Its a neat perspective. I've always though FF fans were some of the most inspid and fanboyish. Did you ever try to play an FF MMO? Talk about dick in a pencil sharpener...

FFO was one of the most meaningful PvP games ever. Each death was -10% of a level worth of XP, and you would often delevel.It was 30+ hours per level higher up, so it was hours of xp lost.

Add in much of the top end loot being dropped from world bosses for only the person or party that killed it on a 1-2 week cycle, and it was a slaughter fest. It wasn't unusual for 50+ people to die fighting over a single boss, and I killed so many toons...



BST

Metal-Beast wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 3:08pm:

And then you thought Turbine could do that? Learn?

Or were you thinking more that we're the ones who need to wake up, since hypothetically, we still might be able to figure out: Turbine will never produce anything that matches our vision of what DDO ought to be?

Frank wrote on May 24^th, 2016 at 6:06am:

this is about as far as they went http://blizzardwatch.com/2016/02/11/overwatch-loot-boxes-cosmetic-rewards/

all cosmetics, no p2w game changing items or abilities. They said future heroes and expansion maps would be free. They didnt come out and say it will not ever be p2w because I think they want to see how profitable they can be right now. If the game catches on and people are buying the cosmetics then the game should be or has the chance to be a full non-p2w shooter. A sort of mix of League(heroes) and Counter Strike. A moba shooter. This would allow Blizzard to have a major new esport.

Rubbinns wrote on May 24^th, 2016 at 3:19am:


Agreed. If you want PvP go play an FPS or a MOBA.

DDO did PvP best by ignoring it completely.

Quote:


Gotta say I agree.  If the intent of linking to the article was to say, "a problem is people's preconceived notions on what a DnD game should be have led to poor design decisions" then I'm not sure I agree with that.  We could have a faithful adaptation of the DnD material, but if it was still wrapped in a pay2win, grindfest, with uninspiring no challenge content, then it'd still suck.

Though at most I will agree that staying more faithful to the source material could be argued as saying "power-creep is bad."  But I've seen DnD campaigns with Monty Haul problems that make DDO's pale in comparison, so that's certainly no panacea either.

Quote:


I think it was Meursault that cogently argued this point.
Keeping DDO similar to DnD (where possible) was less about authenticity and more about following a well trialled and tested system focussed on balance.
Deviating from the core of 3rd ed DnD (D20) opened up a huge can of worms that these game developers had not considered.  D20 isn't perfect but it has been refined through hundreds of thousands of hours of play testing (Turbine devs may need to Google that last term).
If they wanted to decouple from D20, they should have just emulated a D100 system like role master.  Instead we have a bastard hybrid abomination that is completely fucked up.
They have an open ended % system for PRR/MRR combined with a constrained % for dodge combined with an absolute value hurdle system for AC.  What a mess.
Skill and stat tests remain on the D20 system but with a range much larger than ever envisaged.

They have to choose which playing group they want to provide challenge too.
If we set the skill test for Leet players, then casual players will have no chance.  So the skill test can't be mandatory to the quest progression.  And so on and so on - the compromises begin.

I fully agree that an MMO needs to be different mechanically to make sense in some areas, but some design decisions have been incredibly flawed, but rather than fix it, Turbine continues to just double down again and again.  I have no problems accepting rational changes that make sense to increase the fun of the MMO system, but it needs to be done with a view to the future.

And what level 30 PnP toon can do 30-50k burst damage against foes that have 1M+ HP?  Turbine have got their scaling all screwed up.

IMHO, most of the power creep originates at the point they chose to move right away from the PnP system.  They lost their way and were too proud to admit it.

If Turbine was a character in the movie

Frank,

I agree with the general premise that the power level change as you progress.  Arcane classes get more powerful as they level up, while martial classes lose out on AOE damage and versatility.  That is just part of the progression.  The only way to change that was 4E - which was a fucking joke and made every class boring as all hell.

Frank wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 2:00am:


I disagree with this statement.  You're saying that your 4hp first level wizard with one spell per day is superior in every way to a 1st fighter?
That wizard can cast one spell per day.  The fighter can attack hundreds of times per day, and wear heavy armour to mitigate damage.

Frank wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 2:00am:


I'm sorry, but in my play experience and thirty years as GM, I have to disagree.
This is a problem at the higher levels for sure, but your example implies the whole range is affected.

Another part of your analysis I disagree with is the class vs class comparison.   DnD is intended as a party based game, that can be played solo.
This is why you have the four class archetypes.
Mages cannot heal and don't really have rogue skills, nor are they good in combat.  You can cross some of those boundaries with spells and abilities and eventually epic class levels.
The main premise, I believe, is the synergy between the classes.  How can the Mage protect the fighter or augment the fighter?
Earlier years in DDO adhered to that class split when party based play was viable. in response to declining player numbers, that had to open up solo ability.
The implementation of this is where they started to go wrong.  By blurring the class boundaries, they moved away from the tried and tested archetype system that had been the core of DnD for many years.

As a GM, I discouraged individual players from trying to dominate and solo everything and you can encourage that behaviour through good challenge design.  Everyone has their time to shine, may not be every quest, but you ensure the martial classes get to utilise their strengths too.


Frank wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 2:00am:


It is part of the PnP to MMO translation.
Some things don't translate well.
The wizard can cast the same spell on the fighter in the party.  Not having an arcane means having to do things old-school.
The devs can choose what to bring from PnP to DDO for balance purposes - I said that.

Frank wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 2:00am:


How do this happen in PnP?
At 20th level a wizard can cast four 7th level spells per day?
Wizards can get extra spells from specialisation and high INT, but that is hardly being able to FoD all day long?

The reason DDO casters can do this is because of the choice to use a spell point pool instead of castings per day.  And I understand the reason to use that mechanic, but you can hardly taint 3.5 PnP with that flaw?

Frank wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 2:00am:

Yes, what is your point?
A developer planning a quest for an MMO needs to plan very carefully and test it thoroughly.  I don't see how this point makes the use of PnP rules in DDO invalid?

We get the bosses loot in every chest we pull in DDO.  I don't hear anyone complaining that the sword, armour, ring and potions he was using against us is not in the end chest?  The players can learn to accept some things.

Frank wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 2:00am:

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your premise of a flawed base.
DDO moved away from that base initially, and I thought it was ok in the first few years.  But then the deviations started to happen and the move into untested waters was unwise and did not work out well.  As others showed above, Epics were the worst because there was no clear plan.  It was just stumbling from one producer to the next.

I'm not arguing that any edition of DnD was perfect, but 3.5 was the zenith in my opinion.
Sure if you incorporated all the reference material, it became a friggin mess and balance was easily messed up unless you were very careful.
I still use 3.5, and enjoy it.  We rarely play past level 20 because by then we're all looking for something new and switch roles and campaigns.

My main criticism of 3.5 was how time consuming and tedious that combat can be, and how daunting AoO can be for novices.  I found it used to get in the way of storytelling and could become boring for those less interested in rules lawyering.

But then I saw how 4E simplified combat, and I shut my mouth and was grateful for 3rd ed.   

There are house rules you can use to modify your campaign to suit your ideas of balance.  a dev team can do exactly the same with an MMO.  I have no problems with that.  But the core should probably stay unless you have a very good reason to do so.

Frank - I respect your points and arguments, but I think we need to agree to disagree.   

WeHaveLived wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:


There's a fine line. DDO has no reason to be "balanced" the way PvP-centric games are. But if one specific build is too much stronger than every other build, there quickly becomes no reason to play any of the others.

This is where we can take a lesson from Magic: The Gathering. During a block many years ago, they inadvertantly made a particular deck archetype massively over-powered. So for about a year, that was all anyone played. The result was an extremely toxic community environment as everyone who wanted to be the least bit competitive has to play that one deck.

Without some mild balancing, DDO could end up the same way. Sure, there's no competition, but you'd have a lot less fun if there was one all-powerful build and if you wanted to play anything else, you were just piking.

I experienced this in WoW ages ago. During the vanilla days, only a few classes could do anything. If you wanted a flavor build, like Paladin, you were basically useless. Priest out-healed you, warrior out-tanked you, rogue out DPSed you. And in a game where that's all anyone did, it was not fun.

So a little balance makes the game fun.

PersonaNonGrata wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 2:52am:

Yes, because you have your facts wrong.
The Wizard has an 18 or 20 Int, because of point buy (just like in DDO) and a much wider racial option base.  The Wizard doesn't have one spell, he has 3 0 level spells and 2 1st level spells, or if at 20 Int 3 and 3.  And since he is a specialist he has 4 and 3 or 4 and 4.

The game is balanced around 3 combats per day.  So even the 18 Int Wizard can cast a cantrip and a 1st level spell in each combat, or adjust as they see fit.  And those spells are far more effective than the martial classes.  Sleep takes out 4 HD of creatures all at once.  The 1st level Fighter will be lucky to kill 4 HD of creatures over time without taking a significant amount of damage.  Unless they come at him in martial arts movie style, one at a time...  Grease, Obscuring Mist, Charm Person, Ray of Enfeeblement, Expeditious Retreat, and others are also quite potent.  Of the Cantrips Daze and Touch of Fatigue are nice.

You might notice that I didn't list a single Evocation spell.  That's because while a Wizard can do damage, they are far better off just taking out opponents with Sleep and the like, or debuffing them for the martial classes or themselves to polish off with ease.

At 1st level the Fighter or other martial class has an entire 1 BAB advantage over the Wizard.  So the Wizard is shooting a bow (Elf) or using some other ranged weapon with almost the exact same proficiency as the martial classes, while looking for the need to cast a spell.

Quote:

That's because it is.  It just becomes more easy to see at higher levels.

Quote:

And that is why I didn't go into a class vs. class comparison.  If you want to talk PvP then the arcane classes are even more clearly dominant right from 1st level.



Quote:
Now see right here you are conceding the point.  You had to 'encourage' the casters to allow the martials their time to shine.  If you had a player who decided they were just bored waiting for the martials to shine and dominated in all encounters you had only two options:  Kick them out of your group, or cheat against them.  Because as the rules are written they could do just that and you'd have no recourse.


Quote:

Yes, all day long for all practical purposes.  Again, the game is designed for three encounters per day.  And again, your spell count is incorrect.  By 20th level the Wizard has a 24+ due to leveling stats and and that nice Int item that they can make themselves at that point, and casts 5 or more 7th level spells per day, 6 as a specialist.

So at least 2 FoD per encounter, plus of course the massive number of spells of levels 1-6 that they have memorized.  And scrolls, due to the 1st level free feat of Scribe Scroll.

Some people see this and go "Aha!  I'll just throw a few more encounters at them, that'll show those pesky casters and their limited number of spells!"
No, all that does is kill your martials off.  They are the ones with no access to healing spells, they are the ones without magical means to escape.  Martials will always have fewer options in an encounter than a caster.  And options are not only fun, they are survivability.  The smart Wizard uses that 1st level free feat of Scribe scroll and is never without an option.  The Fighter can swing a sword, or shoot a bow.  But only one well.  If overwhelmed, the Fighter has to run, the Wizard not only is not slowed down by armor but can cast Expeditious Retreat for an additional 30' movement.  Or Fly.  Or Dimension Door.  Or Invisibility.  Or a host of other options.

Any attempts to tweak the average encounters per day only hurts the martials more than the casters.

And sure, the martials can also get magic items that allow them weightless armor, or Fly, or other effects.  But that just lets them be useful in a fight.  Without them most fights at higher levels would see them standing or moving around ineffectively while the casters did all the winning.

Quote:
My point, which I thought I made fairly clearly, is that the DM basically need to coddle the martials in order to allow them to contribute.  If he does not, they will eventually feel rather like third wheels to the spell casters.  And as I also said, if the casters are challenged then the martials either can't contribute much or just die.

Quote:
You're talking about cheating now.  Buffing the opponents saving throws to keep the casters from dominating but not having those buffs equate to the items that they should as treasure.  Which I have allowed is a valid way to try to balance PnP 3.5.  But it's still cheating, and by resorting to this you are conceding the point that the casters are dominant and the martials need help to contribute.

Quote:

This is another false conclusion:  That the core rule books were balanced and that only by allowing the mass of source books did the game get out of hand.  It is not accurate.  Core 3.5 is just as unbalanced, and playing a 'core only' campaign is not a solution to the problem.  Because the problem starts with core and only gets worse from there.  Plus a lot of the splat books, such as The Complete Warrior, offer martial classes that aren't gimped right from character creation.

WeHaveLived wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

I can't.  I play casters, we have spells against that.   

But that doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for the poor fool who picks Fighter, Monk, etc. at character creation.

4E didn't have this caster problem.

It had this Rogue problem.