Two weapon style buff suggestion

[desocupado]

Dual wielder are out of flavor due:

• Producing more kickback damage (due more hits)
  
• Requiring more weapon buffs (because weapon buffing is a chore)
  
• Reducing your AB by 2 or 4 (depending on weapon relative size)
  
• Requiring 3 feats
• Not dealing enough damage compared to 2 handed weapons (because they multiple non-physical damage)
  
• Not existing enough opportunities where it's worth to equip a shield in the off-hand (due the viability revolving around monk splash)
• Being a dexter only option (due AC)

All this being said I have an interesting suggestion:

A character wielding two weapons gains AB instead of losing it.

I thought about gaining 5 ab (Instead of losing any amount) with all 3 relevant feats. The reason is manyfold:

• It's easier to hit an opponent with two weapons (you can feint attack, use blind angles, control their weapon and so on)
  
• With more ab you can afford expertise mode and offset ac loss compared to the shield (and spend more feats)
  
• Dexters (who usually are the dual wielders) will have a fair AB advantage
  

[Deleted]

This would be kind of interesting if AB was something of value. The reality is that most endgame toons already have enough AB to 'auto-hit' 95% of targets, so gaining a bit of AB is not worth any reduction of damage. Expertise is clunky to use, and dexers usually don't have big AC issues anyway.

[desocupado]

Well AB Enables (improved) expertise mode, better KD/Disarm.

But by gaining AB dexters could outperform str tanks if their opponent has obscene ac and epic dodge.

Maybe a3rd attack offhand is in order - I mean there are already 3 feats anyway.

[rainbowdash]

As poli said Ab is something of little worth lategame. And the argument that ab helps a toon with other preepic talents that already has to invest 3 talents (most likely also preepic) is sort of poor imo.

The biggest downside to playing a dex dualwielder (which by no means is the only toon that can pull of dualwielding), is that the packetdamage is lower and DR hits them therefore harder than high packet damage toons.

Imo dualwielders would be viable toons if they would have targets, meaning guys with no DR. A problem with that is still that it's not an advantage over twohanders but a neccassity to be effective.

I second that it would be nice if they got anything for investing 3 talents over just two more offhandattacks and a dmg and ab nerf for it. For example it would be cool if the damagevalue they loose gets lessened the more talents you invest, maybe it could be even evened out by the second talent and buffed by taken the third.

If you would wanna buff Dex dualwielders in particular you could add their dexmultiplier as dmg when dualwielding or something.

[FunkySwerve]

This is an interesting idea. We are looking at some feat additions in EE that may affect this balance, however, so this should sit on the backburner for now.

I'm a little wary of the idea that ab doesn't matter in Limbo now, due to iterations occurring at increasing ab penalties. Any detailed explanation / math to support that notion?

Even if it's true, bear in mind that Limbo is slated as a 61-65 area (subject to re-balancing once we have a fuller range of level areas, and not counting 'hard mode').

Funky

[Raj]

There's pretty much nothing to kd, and very little to disarm. AB is useful so that you can sit in (Improved) Expertise full time but that's quite a nuisance due to bad combat modes implementation (until EE, where they'll finally stick similar to nwn2 if leaked infos are correct), so moving points from str to dex on tanks to permanently trade ab for ac instead of relying on combat modes makes for easier time.

Math wise, here some funny logs I'll post before Poli (hue) to show my bot-cleric afk attaking (Greater, lol, something went nuts with spawn script) Ssendam. I had 0x penalities in hard mode and it's not a melee character (should be obvious with that ab):

SPOILER: Click to show

Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (10 + 71 = 81)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (13 + 71 = 84)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (15 + 78 = 93)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (16 + 76 = 92)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (16 + 78 = 94)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (18 + 76 = 94)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (19 + 71 = 90)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (20 + 63 = 83 : Threat Roll: 20 + 63 = 83)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (4 + 76 = 80)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *hit* : (8 + 66 = 74)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (11 + 73 = 84)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (12 + 73 = 85)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (16 + 58 = 74)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (18 + 63 = 81)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (18 + 68 = 86)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (2 + 53 = 55)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (2 + 73 = 75)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (4 + 68 = 72)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (5 + 68 = 73)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (7 + 68 = 75)
Aliisza attacks Greater Ssendam : *miss* : (8 + 78 = 86)

AC ~80? Really? Generally speaking for no-paragon monsters we're looking at around 90 ac anyway, so we need a 88+ on the last attack in order to hit reliably, that means 103 ab and for tier 1 level 80 tanks that's quite a given even with pens.

Despite your claims I question the 61-65 level range for Limbo anyway, you need level 65 to enter and level 70 to use the xr drops. Doesn't matter much because when level 60/+12 items were the cap we had good tanks with >100 ab easily.

AC-wise Limbo is a level 60 area, HP/DR/SR-wise it's closer to 90

[FunkySwerve]

The 61-65 range is for our scaler, which is using the average of 63 for the core stats (before we modify them to be creature unique). The core stats look at a manually-assigned 'Squish' value ranging from 1 (tanky) to 5 (squishy), and scale ac (along with many other stats) based on relative squishiness. The starting point for the middle-of-the-road Squish 3 value is 67 plus .6 per level over 40. From 80.8 we round up to 81 baseline ac at squish 3. That average was actually reduced by 2 from hells/abyss standard to ensure tier 2 toons would still be relevant. From the baseline, any defense-type ac-tank critters are upped by 12-14 ac. From that average, you go up a point if you are lower squish, down if higher, for a range of ~79-83. With rounding it varies a bit. Here is the function:

=IF(C109="","",3-C109+INDIRECT(ADDRESS(8,2,4,TRUE,"CoreStat"))+IF(OR(AH109="M",AH109="R"),2+ROUNDUP(C109/2),0)+IF(AH109="B",4+ROUNDUP(C109/2),0))

C109 is the cell that has his Squish (which is 1, which I set for 90%+ of bosses, regardless of who it is, because it yields stronger baseline stats), and the INDIRECT looks up the aforementioned ac from the CoreStat tab of the sheet. Because of ROUNDUP, his AC winds up at 88, after the bonus 4 points for being a boss (AH109 shows B for boss, with other options being M for miniboss, and R for Random).

The ac-tank types reach 99 in limbo, though I'm pretty sure we didn't make any that were harder to kill another way, as that was a bit of an experiment. You can expect more like that in the future. AC Tank type adds between 12 and 14 points (manually entered, based on discretion of statter, rather than a formula - gith add 16 deflection ac due to lore and are arguably all tank type.

Consider the following table:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HAY1FxGuEJkcUJPaQFnT_9EbnWlkvwL8AqvBI1OEAUI/edit?usp=sharing

The first ac column shows a bunch of ref errors where the creatures rely on the CoreStat value and have not been manually adjusted. The second shows actual AC.

CoreStat has slated 12 points of increase in ac in paragon levels (that's the .6 per level over 40 calc over 20 paragon levels). That means that in the endgame, Squish 3 AC baseline will be 91 (using 80 instead of 63 for the scaler, or a level 80-80 level range).

Based on the foregoing, what do you think ACs should be scaling at? This system is continually evolving in response to testing, but this is what I'm talking about when I say it's a level 61-65 area.

As to your closing remarks, you're not far off on the ac (level 63 vs 60, bearing in mind the aforementioned two-point drop from previous level 60 content). We also modified up a lot of the other stats from previous scaling, for a variety of other reasons. Take a look at tab two of that linked spreadsheet (showing e.g., saves going up 4 from prior baseline, dcs by 5). So yeah, ACs are lower than the prior paradigm, but not by that much, and they will go up an average of 10 points.

Thoughts on any of the aforementioned scaling welcome. It's worth pointing out that we factored in the gains from PL when coming up with the PL increases for baseline scaling. The other adjustments, like ac, saves, dc, and the rest, were based on playtest, and intended to maintain challenge throughout PLs. It's also worth pointing out that Limbo edits based on playtest are only just now being done, based on feedback new and old.

Funky

[Deleted]

Out of curiosity, does the scaler treat Paragon levels differently to Legendary levels? By that I mean is the gap between Levels 55 and 60 the same as the gap between Levels 75 and 80?

I ask because Paragon levels are fundamentally different to Pre-Paragon levels, since they don't affect class/caster level in most cases. They are notably front-loaded, with the bulk of bonuses being gained by Level 72 (since Level 70 allows stat bonuses to scale to +16 and grants access to XR items) - closing the ~80 million XP gap from 72-80 yields +2 AB/saves, +1 to all stats and +2 Paragon feats (which will be 5th/6th choices).

Definitely a nice power boost, but it is a far smaller gap than something like Level 55 vs Level 60.

Edit: It looks like I missed the last part of your previous post, which seems to address this.

[Deleted]

I'll add that regardless of the power level being intended for 61-65's, no one is going to bring toons of that level there because the rewards aren't worth it by a long shot. At Level 60 most players are interested in playing Hell/Abyss to tag their toons with demi-iterations and Prince wins, where they can simultaneously acquire lots of useful sets and BURs to gear themselves with. By the time you've gotten a bunch of those tags you will be Level 70+, thanks to nice XP rates and there being plenty of required runs to tag.

At the moment Limbo offers no tagging bonus, minimal XP and few Sets/BURs, so even if it was able to be farmed by toons of that level it simply wouldn't be worth it. XRs are basically the only hook the run offers, and usable ones come at such a slow rate that the only people interested in seriously farming them are multi-boxers whose toons don't need any more tags/BURs/XP. Most of us/them already burned out from it because it still feels too slow; I can barely imagine how it must feel for a non-boxer.

[Raj]

Yea no surprises there, AC is simply inadequate and mobs are sturdy due to Conceal/DR/Imms/Regen/UsuallyAllOfThem.

Dexters (especially sword+board) are the only toons able to have both high AC and AB but they are not necessary to tank (and hit) anything in Limbo as in previous areas. You based your numbers on too low player AB (even for level 60s), and that rewards going 'uni' and using expertise/power attack on heavy hitters. We hit on 2+ on real tanks without even trying most of the time.

[FunkySwerve]

They were based on playtest and feedback, and then scaled based on bonuses gained from PLs.

The more interesting debate is not so much where it is now, but where it should scale to, and what accommodations should be made for tier 2s to keep them viable.

There's also an argument to be made for upscaling Limbo until more content drops, at least with respect to ac and probably saves as well, but that's pretty far beyond the scope of the OP, having more to do with game design considerations as they relate to pace of development. One of the reasons I did not do that was to create a smoother transition while people played and slowly acquired more powerful loot. You could, for example, argue that all post-Limbo development be pegged for max character level, with much more minor scaling for EEs and the final EE, since groups are unlikely to level up in those areas given the current state of affairs based on server population/grouping limits, and then rescaled once all the areas are out to make a smoother progression. That kind of edit would see ACs going up by 10, and I'm not sure that's a super idea either.

Anywho, if you want to suggest a specific edit with rationale I'm all ears, but a little more in-depth analysis will be required to persuade me that the underlying scaling needs changing. We're doing up specific edits to tweak class balancing in those areas, but that's another ball of wax. Simply saying it's 'too low' doesn't begin to assess these more complicated questions.

I could temporarily ramp up certain stats on the fly to assume level 80(ish) play until higher areas drop, and then scale them back. Do you think that would provide a more satisfying play experience? It would certainly help us assess the scaling and address longer-term balancing issues sooner (which is why I still feel this moderate derail still pertains to the original post).

Other stats scale as follows:

Monster ab .6 per level, would be up to 10 higher.
Monster skills .5 per level, would be ~9 higher.
Monster SR '' .25 '', would be ~4.75 higher.
Monster saves '' .4 '', would be ~7 higher.
Monster ability checks (vs player ability scores) .5 per level, would be 8.5 higher.

Monster damages, resists, and immunes would also go up, but much less uniformly, because of tank types. This would probably mute the efficacy of non-tank damage dealers moderately more than anything else.

I think perhaps we should table this idea until the next round of updates have Limbo runs going a bit more smoothly, and hard mode is fixed. We could probably reserve these edits for hard mode, but would have to find a suitable carrot. They could replace the current penalties in hard mode, or only partially combine with them, though replacement would help more with assessing the scaling.

Funky

[Deleted]

Increases to SR and defences (via resists/immunes/HP) would be horrible at the moment - I think that most players feel that they are already impractically high for a Level 80 run, despite it being designed to cater for much lower level toons. DC casters are underwhelming with the existing numbers, so a widespread boost to monster SR/saves in future runs would kill the archetype entirely.

I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record here, but the change that would *really* provide a "more satisfying play experience" would be a large improvement to the runs' rewards, particularly for Part 2 which typically yields fewer Canopics per hour than Part 1 - that's the main reason why it's not run, not because it needs to be harder (in fact many would argue that it's too difficult as it is for our server's Level 80s).

If significant reward boosts are already on the table for the next round of updates, you can ignore the previous paragraph. Otherwise I can discuss more in this thread or via PM (primarily in regards to targets for rescaling Canopic rates).

[woqued]

Dec 10, 2017 6:03:07 GMT FunkySwerve said:

They were based on playtest and feedback, and then scaled based on bonuses gained from PLs.

The more interesting debate is not so much where it is now, but where it should scale to, and what accommodations should be made for tier 2s to keep them viable.

There's also an argument to be made for upscaling Limbo until more content drops, at least with respect to ac and probably saves as well, but that's pretty far beyond the scope of the OP, having more to do with game design considerations as they relate to pace of development. One of the reasons I did not do that was to create a smoother transition while people played and slowly acquired more powerful loot. You could, for example, argue that all post-Limbo development be pegged for max character level, with much more minor scaling for EEs and the final EE, since groups are unlikely to level up in those areas given the current state of affairs based on server population/grouping limits, and then rescaled once all the areas are out to make a smoother progression. That kind of edit would see ACs going up by 10, and I'm not sure that's a super idea either.

Anywho, if you want to suggest a specific edit with rationale I'm all ears, but a little more in-depth analysis will be required to persuade me that the underlying scaling needs changing. We're doing up specific edits to tweak class balancing in those areas, but that's another ball of wax. Simply saying it's 'too low' doesn't begin to assess these more complicated questions.

I could temporarily ramp up certain stats on the fly to assume level 80(ish) play until higher areas drop, and then scale them back. Do you think that would provide a more satisfying play experience? It would certainly help us assess the scaling and address longer-term balancing issues sooner (which is why I still feel this moderate derail still pertains to the original post).

Other stats scale as follows:

Monster ab .6 per level, would be up to 10 higher.
Monster skills .5 per level, would be ~9 higher.
Monster SR '' .25 '', would be ~4.75 higher.
Monster saves '' .4 '', would be ~7 higher.
Monster ability checks (vs player ability scores) .5 per level, would be 8.5 higher.

Monster damages, resists, and immunes would also go up, but much less uniformly, because of tank types. This would probably mute the efficacy of non-tank damage dealers moderately more than anything else.

I think perhaps we should table this idea until the next round of updates have Limbo runs going a bit more smoothly, and hard mode is fixed. We could probably reserve these edits for hard mode, but would have to find a suitable carrot. They could replace the current penalties in hard mode, or only partially combine with them, though replacement would help more with assessing the scaling.

Funky

The recommended change would be increasing AC and lowering other (tank) defences i.e concealment and more pressingly damage reductions and some immunities - not increasing everything across the board. Our DC's and savedropping capability has gone up since paragon levels and we still have issues hitting saves "for a lvl 61-65 run" at max level; our SR dropping mechanics have gone up and we still have issues hitting the monsters with spells (even with Assay); but our AB has not gone up since lvl 60 builds and we still have no issue hitting the scary mobs. That is the problem. The idea here wasn't that the run is too easy; it's that the stats are off balance.

As it stands from player perspective Limbo pt2 is a lvl 72-75+ run. If the scale went up as you mention across the board, even lvl 80 casters would be impotent offensively except for spells that ignore SR and drop saves with repeated casts; CS wouldn't work on anything that even thinks of parry, and we wouldn't make most of the ability score checks. We would kill EVERYTHING with shifters and tanks, or more than likely simply die trying. At lvl 80. 

This is all specifically with PT2 in mind which you NEED to optimize the party in a damage-oriented way in order to make it a satisfying experience. Otherwise it simply takes way too long for a human being with anything else to do in life.

[Raj]

Dec 10, 2017 6:03:07 GMT FunkySwerve said:

Other stats scale as follows:

Monster ab .6 per level, would be up to 10 higher.
Monster skills .5 per level, would be ~9 higher.
Monster SR '' .25 '', would be ~4.75 higher.
Monster saves '' .4 '', would be ~7 higher.
Monster ability checks (vs player ability scores) .5 per level, would be 8.5 higher.

Monster damages, resists, and immunes would also go up, but much less uniformly, because of tank types.

That's nuts. Scaling everything uniformily across the board doesn't fix anything, instead it esacerbates the lack of variety issue. We need to have "low dr, high ac, high ab" targets for finesse tanks, "high dr, low ac, high regen" for heavy hitters, "high ac, high regen, low saves" for casters and instakillers and so on, not similar higher stats for everybody so that the only difference is their appearance (and tbh for many targets it's already that way).

[FunkySwerve]

Dec 10, 2017 10:01:15 GMT Raj said:

Dec 10, 2017 6:03:07 GMT FunkySwerve said:

Other stats scale as follows:

Monster ab .6 per level, would be up to 10 higher.
Monster skills .5 per level, would be ~9 higher.
Monster SR '' .25 '', would be ~4.75 higher.
Monster saves '' .4 '', would be ~7 higher.
Monster ability checks (vs player ability scores) .5 per level, would be 8.5 higher.

Monster damages, resists, and immunes would also go up, but much less uniformly, because of tank types.

That's nuts. Scaling everything uniformily across the board doesn't fix anything, instead it esacerbates the lack of variety issue. We need to have "low dr, high ac, high ab" targets for finesse tanks, "high dr, low ac, high regen" for heavy hitters, "high ac, high regen, low saves" for casters and instakillers and so on, not similar higher stats for everybody so that the only difference is their appearance (and tbh for many targets it's already that way).

They're already scaled across the board uniformly. Increasing them uniformly would have no effect on the variety whatsoever, and we're already making edits to increase variety. May want to reread my post re this.

Funky