the same thread and the reaction was mostly meh, some mixture of luke warm, and an occasional overreaction against "flat" Of course the overreacting people are posting 10 objections for every 1 luke warm.

Now am I saying I like "flat" no I don't care that much... which I suspect is how most people feel. It's just not that big of a deal. I am one of the meh, we'll see people. Though I'd go with some sort of compromise on first blush maybe a shallow upward ramp. But I agree that making level 27 28 29 and 30 take forever compared to the early levels is pointless and dull. I'm also aware that we have very little ML28+ content in which to level those levels, so making them require a higher amount of XP than they already do is not a great situation.

Please guys, do something about the "squeeky wheel" knee jerk syndrome around here. Maybe they are a majority, but what if they're just loud?

LargoKeyWest
11-20-2015, 06:34 AM
When you shut it down later today, can you wipe it clean please? I had a problem copying my character across, and couldn't redo it, so deleted my 1st attempt, and it still failed to recopy. Keeps telling me the character is still there, and will append the name with a number, but then fails to copy anyways.

legendkilleroll
11-20-2015, 06:53 AM
overreacting people are posting 10 objections for every 1 luke warm.
Maybe they are a majority, but what if they're just loud?

You basically just described yourself.

Qhualor
11-20-2015, 08:48 AM
When you shut it down later today, can you wipe it clean please? I had a problem copying my character across, and couldn't redo it, so deleted my 1st attempt, and it still failed to recopy. Keeps telling me the character is still there, and will append the name with a number, but then fails to copy anyways.

I had this problem on my main back during the barb pass. I forgot to grab my epic gear out of my cache, so I deleted her and tried to recopy. Haven't been able to copy her over because it says she is in Lama even after the wipes and trying to use numbers.

IronClan
11-21-2015, 08:58 AM
You basically just described yourself.

I have certainly overreated in the past, it's a flaw, I'm sure you can't admit to having any flaws yourself?

The point remains, they should mine data scientifically and not just have knee jerk reactions to whoever is shouting the loudest, and that of course includes me, I am asking them to get more objective data which by extension means that any shouting I do will also be just a single data point among many.

Understand now?

PsychoBlonde
11-21-2015, 09:19 AM
HOWLS? Varg you guys are educated proffesionals, being fellow gaming oriented computer nerds I assume at least *almost every one of you* is scientifically minded. can you please start using in game/email polling and stop listening to the 10 people who are "howling" the loudest on the forums?

I think that's just it, Iron, the vast majority was "meh", and there was some loud complaining. If the worst reaction is along the lines of "OH HELL NO" and the best reaction is "meh", it means they haven't hit the sweet spot yet. "OH HELL NO" is always going to happen, even if they just change the color of a buckle or something. THAT BUCKLE WAS ICONIC. I think they're trying to aim for more than "meh".

IronClan
11-21-2015, 09:31 AM
I think that's just it, Iron, the vast majority was "meh", and there was some loud complaining. If the worst reaction is along the lines of "OH HELL NO" and the best reaction is "meh", it means they haven't hit the sweet spot yet. "OH HELL NO" is always going to happen, even if they just change the color of a buckle or something. THAT BUCKLE WAS ICONIC. I think they're trying to aim for more than "meh".

I meant meh as in: I don't care about this mechanic enough to get thrilled if it's perfect or angry if it's boogered up. it's not that important in the overall scheme of things.

It's good enough, the present compromise is indeed better than perfectly flat, however if they keep steepening the curve they're going to make level 29 and 30 feel like they take too long and drag them out, especially considering how little content there is in that range (we'll be doing daily wizkings and Von's for weeks).

What is important enough is them handing out +20% chance to land spells and +40% spell power etc. fro going from 29 to 30 it will either make legendary content too easy for 30's or too hard for 29's

There will be "I love a challenge" types who LOVE playing at level 29 in legendary content who will complain about how much easier it is at level 30 or there will be "I love easy leveling" types who howl about how much harder 29 is than level 30... They are setting themselves up for this, those feats are poor design mark my words.

[Edit well duh levelers wont care about level 30 so much because they wont stay there but the point remains if they balance content for this big step up they will have people on both sides complaining]

PsychoBlonde
11-21-2015, 01:02 PM
There will be "I love a challenge" types who LOVE playing at level 29 in legendary content who will complain about how much easier it is at level 30 or there will be "I love easy leveling" types who howl about how much harder 29 is than level 30... They are setting themselves up for this, those feats are poor design mark my words.

Yeah, I actually mentioned this--a huge power jump at level 30 (or any level, really) doesn't play very nice with the more or less constant drive to TR.

Duhboy
11-21-2015, 07:19 PM
They had the U29 stuff on Lam already? When was this? Was preoccupied with work and preparations for Thanksgiving. :(

LiquidZombie
11-23-2015, 05:26 AM
What is important enough is them handing out +20% chance to land spells and +40% spell power etc. fro going from 29 to 30 it will either make legendary content too easy for 30's or too hard for 29's

It's not +40% spell power, it's +40 spell power which is 40% of the BASE damage. If you already have 400 spellpower in your main damage type (which seems to be achievable based on posts I've seen), that +40 is going to amount to an 8% increase in DPS.

I agree with your general point about not relying on a big jump from 29 to 30 to make legendary content playable, but let's not over-estimate the impact of these spellcaster feats. If we're very lucky we might actually notice the difference.

Axeyu
11-23-2015, 05:35 AM
It's not +40% spell power, it's +40 spell power which is 40% of the BASE damage. If you already have 400 spellpower in your main damage type (which seems to be achievable based on posts I've seen), that +40 is going to amount to an 8% increase in DPS.
IronClan does not believe in "relative math".

Atremus
11-23-2015, 06:14 AM
nevermind

Iriale
11-23-2015, 06:45 AM
Now am I saying I like "flat" no I don't care that much... which I suspect is how most people feel. It's just not that big of a deal. I am one of the meh, we'll see people. Though I'd go with some sort of compromise on first blush maybe a shallow upward ramp. But I agree that making level 27 28 29 and 30 take forever compared to the early levels is pointless and dull.
I prefer very long last levels and fast low levels. I am not raiding in low levels. And i have gear for high levels, but my bank space is so small for items for low epics.

If high levels are slow at least i will use my raid gear...

maddong
11-23-2015, 03:08 PM
Could we have an option in the adventure compendium to "hide heroic content".

That way we could organize the quests by level and have them start at the level 20 epic quests. This would be helpful to those of us that want to run the quests in order but have trouble finding one epic under heroic level 9, one epic under heroic level 16, etc.

IronClan
11-23-2015, 05:18 PM
IronClan does not believe in "relative math".

Oh I believe in it, it's constantly used by con artists, advertising agencies and politicians because it's perfect for misrepresenting a number and making it appear smaller or bigger depending on what deception is desired.

100 base damage adding 40% returns 40 more damage
adding 400% returns 400 more damage
Adding 40% returns 40 more damage
100+480% = 580 damage

First 40 added the same as the last 40. Want to make it seem less? Just compare the last 40 to the old sum of 540 and express it as a percentage; But why do you want to do that?

Thrudh
11-23-2015, 05:21 PM
stop listening to the loudest.

This is you.

And me too, of course.

But then again, I don't come on here and complain a lot.

Very funny that you posted this.

Thrudh
11-23-2015, 05:27 PM
Could we have an option in the adventure compendium to "hide heroic content".

That way we could organize the quests by level and have them start at the level 20 epic quests. This would be helpful to those of us that want to run the quests in order but have trouble finding one epic under heroic level 9, one epic under heroic level 16, etc.

That's actually a good suggestion.

Thrudh
11-23-2015, 05:30 PM
going from 29 to 30 it will either make legendary content too easy for 30's or too hard for 29's

This is a good point, and something the devs should think about it. A big jump may not be wise...

But then again, maybe the idea is that level 29s should not be playing a lot of legendary content... Maybe it really is only for 30 and above... That does help the concept of "end-game".

When you hit 30, you can finally play Legendary, or you can eTR... A lot like the old epics at 20th level.

If one could handle Legendary at 28 or 29, then people will just play "end-game" at 28 and 29, and then eTR immediately at 30.

Hmm.. so maybe the devs SHOULD have a big power jump between 29 and 30.

Thrudh
11-23-2015, 05:33 PM
Oh I believe in it, it's constantly used by con artists, advertising agencies and politicians because it's perfect for misrepresenting a number and making it appear smaller or bigger depending on what deception is desired.

100 base damage adding 40% returns 40 more damage
adding 400% returns 400 more damage
Adding 40% returns 40 more damage
100+480% = 580 damage

First 40 added the same as the last 40. Want to make it seem less? Just compare the last 40 to the old sum of 540 and express it as a percentage; But why do you want to do that?

Dude... if at level 29, one has 100 base damage and already has 400 spell power.... then adding another 40 spell power means the level 30 character does only like 10% more damage than the level 29 character, not 40% more like you said.

IronClan
11-23-2015, 07:02 PM
This is a good point, and something the devs should think about it. A big jump may not be wise...

But then again, maybe the idea is that level 29s should not be playing a lot of legendary content... Maybe it really is only for 30 and above... That does help the concept of "end-game".

When you hit 30, you can finally play Legendary, or you can eTR... A lot like the old epics at 20th level.

If one could handle Legendary at 28 or 29, then people will just play "end-game" at 28 and 29, and then eTR immediately at 30.

Hmm.. so maybe the devs SHOULD have a big power jump between 29 and 30.

Okay with that reasoning I could see it, if legendary is intended for capped characters and the ramp up is there to reward capped play and discourage 29's but that's an assumption (albeit a good one) maybe that's the intent. I've not seen the Dev's state that they are discouraging 29's in Legendary.

Now we have to ask if stratifying the legendary content into mostly 30's is a good idea. In a small player base like DDO this will just make it harder to fill groups for BOTH 30's and the 27-29 content will be more of a faceroll for level 30's.

I don't know if this is a good design goal...


Dude... if at level 29, one has 100 base damage and already has 400 spell power.... then adding another 40 spell power means the level 30 character does only like 10% more damage than the level 29 character, not 40% more like you said.

*sigh* Of course you can express the new increase as a comparison to the old total, but why would you do that? because you want to falsely believe that the 3AP you spent on the last +15 spell power got you less damage per AP than the 3 AP you spent on the first +15? Or the feat you used to get 40? +40 spell power with 100 base damage is 40 more damage, it's still 40 more damage if you add it to 400... the amount of damage you added is a exactly the same, saying it's only a net increase of 10% might make you consider it as less important (diminishing return), when it's exactly the same. This silly relative mental MATHerbation thing came about because someone wanted to prove that melee power (and by extension spell power) has "diminishing returns" to do this they arbitrarily compare the new amount added to a fake "sub total" that never happens in the game (as you just did) and get a number like 10% that is completely irrelevant and misleading.

The game doesn't give us a sub total and then add 40 more, it combines the 40 with every other point of spell power and then multiplies the base damage. The first 40 is exactly the same as the last 40. So arriving at a net increase over the old value is utterly irrelevant at best.

If you want to find out how much "relative" increase you got calculate it like you just did and then answer a simple question: why would you do that? So you can have a deceptive math argument with someone and disagree with them despite being wrong is the usual reason...

nibel
11-23-2015, 07:26 PM
Yeah, I actually mentioned this--a huge power jump at level 30 (or any level, really) doesn't play very nice with the more or less constant drive to TR.

Maybe that is the intention, to return to the days of old epic, where you actually had the player base with some characters on leveling duty (or TRing), others doing raids, and others geared for epic play (that in SOME cases was not the same gearing as endgame raids).

Also, capstone enhancements. Those were gamechangers when the cap was 20. I think the level 30 feats will be like capstone enhancements on cap 20, except you don't have to give up on multiclass for them.

Grailhawk
11-23-2015, 07:27 PM
*sigh* Of course you can express the new increase as a comparison to the old total, but why would you do that? because you want to falsely believe that the 3AP you spent on the last +15 spell power got you less damage per AP than the 3 AP you spent on the first +15? Or the feat you used to get 40? +40 spell power with 100 base damage is 40 more damage, it's still 40 more damage if you add it to 400... the amount of damage you added is a exactly the same, saying it's only a net increase of 10% might make you consider it as less important (diminishing return), when it's exactly the same. This silly relative mental MATHerbation thing came about because someone wanted to prove that melee power (and by extension spell power) has "diminishing returns" to do this they arbitrarily compare the new amount added to a fake "sub total" that never happens in the game (as you just did) and get a number like 10% that is completely irrelevant and misleading.

The game doesn't give us a sub total and then add 40 more, it combines the 40 with every other point of spell power and then multiplies the base damage. The first 40 is exactly the same as the last 40. So arriving at a net increase over the old value is utterly irrelevant at best.

If you want to find out how much "relative" increase you got calculate it like you just did and then answer a simple question: why would you do that? So you can have a deceptive math argument with someone and disagree with them despite being wrong is the usual reason...


There are time where it is not sufficient just to look at what happens to base. Some people get caught up in this and think that you should never not just look at base (many times just looking at base will tell you what you need to know).

assuming
100 avg damage base (6d10 + 67)
15-20/x3 (1.55 crit power)
120 Melee Power

+1 Crit Multiplier (30% incerase to base 0.3(100%) = 30%)
vs
+30 MP (you already understad how this is 30% increase to base)

Total Damage before adding +1 crit or +30 MP
100*1.55*2.2 = 341 avg

+1 Crit Multiplier
(100*1.75 - 100*1.55 = 30 damage increase to base)
100*1.75*2.2 = 385 avg (44 damage increase or 12.9% increase)

+30 Mp
(100*2.5 - 100*2.2 = 30 damage increase to base)
100*1.55*2.5 = 387.5 avg (46.5 damage increase or 13.63% increase)

This is an example of when comparing the difference has merit.

Its relative to what you are trying to compare.

I agree that if we are comparing having a feat vs not having a feat all we need to really look at is what it does to base.

Miightyy
11-23-2015, 09:24 PM
HOWLS? Varg you guys are educated proffesionals, being fellow gaming oriented computer nerds I assume at least *almost every one of you* is scientifically minded. can you please start using in game/email polling and stop listening to the 10 people who are "howling" the loudest on the forums?

Objective data please, stop listening to the loudest. I read the same thread and the reaction was mostly meh, some mixture of luke warm, and an occasional overreaction against "flat" Of course the overreacting people are posting 10 objections for every 1 luke warm.

Now am I saying I like "flat" no I don't care that much... which I suspect is how most people feel. It's just not that big of a deal. I am one of the meh, we'll see people. Though I'd go with some sort of compromise on first blush maybe a shallow upward ramp. But I agree that making level 27 28 29 and 30 take forever compared to the early levels is pointless and dull. I'm also aware that we have very little ML28+ content in which to level those levels, so making them require a higher amount of XP than they already do is not a great situation.

Please guys, do something about the "squeeky wheel" knee jerk syndrome around here. Maybe they are a majority, but what if they're just loud?

AMEN!!! I was just talking about the same thing regarding their "Fix" of Mortal Fear where at most 10% of people screaming loudest: NERF/REMOVE and other people tried to talk logic and obviously they listen to loud sounds and not logic. We should stand up for everyone in the game and make sure that devs do their job for which WE, as all of us (gamers) are paying for. *Disclaimer*: what I wrote simply defends the logic of the person above and shines the light on only certain things devs do (which are but not limited to: listening to the loudest, first and for most) I do understand that changes don't happen overnight or even over week, but let me point out that it seems that devs decisions are persuaded way quicker...(where they form their decision without taking a poll from all the people on forums) and no I don't mean to have a poll up for a day or two, the poll should be up for a month. Since we get 4 updates a year, that should give enough time for everyone to speak up and for devs to hopefully LOGICALLY evaluate everything. I also understand that that's what lammania is for but devs clearly haven't been taking everyone into consideration.

LiquidZombie
11-24-2015, 07:13 AM
If you want to find out how much "relative" increase you got calculate it like you just did and then answer a simple question: why would you do that?

You would "do that" because the mob hit points have increased along with your spell damage, so the flat increase of 40% base damage makes much less difference to the mob's current health than it would if you were at a low level with a lower level of spellpower. Yes, 40 more damage is still 40 more damage no matter what the spell was doing before, but when mobs have thousands of hit points that 40 damage has far less of an impact on how long it takes to kill each mob.

But I suspect I'm wasting my time debating with someone who's more interested in shouting about how stupid and "wrong" everyone is rather than making actual arguments.

ned_ellis
11-26-2015, 08:46 AM
AMEN!!! I was just talking about the same thing regarding their "Fix" of Mortal Fear where at most 10% of people screaming loudest: NERF/REMOVE and other people tried to talk logic and obviously they listen to loud sounds and not logic. We should stand up for everyone in the game and make sure that devs do their job for which WE, as all of us (gamers) are paying for. *Disclaimer*: what I wrote simply defends the logic of the person above and shines the light on only certain things devs do (which are but not limited to: listening to the loudest, first and for most) I do understand that changes don't happen overnight or even over week, but let me point out that it seems that devs decisions are persuaded way quicker...(where they form their decision without taking a poll from all the people on forums) and no I don't mean to have a poll up for a day or two, the poll should be up for a month. Since we get 4 updates a year, that should give enough time for everyone to speak up and for devs to hopefully LOGICALLY evaluate everything. I also understand that that's what lammania is for but devs clearly haven't been taking everyone into consideration.

I/we don't know the actual statistics of forum/feedback/in-game realities etc. But I fully support a referendum/poll type tool to avoid the very real feeling of being overlooked (if real or perceived is a moot point); if nothing else the results can be ignored for development reasons but we wouldn't feel so...irrelevant as a customer?! The alternative is we all come and cry on the forums about our fave pet-peeves or you ignore the forum entirely-neither are great...(econo)metrics are the way to go imo-let us vote!
P.s. If nothing else, ask oneself why most threads end up in this sort of discussion instead of actually providing on-topic, valid, actionable info?! ;)

lronEnema
11-26-2015, 09:28 AM
IronClan - I think I can put the issue clearest by comparing two of your posts.



Snip.....

+40% spell power etc.




Snip

+40 spell power

Those two statements are by no means equivalent yet you are trying to use them as if they are. One of them is correct and the other is just plain and simple wrong (in the context in which you are using them). To give you a clue: I can assure you that you will experience far less resistance if you avoid attaching "%" to numbers when you want to discuss spell power.

Silverleafeon
11-26-2015, 10:04 AM
Maybe that is the intention, to return to the days of old epic, where you actually had the player base with some characters on leveling duty (or TRing), others doing raids, and others geared for epic play (that in SOME cases was not the same gearing as endgame raids).

Also, capstone enhancements. Those were gamechangers when the cap was 20. I think the level 30 feats will be like capstone enhancements on cap 20, except you don't have to give up on multiclass for them.

Interesting perspective, well said +1

IronClan
11-26-2015, 01:00 PM
You would "do that" because the mob hit points have increased along with your spell damage, so the flat increase of 40% base damage makes much less difference to the mob's current health than it would if you were at a low level with a lower level of spellpower. Yes, 40 more damage is still 40 more damage no matter what the spell was doing before, but when mobs have thousands of hit points that 40 damage has far less of an impact on how long it takes to kill each mob.

But I suspect I'm wasting my time debating with someone who's more interested in shouting about how stupid and "wrong" everyone is rather than making actual arguments.

You wouldn't do that though, it's a false distinction... no one compares the 30 spell power they added at level 15 to their existing pool of 100, fighting Mobs with 800hps to the 30 spell power they might add at 25 or 30 to an existing pool of 300, fighting mobs with 6000hps. No one does that, why would they? what non theoretical totally made up utility does that serve? The game doesn't care either, the game raises your spell damage exactly the same amount in both cases. Assuming you want more damage (if you're nuking). Unless you're valuing something else higher (you're not so much nuking), and then if that's the case the 30 you added with say AP's is still just as much damage assuming the base damage is the same* as the 30 you added with some Destiny points spent in Blue Dragon. Again these are just utterly pedantic false distinctions. Rationalizations; the sole purpose of which was to squirm out of being wrong on the forum a few months ago when someone incorrectly stated that power has diminishing returns. It doesn't; even people arguing with me here like Grailhawk agree with that, despite clearly trying to rationalize a reason now that one might theoretically compare Spell power using relative math.


There are time where it is not sufficient just to look at what happens to base. Some people get caught up in this and think that you should never not just look at base (many times just looking at base will tell you what you need to know).

I agree that if we are comparing having a feat vs not having a feat all we need to really look at is what it does to base.

I'm not sure I would ever use the example for anything useful but okay.

If I sound passionate about the subject it's because this is a pet peeve. Finding a way to do the math that provides you with the appearance of being right is self deception at best. People buying into it makes it more powerful. Which means Politicians and Advertizers have a broader reception to their BS.


IronClan - I think I can put the issue clearest by comparing two of your posts.

This is what we're reduced to? You're right, but you got sloppy with punctuation?

(okay maybe it was lazy and not double checking but whatever, the game refers to power and scaling multipliers pretty sloppily as well)

dunklezhan
11-26-2015, 01:10 PM
Maybe that is the intention, to return to the days of old epic, where you actually had the player base with some characters on leveling duty (or TRing), others doing raids, and others geared for epic play (that in SOME cases was not the same gearing as endgame raids).

Also, capstone enhancements. Those were gamechangers when the cap was 20. I think the level 30 feats will be like capstone enhancements on cap 20, except you don't have to give up on multiclass for them.

I think the above is an important observation. If this is part of the design intention, I think it would be useful to know. The idea that you get to L30 and then run the L29 and 30 content is interesting. Sort of 'easy' end game and 'challenge' end game content, but specifically intended only for capped characters (and of course the edge case non capped folks who will find a way). That sounds... actually reasonably appealing, speaking as someone who's not particularly bothered about end game*. A clear division of intent may actually help in terms of people of similar playstyles grouping. If most of the power needed to play at cap actually comes from being at cap, then choosing to play end game becomes a viable alternative to feeling 'forced' to first gather tons of past lives, although I would hope that the very hardest L30 content would provide a challenge for those with both!

I think the spellpower discussion honestly ought to go to a different thread, because it's getting circular and we're only on page 2 of the thread. Its not helping, and I doubt its going to be settled here.


*I like to feel my character is progressing. Gear is not the same. That's my mindblock when it comes to spending time at cap. In that regard, Neverwinter Online's system seems to sustain quite well. (shame the game itself is so samey!)

lronEnema
11-27-2015, 05:17 AM
This is what we're reduced to? You're right, but you got sloppy with punctuation?

(okay maybe it was lazy and not double checking but whatever, the game refers to power and scaling multipliers pretty sloppily as well)

To paraphrase:

(Intro) You're right, (weak distraction)

(but, other people do stuff that's just as bad)

As for relative math.......

Most experienced players use it all the time in ddo. If I'm a <10th level melee, I want all the strength bonus I can get because each extra point of damage makes a significant percentage difference to my overall DPS. When I get to 28, missing a point or two here or there is no longer a bother. So many other DPS effects kick in that the boost from those few points of strength has become insignificant and are compromised to round out other aspects of character gear. Same goes for spell casters.

There is a reason mathematicians invented 'relative math' (or ratios / percentages): they are useful. Insisting that people don't, use 'relative math' or that it is only done to confuse or con, doesn't make it true. You are getting dangerously close to the notorious 'math never helped solve a problem, it just complicates it'.

gwonbush
11-27-2015, 07:43 AM
There are time where it is not sufficient just to look at what happens to base. Some people get caught up in this and think that you should never not just look at base (many times just looking at base will tell you what you need to know).

assuming
100 avg damage base (6d10 + 67)
15-20/x3 (1.55 crit power)
120 Melee Power

+1 Crit Multiplier (30% incerase to base 0.3(100%) = 30%)
vs
+30 MP (you already understad how this is 30% increase to base)

Total Damage before adding +1 crit or +30 MP
100*1.55*2.2 = 341 avg

+1 Crit Multiplier
(100*1.75 - 100*1.55 = 30 damage increase to base)
100*1.75*2.2 = 385 avg (44 damage increase or 12.9% increase)

+30 Mp
(100*2.5 - 100*2.2 = 30 damage increase to base)
100*1.55*2.5 = 387.5 avg (46.5 damage increase or 13.63% increase)

This is an example of when comparing the difference has merit.

Its relative to what you are trying to compare.

I agree that if we are comparing having a feat vs not having a feat all we need to really look at is what it does to base.

You did mess up your numbers for adding a crit multiplier (using +2 crit range instead), which would be clearly superior over 30 MP (against mobs who have no more than 31% fortification after everything is applied) given your MP and current crit profile.

The correct number version:
+1 Crit Multiplier
(100*1.85 - 100*1.55 = 30 damage increase to base)
100*1.85*2.2 = 407 avg (67 damage increase or 19.6% increase)