Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    2015 DDO Players Council
    The Legendary Fighter God
    Cetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,388

    Default Set bonuses: Flexibility (Slavers) is preferable to Rigidity (Sharn)

    PROBLEM:


    The existence of powerful set bonuses (like sharn or ravenloft before it) makes nearly every character require one. As a result, the slots they occupy are lost until an update is eventually released with new set bonuses powerful enough to replace them.

    For example, any endgame melee nowadays is wearing "Part of the Family" as a set. This locks away the gloves, the necklace, and the armor slot for a very long time, despite many updates that follow.

    New items have the overwhelming task of not only competing with the individual item attributes they are replacing, but they are also competing with the set bonus they would be breaking. No single item will ever accomplish this, and therefore the set bonuses remain rigid for very long amounts of time until a "new set bonus" is released that would overpower it or at least provide the same bonus in the form of different items.

    SOLUTION:

    An obvious solution to this problem would be to learn from a successful system - slavers. Does any reader of this post think that the flexibility of the slavers system provided a detriment to gear development?

    If "Part of the Family" was not a rigid 3-item set, but an affix that could have been applied to 3 members of a larger group of possible contenders, new item design would be free from the burden of having to circumvent the rigidity of the current system. Loot designers could freely create some kind of "new DPS gloves" without dooming them with uselessness from the very beginning. It would be up to the players to shuffle things around to accommodate these "new DPS gloves" by reshuffling their set bonus around.

    Another solution would be to remove set bonuses completely, and allow each individual item slot to exist on their own. This, however, is less likely to happen I think.

    CONCLUSION:


    Endgame gearing with the intent of maximizing desired attributes is a very difficult endeavor. Set bonuses are rigid, new items have to be ignored in view of this rigidity, and novelty becomes a relatively rare thing until expansion-level updates are released. Providing slavers-level flexibility to set bonus items adds to the longevity of gear, gives players more control over desired attributes for their characters, and allows for this content to somewhat resist becoming extinct once the new expansion is released.
    Check out my Twitch Channel
    Argonnessen's DEGENERATE MATTER

  2. #2
    Community Member Quikster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Backwards Day in Bikini Bottom
    Posts
    7,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cetus View Post
    PROBLEM:


    The existence of powerful set bonuses (like sharn or ravenloft before it) makes nearly every character require one. As a result, the slots they occupy are lost until an update is eventually released with new set bonuses powerful enough to replace them.

    For example, any endgame melee nowadays is wearing "Part of the Family" as a set. This locks away the gloves, the necklace, and the armor slot for a very long time, despite many updates that follow.

    New items have the overwhelming task of not only competing with the individual item attributes they are replacing, but they are also competing with the set bonus they would be breaking. No single item will ever accomplish this, and therefore the set bonuses remain rigid for very long amounts of time until a "new set bonus" is released that would overpower it or at least provide the same bonus in the form of different items.

    SOLUTION:

    An obvious solution to this problem would be to learn from a successful system - slavers. Does any reader of this post think that the flexibility of the slavers system provided a detriment to gear development?

    If "Part of the Family" was not a rigid 3-item set, but an affix that could have been applied to 3 members of a larger group of possible contenders, new item design would be free from the burden of having to circumvent the rigidity of the current system. Loot designers could freely create some kind of "new DPS gloves" without dooming them with uselessness from the very beginning. It would be up to the players to shuffle things around to accommodate these "new DPS gloves" by reshuffling their set bonus around.

    Another solution would be to remove set bonuses completely, and allow each individual item slot to exist on their own. This, however, is less likely to happen I think.

    CONCLUSION:


    Endgame gearing with the intent of maximizing desired attributes is a very difficult endeavor. Set bonuses are rigid, new items have to be ignored in view of this rigidity, and novelty becomes a relatively rare thing until expansion-level updates are released. Providing slavers-level flexibility to set bonus items adds to the longevity of gear, gives players more control over desired attributes for their characters, and allows for this content to somewhat resist becoming extinct once the new expansion is released.
    100% agree. The difficulty lies in striking the right balance in grind. The grind for the set bonus should be worth the bonus, however each successive shuffle makes that grind exponentially worse.
    Sarlona's FORMER #1 Piker!!
    QuiknDirty~Quikster~Quikkilla Missquik~
    Member of Roving Guns

  3. #3
    Community Member Thrudh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    19,624

    Default

    I agree with this as well.

    The good set bonuses do lock in gear.

    Release some new melee gloves and I don't care... because gloves are locked away for the set bonus.

    Crafting set bonuses in various slots (like Slavers) is a better system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    We are no more d000m'd then we were a week ago. Note - This was posted in 10/2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Eth View Post
    When you stop caring about xp/min this game becomes really fun. Trust me.
    Quote Originally Posted by TedSandyman View Post
    Some people brag about how fast they finished the game. I cant think of a stupider thing to brag about. Or in this game, going from level 1 to level 30 in two days, or however long it takes. I can't even begin to imagine what drives a person to think that is fun. You are ignoring all of the content and options and going for sheer speed. It is like going to a museum and bragging about how fast you made it through. Or bragging about how fast you finished a good steak.

  4. #4
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sarlona
    Posts
    2,558

    Default

    Having a bit of long range vision and follow through regarding itemization would help us and the item developers greatly.

    Molten Adamantine Gauntlets (A Project Nemesis raid item) are just one of many examples of a lonely item that some developer put work into and doesn’t get much of any use.

    Feels bad for them and us.

  5. #5
    2014 DDO Players Council
    SirValentine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,919

    Default

    Just for comparison, look at the Adherents set. You needed 5 items, but you had 40+ choices to fit in 11 different gear slots. That's almost too much flexibility.

    In Sharn, there were multiple builds where the seemingly-obvious set and seemingly-obvious Minor Artifact were simply incompatible with each other, due to complete lack of flexibility, which was really dumb. You'd think the Sharn sets could have been something like any 3 items out of 5 possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vargouille View Post
    As a general rule we don't intend for a single spawn area to cause any dungeon alert, and certainly not red dungeon alert. This basically isn't ever a goal in our designs

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SirValentine View Post
    Just for comparison, look at the Adherents set. You needed 5 items, but you had 40+ choices to fit in 11 different gear slots. That's almost too much flexibility.

    In Sharn, there were multiple builds where the seemingly-obvious set and seemingly-obvious Minor Artifact were simply incompatible with each other, due to complete lack of flexibility, which was really dumb. You'd think the Sharn sets could have been something like any 3 items out of 5 possible.
    I suggested multiple times during the Sharn preview to go with 3 of 4 for sets. I absolutely agree that the 3/3 setup is too limiting when it comes to gearing.
    Danskerne
    A Danish Guild on Ghallanda. Send PM if interested.
    Leading Raids Thursdays from 20 CET and Sundays from 21 CET.

  7. #7
    Uber Completionist Capricorpus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    340

    Default

    I wouldn't say that the slavers model is perfect, but I'm totally on board with you when it comes to rigid, mandatory sets being far from ideal.

    In addition to the point you made about otherwise fine items being dead on arrival when they occupy slots that already have set bonus items locked in, I'd add that the way set bonuses have been implemented since Ravenloft has both contributed to homogeneity of gear across classes of the same play style and introduced unnecessary gear bloat (for example, the dozen or so Sharn and post-Sharn armors with nearly identical bonuses in different weights and/or sets).
    Cap, Ascendance, Cannith
    Capricorpus / Capiorcorpus

  8. #8
    Community Member YUTANG75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Over the rainbow
    Posts
    222

    Default

    I think there's a trade off between flexibility and rigidty to be made. Rigid set bonuses can be made more powerful because your choices are restricted and the bonus is your reward for doing so. Flexible sets like Slaver's are weaker because it is easier to slot into your build without comprimising much.
    The other major thing is to prevent set stacking, if you make a set too flexible than players can start gaining multiple set bonuses. Of course this can be designed around to start with but with every new set it will become harder and restrictive on what slots new loot can be placed in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Severlin View Post
    We are trying to kill you.

  9. #9
    Community Member Gilga1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Slavers was not perfect, but at least allowed several options. I find it quite frustrating that all melees are equipped the same way ... we have a game with billions of items that no good player will ever use. Ever.
    Endgame equip is super easy to obtain, no grind is required, and there is also the boost “jackpot” system which is really terrible and frustrating for an endgamer.
    I would like to see different options, new clickies...
    When I saw the preview of U47 items, I told myself “well, I will run the new raids just for threads of fate...”
    Tronko - Ascendance - Cannith

  10. #10
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,104

    Default

    They wanted people not to use too many set bonuses at once, which makes sense.
    Tying set bonuses to armor was a good idea in that sense.

    If we could somehow keep that design philosophy and force the armor to be part of the set, but then gave out the number of items needed for the set+2 slots to pick and choose from for the two missing pieces, I'd be pretty happy with it.
    3-5 piece sets, one of which is locked into place and common to all sets.
    I don't know if the set technology DDO uses would support that, but it sounds like a decent idea.
    Enthusiasm enthusiast enthusiast.

  11. #11
    Hero Propane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    From Wisconsin, Live in Iowa, Vist Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,658

    Default

    I do agree that I too find Set Bonus too powerful to pass up and do not like how they limit gear flexibility.

    Slavers was good - but I did not like the grind for all the items (much better now BTW) - I do grind for 1 item per alt to fill in around set bonus gear.

    For the MoTU - they had a system that you could bring new items in to set bonus state.
    I would like to see a "system" that you could slot / upgrade / flag / etc... an item and bring into set bonus alignment.
    Even if you need to convert an entire item from a set into a argument, slot in new item, there you go
    Sarlona - Guildmaster - Brotherhood of Redemption - ddoborguild.com - 2016 & 2017 Players Council --- Alts: Acetylene, Antimematter, CNG, Dilithium Crystal, EMF, EMPulse, Exothermic, Geothermal, Hexane, Hexyne, Hydropower, JA, Kerosene, LPG, Natural Gas, Nuclearpower, Propane, Solarpannel, Tidalpower, WASOB, Waulter, Windpower, Woodpile

  12. #12
    Community Member Hawkwier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    506

    Default Hmmm...

    Not sure I endorse this.

    Set bonuses are restrictive because of their value.

    That is a pain.

    But maybe that is as it should be.

    I'm certainly wearing some sub-optimal gear in some slots because of this, but making it too easy for me doesn't feel quite right somehow.

    If flexibility is the way forward, and sets are the issue, then maybe just doing away with set bonuses entirely might be preferable to the yet more power creep that inevitably comes with removing inflexibility around sets whilst retaining their advantages.

    Interesting/difficult decisions are good design IMO. Gear certainly poses a few of those for me, at least.

    I try to stay away from the loot feedback threads, due to much lobbying from personal agendas intended to make such decisions easier, for similar reasons.

    So I'm not convinced.

    Wouldn't cry over it if it happens mind you!

  13. #13
    2015 DDO Players Council
    The Legendary Fighter God
    Cetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilga1 View Post
    Slavers was not perfect, but at least allowed several options. I find it quite frustrating that all melees are equipped the same way ... we have a game with billions of items that no good player will ever use. Ever.
    Endgame equip is super easy to obtain, no grind is required, and there is also the boost “jackpot” system which is really terrible and frustrating for an endgamer.
    I would like to see different options, new clickies...
    When I saw the preview of U47 items, I told myself “well, I will run the new raids just for threads of fate...”
    I agree with this wholeheartedly. Rigid set bonuses have removed potential diversity that could have existed between many players.

    Everyone is pretty much wearing close to the same thing. That's not the DDO I remember playing all these years.
    Check out my Twitch Channel
    Argonnessen's DEGENERATE MATTER

  14. #14
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkwier View Post
    Interesting/difficult decisions are good design IMO. Gear certainly poses a few of those for me, at least.
    Current paradigm of loot design is not interesting because there isn't any choice to be made...

    New expansion comes out with an overpowered set bonus and then you wear that set until the next expansion comes. No need to even look at any item released for those slots. This extends to your other gear as well and for the updates in between expansions there is like one or two gearslots that you change out.

  15. #15
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    They wanted people not to use too many set bonuses at once, which makes sense.
    Tying set bonuses to armor was a good idea in that sense.

    If we could somehow keep that design philosophy and force the armor to be part of the set, but then gave out the number of items needed for the set+2 slots to pick and choose from for the two missing pieces, I'd be pretty happy with it.
    3-5 piece sets, one of which is locked into place and common to all sets.
    I don't know if the set technology DDO uses would support that, but it sounds like a decent idea.
    Yeah I came to the same conclusion in a different thread recently too...

    Rigid sets lets the devs enforce set exclusivity. If you can only ever have one set active, then that lets the devs make that set more powerful than they could if it was mix-and-matchable. Locking in the armor slot seems like as good a solution as any....though of course that means that non-set armor is going to be forever pointless.

    If you could mix two Sharn-tier sets, then that would ironically lead to less gear flexibility since Set A + Set B + Artifact would be your RSTLNE for gearing and you'd only have a couple slots left to fill after that.

    The best solution lies somewhere in between....Armor-locked for exclusivity, but gear-flexible in other slots.

    While we're on it, I also still wish that Epic versions of set items still counted towards their corresponding Heroic sets, so you could upgrade piece by piece at endgame.
    Last edited by droid327; 06-27-2020 at 04:26 PM.

  16. #16
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droid327 View Post
    Yeah I came to the same conclusion in a different thread recently too...

    Rigid sets lets the devs enforce set exclusivity. If you can only ever have one set active, then that lets the devs make that set more powerful than they could if it was mix-and-matchable. Locking in the armor slot seems like as good a solution as any....though of course that means that non-set armor is going to be forever pointless.

    If you could mix two Sharn-tier sets, then that would ironically lead to less gear flexibility since Set A + Set B + Artifact would be your RSTLNE for gearing and you'd only have a couple slots left to fill after that.

    The best solution lies somewhere in between....Armor-locked for exclusivity, but gear-flexible in other slots.

    While we're on it, I also still wish that Epic versions of set items still counted towards their corresponding Heroic sets, so you could upgrade piece by piece at endgame.
    That's basically what I suggested in a post in this forum last week. Imagine a set where you had all of the itemization from Dreadkeeper, Feywild Dreamer, Esoteric Initiate and Arcsteel Battlemage to pick and choose from... but the Armor locked you into a specific set bonus. The set bonuses are still exclusive of each other, the devs can continue to restrict what type of armor is allowed for certain set bonuses (no dps casters in medium armor), and players have the ability for the player to customize the gear set for whatever goals their build is trying to accomplish.

  17. #17
    Community Member devashta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Black hole
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cetus View Post
    PROBLEM:


    The existence of powerful set bonuses (like sharn or ravenloft before it) makes nearly every character require one. As a result, the slots they occupy are lost until an update is eventually released with new set bonuses powerful enough to replace them.

    For example, any endgame melee nowadays is wearing "Part of the Family" as a set. This locks away the gloves, the necklace, and the armor slot for a very long time, despite many updates that follow.

    New items have the overwhelming task of not only competing with the individual item attributes they are replacing, but they are also competing with the set bonus they would be breaking. No single item will ever accomplish this, and therefore the set bonuses remain rigid for very long amounts of time until a "new set bonus" is released that would overpower it or at least provide the same bonus in the form of different items.

    SOLUTION:

    An obvious solution to this problem would be to learn from a successful system - slavers. Does any reader of this post think that the flexibility of the slavers system provided a detriment to gear development?

    If "Part of the Family" was not a rigid 3-item set, but an affix that could have been applied to 3 members of a larger group of possible contenders, new item design would be free from the burden of having to circumvent the rigidity of the current system. Loot designers could freely create some kind of "new DPS gloves" without dooming them with uselessness from the very beginning. It would be up to the players to shuffle things around to accommodate these "new DPS gloves" by reshuffling their set bonus around.

    Another solution would be to remove set bonuses completely, and allow each individual item slot to exist on their own. This, however, is less likely to happen I think.

    CONCLUSION:


    Endgame gearing with the intent of maximizing desired attributes is a very difficult endeavor. Set bonuses are rigid, new items have to be ignored in view of this rigidity, and novelty becomes a relatively rare thing until expansion-level updates are released. Providing slavers-level flexibility to set bonus items adds to the longevity of gear, gives players more control over desired attributes for their characters, and allows for this content to somewhat resist becoming extinct once the new expansion is released.
    100% agree. The sharn set should have been 3/4. Set bonus is a nice concept but should have more options to get them.

    I am intrigued to see how lynnabel is going to untangle this mess without creating a storm in a tea cup.

  18. #18
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cetus View Post
    The existence of powerful set bonuses (like sharn or ravenloft before it) makes nearly every character require one. As a result, the slots they occupy are lost until an update is eventually released with new set bonuses powerful enough to replace them.

    For example, any endgame melee nowadays is wearing "Part of the Family" as a set. This locks away the gloves, the necklace, and the armor slot for a very long time, despite many updates that follow.

    An obvious solution to this problem would be to learn from a successful system - slavers. Does any reader of this post think that the flexibility of the slavers system provided a detriment to gear development?
    1. Slavers was only 'flexible' to people willing to grind 1000 runs of it. Not accessible to casual players. Drove me away from the game for a while because it was so boring; would not call it successful.

    2. Arguably the problem here is more that one set bonus is so much more powerful than any other options that there's no choice to be made. If the 'Part of the family' set was less OP (or the individual items weren't so good in any case) we could consider using different items. Just like 'martial hymn' being so much better than 'divine' or 'primal' that nobody has any reason to use either of the latter.

    3. The suggestions of having all 'strong' sets use armor so you can only have one 'strong' set active at a time isn't a bad one to control game balance, as long as all armors are designed with that in mind (e.g. all have a strong set bonus, are *amazing* individually, or are just semi-freebie easy to obtain items to tide people over until they get a better item and sentient food otherwise), then there can be some other much weaker sets that don't use armor that you might be able to fit in alongside a strong set.

    4. Generally speaking I also like e.g. 3 of 4 items to get a set bonus so there is a little flexibility if you want to fit in one other specific thing.
    Nistafa on Khyber

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload