Damage Standarized?

Trading, random questions, rants about your favorite sports team loosing, or anything else!

Poll: Change it or No Nerfs?

Poll ended at Fri Feb 16, 2018 4:10 pm

Change the damage, make it all standard!
6
38%
No Nerfs, don't take our immunity-bypassing damage away!
10
63%
Total votes: 16

MortisCorpus
Posts: 1520

Damage Standarized?

Post#1 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:10 pm

A recent conversation about scale, balance, and outliers prompted a developers conversation about what damages are bypassing immunities and why. The only current outlier for damage that bypasses immunity would be the sets. So we are discussing moving the damage additions from sets to a “weapon added damage type”, this would not change the dice and type of damage but simply move in a direction where if the monsters were immune the damage would not affect them. The damage would be applied directly to the weapons via script and removed in the same fashion. This would of course require a standardized damage across the weapons that were applicable, so that multiples of the same type would not occur.

A few of our staff feel that although the damage awards would not change, that this would be perceived as a “nerf”. This would dramatically improve lag, monster development, and standardize damage across all fronts.

7 day poll, you may change your vote. Discussion encouraged!

So, what say the masses?
MortisCorpus
Dungeon Master, Administrator, Lord of Ahala
Image
AG_7's Resource Compilation

kc2345
Posts: 564

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#2 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:09 pm

No strong opinion either way, as long as any implemented change is fully tested to work as intended.

I do have concerns over the game engine not stacking elemental damage of the same type however. A weapon user could theoretically have every single damage type on his weapon as-is, leaving no room to stack any more. This is not an issue with the current unresistable damage to character, which stacks.

One theoretical example:
Acid - Acid runeword on Kukri
Fire - Flame weapon
Cold - ER3 cold iron
Sonic - Sonic Weapon
Elec - Forged/innate/Storm avatar

Slashing - Enhancement Bonus
Piercing - Forged/innate
Bludgeoning - ER3 adamantite

Positive - ER3 Mithril
Negative - ER3 darksteel
Divine - Forged/innate
Magic - Forged/innate

How would a set bonus damage to weapon work for this guy? Even at bare minimum, a weapon user is looking at 4 forged + 1 base weapon + 4 ER3 = 9/12 damage types - 10/12 damage types for archers due to ammo. Unless the added set damage type does not overlap with the existing damage types, these characters get doubly weakened, both by having previously unresistable damage becoming resistable, and by losing damage due to an overlap.

Also, do consider TWF offhands and players stacking 2 or more sets to get damage bonuses from both sets.

What about the energy weapon/blessing of the righteous spells, and elemental essence/toxic gift feats? These also add unresistable damage to character, albeit a low 1d6/2d8.

As a 3rd alternative, would simply folding the multiple damage types of sets into a single damage type improve the lag situation? e.g. Instead of 2d12 x 4, a set gave a straight 8d12 to a single damage type. With unresistable damage, this won't affect the status quo for game balance at all.
Image

Lomir
Posts: 241

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#3 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:37 pm

As someone that doesn't really power build, I'd rather just make your job easier. If standardizing the damage types makes the developer's lives easier, it has my vote all the way. I'd much rather see more content and a wider variety of class modifications/balances (looking at you spell overhaul and bardic changes) than worry about whether or not my character hits the max theoretical damage cap.

Caylin
Posts: 399

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#4 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:11 am

KC pretty much summed up the issue it would create:

The added damage would both become resistable and not stack with what you already have on your weapons thus hugely impacting a large number of toons in play negatively. Depending on what you have forged already the expected damage for a toon could drop massively especially when you consider how many immunities and resistances rot eng game mobs have.

The unresistable damage is a big power boost for sure but I feel set users are fairly well balanced against end game stuff. Melee toons are probably still beat by arcanes in most areas after the spell rework and thus widening the power gap between them doesnt seem right.

Brownyman
Posts: 228

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#5 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:26 am

While this would effectively decrease power of set users damage, it would put things in line with how it should work. if monsters have immunity to certain elements it should be respected - similar to your own characters.

Would this damage change only affect how set items damage is added or would it also affect these other character skills or spells like KC mentioned (Divine might, elemental essence, ROT weapon specialisation/Strength bonus/ Ranger Bane)

I think if changing how its set up improves lag, monster development etc i'm all for that. But i have the feeling if people think there damage has been hit too much you will start to get complaints of - Monsters regen too quickly, they are OP!

Stopping the power creep has always been a problem, I want more damage, monsters get tougher, i want better spells, monsters get tougher!

konst3d
Posts: 551

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#6 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:04 am

kc2345 wrote:No strong opinion either way, as long as any implemented change is fully tested to work as intended.

I do have concerns over the game engine not stacking elemental damage of the same type however. A weapon user could theoretically have every single damage type on his weapon as-is, leaving no room to stack any more. This is not an issue with the current unresistable damage to character, which stacks.

One theoretical example:
Acid - Acid runeword on Kukri
Fire - Flame weapon
Cold - ER3 cold iron
Sonic - Sonic Weapon
Elec - Forged/innate/Storm avatar

Slashing - Enhancement Bonus
Piercing - Forged/innate
Bludgeoning - ER3 adamantite

Positive - ER3 Mithril
Negative - ER3 darksteel
Divine - Forged/innate
Magic - Forged/innate

How would a set bonus damage to weapon work for this guy? Even at bare minimum, a weapon user is looking at 4 forged + 1 base weapon + 4 ER3 = 9/12 damage types - 10/12 damage types for archers due to ammo. Unless the added set damage type does not overlap with the existing damage types, these characters get doubly weakened, both by having previously unresistable damage becoming resistable, and by losing damage due to an overlap.

Also, do consider TWF offhands and players stacking 2 or more sets to get damage bonuses from both sets.

What about the energy weapon/blessing of the righteous spells, and elemental essence/toxic gift feats? These also add unresistable damage to character, albeit a low 1d6/2d8.

As a 3rd alternative, would simply folding the multiple damage types of sets into a single damage type improve the lag situation? e.g. Instead of 2d12 x 4, a set gave a straight 8d12 to a single damage type. With unresistable damage, this won't affect the status quo for game balance at all.


This.
The changes proposed will in fact, heavily nerf melee sets, while not affecting caster sets.
If the way this bonus damage implemented now causes some serious problems - ok, change it. But please, give something to compensate the loss of it!
Magic is impressive, but now Minsc leads! Swords for everyone!

Samyx
Posts: 575

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#7 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:57 am

Hi
I am not as versed in technical engine workings, so my only oppinion is that anything that reduces lag is welcome.
I only wish that, if set or build owners are heavily disturbed/destroyed/changed, they get compensated on case to case basis.
Kr Samyx

kc2345
Posts: 564

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#8 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:31 am

A bit of math:

At the most extreme end of set damage is someone stacking the Misc + F/R/B sets. This character will see 8d12 (6 pc) + 6d8 (5/6 misc) set damage per hit, or 79 set damage per hit.

Assuming mobs average 35% damage immunity (will be variable), this character will see damage drop an average of 28 less damage per hit. This translates to a 10-15% loss in damage output on average. Most set users will experience a somewhat smaller damage hit than this.

Moving in the direction of such a change would also put an even bigger magnifying glass on mob immunities/resistances, and might make some sets far better than others (8d12 fire damage is generally way worse than 8d12 divine for example), along with making weapon users stronger/weaker vs certain existing enemies. (e.g. Acid damage immune cannibals v.s. 100% weakness Orc Mage Protectors)

So hopefully these factors are also thought through before pushing a change through. Will abstain from voting until I hear more technical details :D

For example, how would this actually reduce lag? Less CPU calculations? Or are damage dice to character inherently more computationally intensive than damage to weapons?
Image

konst3d
Posts: 551

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#9 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:42 am

Just as a crazy idea: Replace all these 2d12 magic\sonic\positive\etc... with one huge 6d12 of some very exotic damage type, like monster damage or something and add it to a weapon.
Same effect, less lag... everybody(?) happy?

P.S.
Anyway, "monster' is a very good description for full set well built barb, fighter or rogue. :D
Magic is impressive, but now Minsc leads! Swords for everyone!

addict-ant
Posts: 560

Re: Damage Standarized?

Post#10 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:52 am

I think it's quite difficult to predict what damage will look like after this change. I too am concerned that this pushes arcanes further up the table and melees down the table, possibly invalidating the arcane spell rework and requiring the whole project to be re-visited and re-balanced.

Perhaps it might be wise to have another poll if/when this change is rolled out to beta? Or to have a couple of sets changed to this method on beta for testing? That way people can really see and test the difference - right now we're somewhat debating in a vacuum without the in-situ data to properly assess.

In principle I have to agree with the idea (and if current sets are producing lag - that's a winner right there!) but in practice I fear the knock-on effect could be considerable.
Image

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron